Tragic thread from detransitioner

[stealtheatingtunnocks]

Good God. Where were the medical ethics? Poor sod, how would you ever find peace with this? twitter.com/tullipr/status/1536422533230206976?s=21&t=uQXxEPdczk1h1eTnAs3Zyw

This tweet thread lists all the trusts engaging with Rainbow Badge Accreditation.

twitter.com/rainbownhsbadge/status/1361235697265475584?s=21

It is medical negligence.

There's been a culture of no debate for years.

They've known about side effects and long term implications for years.

There's been no unbiased analysis. No evidence base.

There's been a lot of money in it for years.

Exactly @Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g . he NHS won't even carry out a knee replacement if there is evidence that the patient is unlikely to adhere to the post surgery aftercare regime. Weighing up the risk:benefit including the costs involved!

The ones who see the harm in this aren’t the ones doing it. The medical profession is awash with people who will put aside any scruples, ethics, ability to say no, if not for money, then certainly for their own vanity, superiority and arrogance. It’s the Jurassic Park quote, they were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.

A desister told me that the difference between the youth services and adult service in the nhs was no gatekeeping. What she asked for she could get.

It was this sudden extreme ease of access to surgery and testosterone as she transitioned to adult services at 18, along with realising that as a lesbian she was attracted to women and therefore why would women be attracted to her, that made her wake up and apply the breaks. I believe she was a fortnight away from medical intervention.

Yet, There's still hundreds of people trying to transition today and they've been told for the last few years - we don't think this is a good idea but they're not listening, they don't care.

Well a lot of GC people and feminists are saying that, and a few brave doctors and academics who then have to fight to keep their jobs. But "trans youth" are told by the gender ideology they are immersed in, that anyone who says anything like this is a transphobe who hates them and wants them to not exist. That their transness and need for medication is an inherent, true and wonderful thing about them that only bigots could object to. And so many of them are vulnerable, unwell, autistic or very unhappy and in desperate need of being told there's an answer to how they feel and how amazing they are if they take this route. It's tragic and shocking but I don't blame people who do this, especially the young and unwell.

Yes! And then there's the oft-mentioned issue of women in their 20s and 30s seeking tubal ligation once they are sure they don't want any more children, or any at all. Adult women with full mental competence told 'no' on grounds that they might change their minds about it afterwards. That's a straightforward and fairly simple procedure with minimal risk. I had it done as day surgery and have never needed any follow up health care at all.

(Nowadays I believe the NHS just doesn't do it at all on grounds of cost. Short-sighted, but not the only area which the NHS has just had to abandon for lack of funds.)

How can HCPs justify the different approaches here?

Does anyone believe, at all, that anyone can consent, genuinely, to surgery like this? It strikes me that no-one who is mentally stable and totally in control would ever choose to do these invasive surgeries.
So surely the mere act of showing an interest in surgically removing healthy tissue and organs absolutely 100% puts a person in the "not capable of giving consent" box.
I cant see how you can look at it any other way. It's a terrible thing to do.

How can HCPs justify the different approaches here?
Because the doctors who refuse this surgery to women aren't being called bigots and threatened with violence, are not being 'called out' in newspapers (Grundiad) for being hateful and wanting people to not exist?

Watch the Julia Grant documentaries from decades ago (there are 3/4 of them). Transitioning from male to female didn’t go well for her physically either for many reasons (including medical negligence post surgery).
It’s not a straightforward process at the best of times.

Absolutely

I didn’t finish reading, im not in twitter and it blocks the thread after a few swipes

id like to say thats why i stopped, but that would be a lie…i was finding it honestly horrifying

the idea that transitioning may mean that the person never experiences sexual pleasure or desire is just dreadful, and thats without mentioning the other physical issues

so sorry tulip 🌷

But it shouldn't be that individual drs are targeted. It shouldn't come down to individual beliefs. The NHS and Ethics committees can say no. The Government and the Health minister can bring about new guidance/legislation.

I agree with RoseLunar:

"But "trans youth" are told by the gender ideology they are immersed in, that anyone who says anything like this is a transphobe who hates them and wants them to not exist. That their transness and need for medication is an inherent, true and wonderful thing about them that only bigots could object to."

Any doctor saying no, is just considered unsupportive, and probably accused of being transphobic.

Ask de-transitioners now if, looking back, they would've gone for more counselling, would they have accepted the word no, told they they can't have the operation, I bet most of them would admit that no, they would've determinedly continued none-the-less.

