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

I remember another transitioner's story about reading all the post-op success stories on Reddit iirc and then not understanding how they were having such a worse experience of it.

When they eventually got the guts up to ask and say "how are you all having great orgasmic sex? I'm finding just dilation excrutiating", loads admitted to having far more issues than they revealed but they didn't want to be the ones being negative and also felt a responsibility not to scare pre-op transitioners.

put the facts in front of them, do they have capacity.

But he has said he wasn't told and had no idea about the possibility of the consequences he's suffering now. Because of the ideological element, trans "healthcare" is presented as an unquestionably wonderful and essential thing by a lot of the people involved. People go into it thinking it will make them happy and resolve all their issues. And if they are being told that, and not being told about the downsides and complications, on top of believing it gives them special unicorn status and membership of the rainbow glitter family, of course they consent. Plus they are led to believe that anyone who does have concerns is lying and is really just an anti-trans bigot who hates them and doesn't want them to be happy.

I'm 30 years out of date. I see that now. This was, apparently, all you'd hear if you went for surgery in the past and I guess now it's not discussed.

sorry to say, the horror of what's happened to medicine just goes on and on, but that's a whole separate thread.

i'll bow out of this now. After 8 years of trying to fight certain things - phrasing carefully of course - it's time I stopped wasting energy on it.

Maybe one of the consequences of removing the need to be diagnosed as having gender dysphoria plus the removal of gender dysphoria from being a mental health condition is that 'consent' will now be based on limited contact with the patient.

Plus how does the clinician eliminate 'euphoria' in any further appointments after prescription of hormones as a confounder for diagnosing any further underlying mental health comorbities?

It really seems the groups lobbying to reduce the time to getting treatments is creating issues that the medical system cannot cope with.

I wonder if we will see any posters come onto this thread and tell us that there is "no damage' done with treatments and continue to monster Helen Joyce.....

Good on this man for publically posting such a graphic and detailed account and I hope he gets the support he needs.

There is clearly a dangerous mix of a lack of evidence based practice and a lack (absence) of informed consent, and as a HCP it astounds me that this is happening in 21st century health care.

I am particularly concerned up the risk of osteoporosis in transitioners, and I truely believe that very few of these children and young adults, even if made aware of the increased risk of OP, really have any idea what it actually means, and without this knowledge how can they give informed consent.

I am a paramedic and as such I see the sharp end of OP, I've seen an elderly lady whose tripped over her own feet landing onto a carpeted floor, sustaining a shaft of femur fracture on one side, and a neck of femur fracture on the other; I've cared for a lady who fell in her bedroom, knocking herself on her mobility trolley fracturing her ribs and puncturing her lung, her injury rendered her unable to get up or even move to seek help and by the time she was found, after a long winter night on the floor her temperature was 27C; I went to a lady who fell, fracutring her hip and was unable to get up and was on the floor for a week before she was found, the long slow development of hypothermia caused the breakdown of her muscles poisoning her and destroying her kidneys; I could go on and on. These patients were all 75+ women who will have developed OP due to hormonal changes at menopause, so around age 50. But teenagers and young adults are being given puberty blockers and cross sex hormones with the potential to cause OP decades earlier (40 years earlier in some cases), what damage are they doing, and are these young people really being presented with the infomation needed to make an informed decision.

I've seen a few screenshot and the like collected by transadvocates from fb posts, twitter threads and the like. They are, usually, from parents whose children have determined that they are trans and are starting down this road. The ta's read these and see hatred and, yes, genocide. They see people who think they own their kids or wish they'd never been born. I read the same remarks and see despair, horror and love.

The chasm between the two interpretations is almost laughably absurd. Poor, brave Tulip, I wish him vengeance well.

Puts the comments from the Helens(?) in their proper context.

I'm sorry to take this thread to a different location, but this consent thing troubles me. We allow the law to override individual consent in many places, so why not here? Why is the law so fuzzy?

Example - Armin Meiwes long held a fantasy about cannibalism. He advertised for a victim, one came forward, gave his full consent (including on video) to being killed and eaten, and yet Meiwes is in prison for life for murder. So consent was deemed irrelevant (presumably the mental health of the victim was considered). A murder has taken place.

Example - consent in regards to "rough sex" is no longer allowed to be used as a defense in court where one partner kills the other. The victim may well have given consent, but the law has determined that this is irrelevant. A murder has taken place.

Obviously the people in question aren't murdered, but they are left in many cases suffering not just physically but psychologically.

I'm wondering where the line is. I'm partly on the side of personal responsibility with adults, although again, some are vulnerable, some aren't. Who decides? At the moment, it seems to be the individual, and it seems to be "whatever you want". The lack of curiosity about other options (afaik) seems to denote a particulary set mindframe and that rings alarms bells for me.

