Hannah Barnes is on Triggernometry later, 7pm Sunday 20 August

[nauticant]

Gender Clinic SHUT DOWN: Journalist Breaks Down Investigation

 

Pressed send too soon. What I am trying to get at, is whether a calm and measured is an apporpriate response to the witnessing of abuse. I have found Helen Joyce's barely contained fury in this respect honest and empowering. I find those who see but won't bear witness in a personal sense to be more challenging and I wonder if it confers permission on others to do the same. I am aware that I might sound critical of Hannah Barnes, I'm not trying to be. As I said above I think she has shown courage.

I hear you, but we absolutely need calm, even dispassionate voices here, especially when what those voices say packs a real gut punch.

Yes, in an ideal world Hannah would sound more angered (I actually believe she is very angry).

But we're not gonna get a stream of angry Linehan, Posie, Bindel, Bartosh, Dennis Kavanagh voices.

We saw that Talk TV car crash interview with Linehan. To think this level of rage and emotion will help every interview is not likely.

No, Hannah is likely right to put the info out there calmly and dispassionately.

What's the bigger sin by far is the limited opportunities to talk publically. Where's the Hard Talk interview with Stephen Sackur on prime time BBC News? The Laura Kuensberg slot? The Beth Rigby one on Sky?

Oh, and Rosanna Lockwood on Talk TV, minus her sneer, biased ambush, and faulty briefing ahead of interview.

Hannah being calm and collected feels right to me. Her lack of MSM exposure doesn't.

A listening at the moment. I was trying to contain my fury at how easily the adult lobby groups were able to influence healthcare like this. My fury - which was directed at the lobbyists - was halted when Hannah pointed out that lobby groups lobby - that's what they do. Why did the medics in charge, who know that medical care must be evidenced and researched yet instead they allowed their fear? admiration? for these trans lobbyists to prevail and did as they demanded - to the detriment of children and safe medical practice.

Absolutely this. Barnes has written an excellent account of this scandal, but I am completely baffled at how someone can have had such an up close look at it and come out saying that puberty suppression worked for some kids. We won't ever know if they would have been more/less/equally happy in the long run without it, but we can say with a high degree of certainty that their bodies would have been healthier.

@RealityFan Thanks for your response and I hear you too. I've never been a person who could walk by while someone was being hurt, I would have to get involved in trying to stop it, so I come from that place. But what this has shown me is that as human beings we are all very different and act from different motivations via different expressions. It has been really eye opening for me. But I agree we need different voices and methods of communication and many of them. Hannah's book is important and the interview is very interesting.

Seems like there is a spectrum of views. I have a close friend who's teenage niece has absolutely been on the edge re dysphoria, she's very androgynous, insists on a name/gender/pronouns change, has threatened going down the breast binders/puberty blockers route. And yes, she's on the spectrum, very high functioning autistic, some ADHD, but interestingly no social contagion from peers (no friends) or online (she only looks at equine stuff).

The name/gender change seems to have pacified the situation, but everyone walking on eggshells around her. She's the happiest she's ever been, is flourishing as a "he" on an animal husbandry course. All the while, the family is dreading tomorrow every day. But happy this seems to be as far as it's going.

As a GC and a non believer in transitioning, what would I do if I was close to this person?

I believe Hannah is coming from this POV, she obviously saw individuals where gender dysphoria is tangible, and only grew more entrenched. I'm not gonna judge her on individuals she had proximity to that we don't.

I watched it and found it interesting (and very upsetting/shocking) but I find her commitment to ‘BBC impartiality’ on this issue confusing - she reminds me of Jesse Singal in that both journalists have reported on the horrifically low quality evidence base for child transition but still both seem to think that some children need to have their puberty blocked/be given cross sex hormones/have surgery.

Personally I feel there's a need for some people to not hear an definitive authoritarian binary opinion in order to open their ears to the horrific evidence.

Give them the dots to join. Loads of them.

I don't like it but I do see it's place to reach those who are sticking their fingers in their ears harder and faster the more their told what to think. Those people need to hear "but true trans" at the moment.

The more evidence that it's nothing but absolute bs that seeps in, the more people start to naturally take a more binary position.

I don't like it but I know (lefty) people who need to be worked on like that. They do NOT tip their toe in any right leaning shark infested waters. Because they're ultimately binary and authoritarian themselves.

their = they're

Misogynists are very quick to dismiss passionately speaking women as hysterical. Many TRAs are misotgynists. I think speaking calmly can therefore be very helpful.

Unfortunately gender ideology is a movement whereby if you banned it all tomorrow, the riots and indignation would be volcanic.

People can't cope loosing the drug / religion.

So the backlash is worse.

They also may have invested serious amounts of time, money and emotional effort into it. They don't like admitting they're wrong.

One can express a strongly held view as a response to an abhorrent situation in a calm manner. Many of the GC women do that. I am reminded of admiration on my socials timeline recently for Sinead O'Connor and her outspokeness against institutional abuse, but it wasn't really expressed by many people I know during her lifetime. Once the situation flips and there is a general acceptance that these are abuses towards children, and honestly how can it possibly not at some point, how will we look back on this? I am not arguing for a "hysterical" response. But asking if there is, objectively speaking, an "appropriate" one that would have the support of a general consensus. I think there is. One of our issues is that it is not expressed often enough and loudly enough. Also that those who do are socially commented by many as "fringe" where I think they express a genuine ethic.