Something deliberate is going on here

There’s definitely been an upsurge in trans positive stories in major news outlets. BBC, predictably The Guardian but also the Independent etc.

This must be the pushback against those very tentative suggestions that the issues are more complex than an unquestioning across the board affirmative position belies. Feels that it’s not just no debate but no questioning either.

This whole issue of ‘consent’ is deeply problematic. Where is biomedical ethics in these physicians and surgeons evaluation? Seems utterly absent.

If this person had been shown actual post op photos, maybe that would’ve been enough to hit the pause button, but as one PP said it’s only ever euphemistically called top or bottom surgery etc. Meanwhile well known YouTube advocates post photos of themselves wearing a baseball cap backwards and sticking out their tongue sideways, thumbs up everything is great post surgery to their thousands of young, vulnerable, teenage followers. So worrying.

i suspect Im older than most posters

one other thing that worries me is that with almost all of us being classified as vulnerable, women in particularly will be denied sterilisations or other surgery because of the concept of personal responsibility having vanished.

Tulip had mental capacity? Is that correct? I don't know the background. An adult "in the grip pf delusion"...put the facts in front of them, do they have capacity...if yes, they make their decision.

what I can't gauge from the thread is whether the facts were put in front of them. I have some dreadful experiences with doctors so I'm really interested to know if facts were withheld so the doctors could tick their boxes. Seems Quite possible to me.

apols for errors.

Oof....the transsexuals I know would be enraged by this. This is the row they were having in the 90s.

i've a NB contact who is on the list for top surgery. Are we really putting all these adults in a box that says "lacks capacity"?

That's the question, isn't it. How do you determine consent if you can't talk, openly and graphically, about all the potential outcomes.
Transsexualism was, until recently, diagnosed as a mental health condition that various treatments helped with, including counselling. If doctors are no longer allowed to insist on counselling (conversion therapy is the claim) then how to determine if surgical route is appropriate for the individual? I don't know what's right for person A, but I'd expect them to receive appropriate care to ensure the correct pathway is taken. Trouble is, people change their minds, don't they? How does anyone, including the individual concerned, know?

@Oblomov22 it is medical negligence. The doctors are adults, fully trained, many years older than most of those coming to them to transition, some of whom are children. If these were people under 30 coming to them for a hysterectomy or vasectomy those operations would be refused. And yet one of the NHS transition clinics in the UK actually calls itself CMagic, as though it was staffed by wizards and fairy godmothers, "you SHALL become a woman!". This is not responsible adult behaviour: this is grown adults peddling to vulnerable young people a fantasy fairy tale world full of unicorns and mermaids.

This is tullip's substack if anyone would like to read more about his experiences.

The interview he did with Sinead (Watson) and Benjamin Boyce is well worth a watch too.

This is insane and wrong. What doctors, social workers, counsellors, teachers, journalists and so many others are perpetuating is evil.

I don't even know what to say. Heartbreaking.

This is why nobody who cares about anyone should be endorsing gender identity ideology on any level

Agree

Around 24 mins in he describes how the system works, that it's not his Gp who he gets on with well. Its the gender clinic industry.

He also describes what is currently happening for him; the GPS have no guidance on this so are referring back to the GI clinic. Both Tullip and Sinead state this is the absolute last place they want to go back to.

I don't think people can consent to this - just as we can't consent to being murdered. These operations create lifelong medical patients, so there is a balance here as well with society's needs. Should society fund the deliberate creation of disability and infirmity?

I think there is a medical ethics / negligence issue here.

Patients are typically asked to consent for surgeries / interventions where there is a proven health benefit. New treatments are not offered if there isn't clinical research to show that they are better than existing treatments. And signing a consent form for something does not give a doctor freedom to do whatever they like. The classic example is amputation of a healthy limb.

It seems like something has gone very wrong here in the process of getting some of these genital surgeries approved. This has happened before with things like lobotomy, which was previously considered an accepted and useful treatment for various mental illness, but which is thankfully no longer offered / performed.

From my perspective (not a doctor, not a lawyer, just a layperson) certain treatments in the gender reassignment pathway (particularly genital reassignment surgeries and puberty blockers in teens and pre-teens, also mastectomy) seem to have attained the status of accepted treatment on incredibly weak evidence of benefit. That's very concerning, because then the medical/ethical conversation centres around "Is this person able to consent to this therapeutic intervention? (For themselves or for their child)" - like in the Keira Bell case - rather than the more fundamental question "Is this intervention therapeutic at all?"