Ironically - and this is based on my gut feel from lots of reading and watching, not so professional knowledge - it seems to be that it is those for who it is all a fetish who might actually be the only vaguely sane ones in the room (and I include the doctors in that).

It would not surprise me if an evidenced-based best practice would only allow people to transition if they were able to prove it was a deeply held fetish and those were the only group where outcomes were relatively good. It would not surprise me if an evidenced-based best practice would NOT allow anyone with gender dysphoria to transition.

If your end goal is to change sex or gender in a meaningful way, you have no chance of happiness. If you are doing it because it is an all-encompassing kink, then maybe transition could work (if you're not one of the many many victims of botched surgery)

Just a gut feel.

We allow the law to override individual consent in many places, so why not here? Why is the law so fuzzy?

One of the aims of the gender lobby has been to erode consent all over the shop. To "queer boundaries". Getting rid of single sex spaces is the obvious - where you've not consented to being in a confined space with the opposite sex etc.

But they also lobbied for the "clarification" for "due regard to trans person's right" as regards sex by deception:

mobile.twitter.com/colwight/status/1397395875580628994

(The original document is archived but we are not allowed to post archived links, I believe)

To onlookers, that seems like removing the right of the other person to say no. Hence consent is a biggie in gender ideology. It pops up everywhere and anyone who raises it gets called a sexual racist or a transphobe or a bigot, which is all now wearing rather thin.

Shocking story though sadly not actually surprising.

How can medical professionals be involved in this butchery? As others have asked, what happened to "do no harm"?

Consent just doesn't excuse this. In 2019 a tattooist was jailed for performing ear and nipple removals, despite full consent and apparently no adverse effects afterwards, which to me seems far less serious than gender reassignment surgery which all its horrendous lifelong side effects.

amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/21/tattooist-dr-evil-jailed-for-performing-ear-and-nipple-removals

@Belovedfool , god, I'd forgotten about Miewes and his victim! There was a newspaper piece about the arrests in North London earlier this year of a 'Nullo cult' castration group. If that story had broken 10, 15 years ago it would be the talk of the town and playground - but now? In the piece a man is interviewed saying how amazed he is that no-one bats an eyelid about his desire to be castrated these days: "A castrated vicar, named Benedict, said: 'It’s nowhere near as weird and difficult to try to become a eunuch now as it was 30 years ago. 'Now, we have doctors who don’t even blink when you say you want to just remove your testicles, or just add a vagina. I never saw this coming'."

Where is the medical responsibility, the ethics? Gone, apparently, replaced by the US consumerist notion that what was the 'patient' is now simply a customer, and 'the customer is always right'.

It's a really tricky area. There will be some with much better results and whose transitioning will have saved them from suicide. And there will be others who were confused, thought that changing genders would magically solve their problems and who are left with a whole host of other issues. My concern is that teenagers are self diagnosing, viewing issues with naive simplicity and being supported down this route rather than being given intensive psychological support. I know a female to male trans child and have concerns. There are a number of other background issues going on, on top of lockdown impacts etc and I believe that they could be much happier if they accepted their biological sex, embraced their individualism, dressed how ever they wish and dated who they wanted to. In my view they could be much happier as a tomboyish lesbian than a straight trans male. It's as though being gay is more shameful than being trans today.

Appalling - poor guy. He will definitely be saving someone by speaking out.

We've all got to keep pushing this rock up the hill. We are very close to the tipping point.

BelovedFool
I'm wondering where the line is. I'm partly on the side of personal responsibility with adults, although again, some are vulnerable, some aren't. Who decides? At the moment, it seems to be the individual, and it seems to be "whatever you want".

To me, when we are talking about medical treatment, this comes down to a point about medical ethics. If an intervention is considered to be therapeutically effective and safe, then the standard consent process should apply. But if there isn't evidence that the intervention is beneficial, or if there is evidence it is harmful, then it shouldn't be offered. The exception would be an experimental treatment as part of a controlled trial - in that case patients can consent only as part of the research process and with the added expectation for the research team to rigourously evaluate outcomes.

I haven't thought so much about non- therapeutic, cosmetic body modification - things like tattoos, cosmetic surgery, non-therapeutic male circumcision, possibly even getting a haircut). I don't think the legal position is completely consistent on these, but in general:

• these aren't offered for free on the NHS, or are offered only in very limited circumstances (breast reduction because of chronic pain maybe?) because there is no therapeutic benefit.
• individuals can consent to interventions for themselves and parents can sometimes consent on behalf of their children (ear piercing / haircut ok provided child assents, tattoos not ok). But a practitioner should be aware of when a client does not actually have capacity to consent to what they are asking for (eg severe mental illness)
• individuals aren't considered able to consent to things that are purely harmful (like being killed and eaten / assaulted during sex, or extreme body modification). So having a signed consent form isn't a defence against GBH charges if you do these things - article here has a good summary: theconversation.com/body-modification-when-consent-is-not-a-defence-87816

The difficulty with reassignment surgery is that it's not clearly one thing or another. It's partly cast as a wholly individual choice (like a tattoo - I want this, so I should be able to have it; my body my choice). But it's also seen as a life-saving medical procedure that should be provided by the NHS because of its therapeutic benefits. That's very inconsistent. If it's going to be provided by the NHS there should be demonstrable evidence that it's beneficial not harmful. And if it's a personal choice decision then it certainly shouldn't be freely available, but it also seems far more invasive than other "extreme" body modifications like tongue splitting, which are not legal in the UK.

