Tavistock clinic to be sued by 1000 families

[WarriorN]

Times article I've just seen...

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tavistock-gender-clinic-to-be-sued-by-1-000-families-lbsw6k8zd

I'm afraid I don't have access but the headline alone...

I'm assuming it's for overly enthusiastic affirmative care and not the opposite?

If anyone’s going to get honours, it ought to be the women who have been fighting from the start. Like Nicola Williams, Janice Turner and Kellie-Jay Keen.

It’s wonderful that Stephanie D-A’s already been recognised.

It's long been noted that actually going through puberty is often what makes the child in question resolve their fear of it.

I've long thought that one effect of puberty blockers was to embed into a child, as a permanent dysphoria, a transient gender dysphoria which would have resolved itself. I think that some practitioners have continued to encourage their use while being aware of this.

Yes.

With hindsight the doctors embraced this ideology with little real evidence or thought and took the wrong path.

Putting a boy on puberty blockers, so his genitals don't develop, when 99% of the time he's going to go onto cross sex hormones, then followed by surgery, which the puberty blockers have made almost impossible?

I'm interested in what evidence one might need...beyond eyes.

I've seen a few TV programmes about so called TG children, and their understanding and determination coupled with that often of parents, is very compelling. Not to say it's right, it obviously isn't, but one child was threatening suicide if their voice broke, and another was distraught at the thought of breasts.

Are you saying that you found the children were 'compelling' in their understanding of what it would be like to be an infertile adult with impaired sexual function, whose body would be a facsimile of that of someone of the opposite sex?

If a child is distraught at the thought of their voice breaking or of growing breasts, they need mental health support, not puberty blockers.

In a round about way even one of the charities defending the use of puberty blockers admitted that sexual dysfunction was a potential outcome of using them. Given that they used the existence of asexuality in adults as a reason as to why it doesn't matter if they have no sexual function when they grow up. Apparently its ok to rob children of a healthy sex life when they get older because some may have grown up asexual anyway.

Even the defences cannot be made without contradicting things they have said previously. These liars do not have good memories it would seem.

Yes that was a particularly low point. "So what if they can't have a sex life, lots of people are asexual".

Ugh.

Are you saying that you found the children were 'compelling' in their understanding of what it would be like to be an infertile adult with impaired sexual function, whose body would be a facsimile of that of someone of the opposite sex?

We do seem.to have a weird phenomenon where trans toddlers are the brightest and most articulate of all toddlers. Most if us pulled our 2 akd 3 year olds out of dog bowls and endured tantrums over the wrong shaped sandwiches. But trans toddlers and kids are apparently developmentally ahead of all others. Which is weird because all of the ones I've seen online seem incredibly immature and emotionally unstable/immature. Screamimg and shaking into the camera with extremely childlike understanding of anything.

Either this is proof of the 10 point in drop or someone is lying and has been all along.

Either way the adultification of trans children is incredibly dangerous. They should be given the same level of safeguarding amd boundaries as every other child their age.

As you say, it’s strange that trans children are supposed to be so perceptive and intelligent when TRAs seem, on the whole, to have been at the back of the bus when these qualities were being handed out.

And we apparently also have adults who have non idea that an operation to remove breasta would leave you unable to breastfeed or and operation to remove the penis would leave you without a penis.

Again there are 2 possibilities. One they were lied to/had info withheld which means the drs should be accountable.

Or they lack the most basic ability to understand which renders informed consent impossible to gain and the drs really should be held accountable.

Of course there is also the possibility I guess that they knew exactly what they were doing and simply regret it however apparently regret and de transition is incredibly rare as to be insignificant so that only leaves the above to options.

Which also do alot to discredit the notion that kids can possibly understand because it seems even the adults don't have a clue either.

Why are we expecting more from children than even drs and other adults.

Especially children who have had their brain development stunted.

most if us pulled our 2 akd 3 year olds out of dog bowls and endured tantrums over the wrong shaped sandwiches.

Because it's Friday, time for a slightly OT but relevant classic.

"Earlier today I demanded that my mother stop what she was doing and immediately get me a pear. She is by nature a difficult woman and she insisted on finishing her wee and washing her hands first . I explained loudly that this was unacceptable but, typically for her, my protestations only made her more stubborn. Then she moved the goalposts and decided that I could only have my pear if I said "please" (actually I worry about her in this respect - she is utterly obsessed with that word, it's not normal) so I stormed around the house for 25 minutes or so and then eventually gave in and said please (so now she'll think if she holds out long enough I'll end up saying "please" every time - made a rod for my own back there ).

Anyway, she asked me if I wanted the pear to be cut up or whole. I replied "cutted up" and the utter arse of a woman cut up my pear!
I was speechless with rage! Obviously, words were not enough to express my fury so I threw the cutted up pear across the kitchen and kicked her in the shins."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_classics/1301196-If-my-3yo-had-access-to-AIBU?msgid=27421933

Yes that was a particularly low point. "So what if they can't have a sex life, lots of people are asexual".

It was literally like reading someone with an anime avatar on Twitter.

All those saying purberty blockers are reversible. Possibly they are if just used for a very short time and quickly discontinued. But otherwise I don't see how could be possible. Puberty is a window. You miss the window, you miss the physical enhancements, features and development that happens in that window. You can't get it back. We have a biological clock and a pituitary gland that signals when certain things should happen. Once the window closes there's no going back.