Put more simply, I am asking is there such a thing as right and wrong? I guess.

It's easy to think in this or that situation that you would 'rescue' a child and sort it all out based on your own concept of right and wrong and everybody would be grateful. That sort of stuff doesn't work.

Time to Think is a reporter's book. It reports on an NHS failing service, fundamentally, that was nonetheless staffed by some great people with differing views, and which some patients definitely felt helped them in the current culture. By carefully dissecting what went wrong in a specific setting, it is in my view having a much greater impact, because as a pp said there is at least a chance that people who are fully TWAW will at least look at it.

A Key flag that stood out when she talks in this was how the Tavistock team at one point acted like a "family." And you don't critique your family. And being a family was encouraged.

So they talked a lot about what was going on and if it was right but nothing changed.

That's weak safeguarding and weak leadership. No opportunity for whistle blowing. It reduced the ability for anyone to say, hang on this is fundamentally wrong. No self reflective procedures.

Another was the complete absence of how mermaids and the internet were fuelling referrals and treatment. Those residentials. The forums, Etc the backdrop of the general social flag waving for trans people. The press only feeding one side of the story.

That's the ideology -but it was most likely completely subconscious.

Unfortunately she I think she's only able to say what she says because she is bbc. Others are saying the rest.

And yes, the big question is why isn't she getting MORE mainstream air time??

Similar safeguarding failures appear to have occurred in the letby case.

Whereby scrutiny was discouraged and action delayed to avoid claims of being bullied or protect someone seen as "nice."

Professionals should be able to understand that being criticised and challenged is part of wider cultural safeguarding.

This ☝️

I think there are ways to channel anger and deliver it in a measures way. All styles of voices are important and Hannah's style cuts in to some places that other more direct styles don't (and vice versa of course).

I can't imagine that anyone who reads her book comes away thinking she has a neutral take on this. It's a huge testament to her professionalism that the anger she is feeling at the obvious scandal she's reporting on is sufficiently veiled enough for it to sound measured.

@WarriorN good to see you on this thread too 😁

You're only going to reach the ears of professionals and those who do have the expertise to have real change if you use the language they're used to and respect

I'm assuming lots of professionals (medical, social work, journalists etc - politicians?) read these MN threads as well so the fact that we have a measured voices here too is helpful. In amongst lots of righteous anger of course. We need all of it.

Absolutely the GC case, fightback and ultimate victory depends upon a real broad front and variety of tactics

...KJK and Glinner saying it absolutely as they see it, unvarnished and uncensored.

JKR as the most visible and most famous name out there.

The sheer poetry of the likes of Eliza Mondegreen.

The pithy classist take of Victoria Smith.

Corruscating voice of Jo Bartosh.

And yes, the calm, cool, measured take of Hannah Barnes.

...and Hannah's take is the one that the trans activists and their allies cannot argue against, BBC/Newsnight respected figure, forensic analysis, the data which cannot be denied, and scrupulous avoidance of hysteria or taking sides.

When the annals of this sad anti humanist and anti science ace are written, Hannah and her book will loom very large indeed.

*age, not ace

You do also need someone to call a spade a spade. Billboard level.

KJK is also a total hero for this reason!

See how she gets smeared as right wing, dog whistling etc? Which is abhorrent and demonstrates how keen they are to silence her. And "our side too" ffs.

Nandy et Al like their slogan of "less heat" - enter Barnes.

'Ok, here's the long-winded-very-wordy-written-by-someone-who-went-to-Cambridge-version. Now you gonna listen??'

She also has to leave in the slim possibility that some individuals may do better with transition simply because there's no actual hard evidence either way at the moment . Unfortunately.

She does highlight the weirdness of why the data is non existent for such serious medical interventions.

@WarriorN just want to acknowledge your post. I agree. We do need a wide variety of voices in the public sphere. In the same way we have a wide range of voices here on mumsnet FWR - it is such a valuable resource for discussion and support. We need to hear everyone - 100%.

I was so impressed with Barnes’ book that I gave it to my sister - mum of teenagers, health visitor - and she also loved it and passed it on. Very measured, factual and calm, not a transphobic word or sentiment in there. I think it’s perfect as an introduction to the subject of trans children/teenagers.

Thanks for the link, I have just watched the interview. A great resource for those who aren’t habitual book-readers.

I've just finished watching this. A harrowing account!

In part, I did find her careful style frustrating (and was glad the interviewers kept pushing). But overall, as others have said, it's important we get all these different "styles" expressing our side. Some (many?) people are turned off by angry voices, and find it easy to dismiss this as irrational or obsessive.

This interview reminded me I hadn’t finished the audiobook. I’ve been listening all morning and the parallels with how the clinicians were dismissed in the Letby case are startling. In fact, the two scandals side by side make me hope there will be a proper analysis of GIDS’ practice in due course. Let’s hope Hilary Cass has been as thorough as Hannah Barnes.

As an aside, Hannah’s dispassionate, forensic unpacking of the issues works very well in the book. What she reveals is devastating and compelling listening. Highly recommended.

Yes, absolutely, her measured approach ensures there’s not a word in there that could be described as transphobic. It’s the chronology of a medical scandal, and eminently readable.