Just to clarify my previous post, I'm not saying that reassignment surgery should never be available. Many medical interventions cause some harm, which is considered to be outweighed by the benefits. So a damaged limb can be amputated of there is a valid medical reason, or a patient can have chemotherapy that leaves them infertile if the alternative is that they die from cancer.

At the moment, reassignment surgeries are considered a valid intervention to alleviate gender dysphoria. Therefore, patients who meet certain criteria can consent to have them performed. However:

• I'm concerned that the evidence of benefit is overstated or at least doesn't generalise to some patient groups
• When these surgeries are cast within the scope of personal freedom rather than medical necessity, that changes the scope of the debate from medical ethics to consent for body modification. Within that scope, reassignment surgery is far more invasive than other procedures that people are not considered able to ever give legal consent for
• That pushes the debate back to the scope of medical ethics. Where the question becomes, given the emerging evidence of serious harm, when and for whom do we consider the benefits of these surgeries to outweigh the harms?

Second sentence - you say that and you might be right, but do you have any evidence that lives are saved, let alone any evidence that more lives are saved than are lost due to transition regret?

This is why it has been negligence to date.

The whole thing falls under ethics. Medical ethics must be expertly and openly debated.

We aren't allowed to. No one is allowed to.

@GCRich that's an interesting take, and I agree there needs to be a development of screening for who would benefit from these surgeries in the long run. But that would start with the statement and admission that this doesn't work for everyone and it's all far too political at the moment, it kind of needs to go full circle. Plus, like Keira Bell, people at the time, they really, really want it so I don't know how you would stop them getting private surgeries.

I wonder if this lad would be more likely to have kept intact these days given the way gender theory has moved on to 'ladydick' language in more recent years. I really wish him well.

To see the deleted tweets in Tulip's thread, look under the archive. ph site using search for TulipR tweet or copy the link in the OP and search for it there.

Apparently, some activists could not let Tulip's words stand and mass reported them.

I've just seen a detransitioned girl on twitter:

This is awful

The very fact that the demands of gender ideology are inconsistent and internally illogical should give the NHS, doctors and psychologists pause for thought. They say they must have free treatment i.e. drugs and surgery, on demand from the NHS - I've even seen claims that this care is more important and urgent than other people's health needs, from cancer to older women needing HRT. On the other hand they are adamant that there's no illness involved. Instead, a person simply is the opposite sex and requires the help of the NHS to make their body "match".

Society and health providers have gone along with this without interrogating it to find the meaninglessness at the heart of it. You cannot make a person's body "match" an emotional or mental sense that they are in some way the opposite sex, or even more nebulously, a "gender" of their own choosing.

What used to be called sex change surgery was a last resort for people who couldn't find relief any other way and even then they knew the wouldn't actually be the other sex. And the long period of therapy and making sure was part of the medical treatment for a medical issue.

If it's not a medical issue, medical treatments aren't going to help. If you really really believe in an ideological way that you can be the opposite sex, what happens to your body even with the best and most careful surgery, isn't going to meet your expectations. And that's without the high levels of complications and failures.

Many posters here always said it would take the testimonials of detransitioners to bring down the gender ideology movement. I hope that mainstream film and program makers are watching and gathering research to shine the light. It is awful that so many people will be left damaged including children.

Apparently, some activists could not let Tulip's words stand and mass reported them.

And that's another thing. Why, why on earth do transactivists and gender ideologues want to suppress these accounts? You would think they would be up in arms about people who identify as trans going through so much suffering. Even those who haven't detransitioned, when they talk about the damage to their health or complications, are shut down.

A group campaigning for MS or prostate cancer patients or whatever wouldn't try to suppress and hide poor outcomes of treatment - they'd see them as important and highlight them as part of campaigning for more help/funding/research.

Yeah but it isn’t a health thing though is it? It is zealots outraged at apostasy.

Yes, but they pretend it's a health thing and make demands of the already extremely pressured NHS. The inconsistency and lack of sense in what this movement is actually saying should be a massive alarm bell, if anyone in charge would simply dismantle and expose it. The NHS (and IMO all medical staff) should say the only medical issue here is a mental health issue and we will treat it as one, ie with therapy and maybe ADs.