Puberty blockers bypass or suppress the development that happens in that window of time. Once the time has passed it's passed.

It's not quite the same but a bit like saying a woman who has fully gone through menopause can have her fertility restored. No she can't. Now, you can do IVF and pump a woman with hormones to help her develop periods again. But this still isn't the same as restoring natural fertility. The window has gone. Only medical ontervention can help, very

Is it also indicative of being in (what passes for) a conversation with someone who has no interest in sharing and creating knowledge but in 'winning' an exchange?

This might crudely be Socratian although I'm no fan of the Socration method in the way it's commonly used as an excuse for abrasive education.

If, through an exchange of views, you can get to a place or insight that you couldn't have achieved as individuals then that has value and is akin to philosophia (love of wisdom) rather than philonikia (love of victory).

If a discussant's main aim is to lead someone to a 'Gotcha'—no matter how absurd, such as, "There are asexual adults"—then

• I doubt they're a good faith discussant
• they have no care as to what they're saying (and overlooking the mixed understanding of what 'asexual' is supposed to represent now that words can have any meaning at all)
• they may be an example of Frankfurt's Bullshit in action. www.edbatista.com/2020/03/on-bullshit.html

We know that now but back then the shiny new toy was dazzling doctors, parents and children, not to mention the media.

I'm not saying it, but these children and their parents were.

I think the whole trans position is akin to mass hysteria in many instances. There are adults who transition and are happy. I have a friend who is now identifying as female, who is very happy. I don't really get it but have to accept them at face value.

exactly true. The Cass report says just this. childrens gender dysporia did not resolve or go away on puberty blockers. Pointing to a mental health issue, not a physical/mental issue

@DysonSphere Well, no. once puberty blockers are stopped, puberty starts at the same positon it was when the injections were started. They would'nt be given long term as they would eventually be changed to the hormones from the opposite sex.

I think clinicians wanted to delay (key word is delay) puberty to give the child some thinking and maturing time in which to discuss their gender itentity and possibly resolve their confusion. The Tavistock may (I don't know) have pushed for rapid crossover to x hormones.

Doctors prescribing off licence drugs, because they are embracing an ideology without any evidence? Which has led to children in a permanent state of immaturity, unable to have a sex life or children?

You don't think that could form the basis of a court case?

Doctors prescribe off licence drugs every day. Its normal practice. Not negligent.
The 'idealogy' you refer to could be simply referred to as a belief that gender dysphoria is a genuine condition of the mind which doctors would be negligent in not treating. Not everyone refers to it as an ideology. That is emotive language for the sake of it. Mental health 100 years ago had treatments we would now regard as barbaric, so treatments believed at that time to have been correct and which would be followed by other clinicians in the field would not be negligent.
To prove negligence the child/adult would need to demonstrate their bodies are immature and infertile. If not it was not negligent. You must have harm to prove negligence.

You are making a lot of unevidenced and pretty implausible claims on this thread, and of course, completely refusing to back them up when asked. You know you are making this up, everyone else knows it too, so why are you doing it?

For those who don’t know the specifics on this latest piece of bullshit by you, the data you are alluding to is for puberty blockers used as per their design, to delay early-onset puberty to the normal age. You are alleging that delaying a normal puberty by years with the same drugs will show the same effects. There is no evidence that this is the case, but there is definitely evidence against your claim. Other things are going on in the body during the pause.

Doctors prescribe off licence drugs every day. Its normal practice.

Just for clarity about what off label and off licence for a particular condition mean.

Unlicensed medicines
Sometimes a healthcare professional may recommend that you take an off-label or unlicensed medicine.

Off-label use means that the medicine isn't licensed for treatment of your condition. But the medicine will have a licence to treat another condition and will have undergone clinical trials for this.

Your doctor may recommend an unlicensed medication if they think it will treat your condition effectively and the benefits are greater than any risks.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/medicines-information/

It will be interesting to see the evidence that is put forward to support the risk v benefit argument for a puberty blocker prescribed for (plausibly) longer than the original licence indicated and for a different set of circumstances.

Doctors prescribe off licence drugs every day. Its normal practice. Not negligent.
The 'idealogy' you refer to could be simply referred to as a belief that gender dysphoria is a genuine condition of the mind which doctors would be negligent in not treating.

Eh? It is you who said this. I was quoting you.

"With hindsight the doctors embraced this ideology with little real evidence or thought and took the wrong path."

You said doctors embraced an ideology with no evidence or thought.

Now you seem to be giving them a free pass, because doctors have done it in the past.

They don't get a free pass.

Whistleblowers have been silenced. Their head of safeguarding was censored and ignored and had to take them to court (and won). A young woman who was severely damaged by their treatment, had to initiate a judicial review. With the judge accepting her premise.

i'm not sure why you think they don't have a legal standing, when in your own words, it was an ideologically driven treatment, based on no evidence.

Yes. And it just happened to coincide with the term asexual becoming yet another gender identity.

Minimising a child's future sexual function at the same time as promoting asexuality as an identity within a movement that calls itself progressive and is fashionable, doesn't feel that much of a coincidence to me.

Surely any doctor/trust if they found out that a medicine harmed someone would stop prescribing it...not carry on for another 18,999 people whilst silencing anyone who openly objected?

Yes - especially if that catastrophically included the safeguarding lead for the organisation.