Chaos at the new Tavistocks

[IcakethereforeIam]

When two tribes go to war

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/27/delays-rows-and-legal-challenges-inside-the-stalled-new-nhs-gender-identity-service

Frankly this is an illustration of the ongoing problems when healthcare is based in ideology rather than evidence, even when you try to rectify that a bit.

This is what happens when you shut down a place for being too messed up to be able to continue..... and send the people running it, with their policies, out to create lots of little satellite messes in the exact same image of the first big one.

They were told, and told, and told and told. But not dealing with angry difficult adults mattered more than actually protecting and caring for distressed children.

The trans lobby groups with unhindered access to the NHS and child healthcare are not giving up their power willingly - despite their lack of qualifications & their ideological beliefs as opposed to a child centred, safeguarding informed approach.
However the delays just mean that vulnerable children are now accessing the charlatans handing out puberty blockers online with the lobby groups still targeting children, despite the harm they're causing. Until leaders in government, the NHS & medicine start prioritising evidenced, safe healthcare for these vulnerable children, this will continue.

Sadly some vulnerable children will continue to get hormones from charlatans online. But if the charlatans are prevented from doing the same within the NHS maybe it will be easier to wake schools and social services to awareness that this is a serious safeguarding issue.

Aah we’re still not allowed to use the c word.

What a mess.

That’s a remarkably balanced article for the Guardian.

This argument leaves me so cold. If you have a distressed child, regardless of the source of the distress, if there is a medical treatment pathway that requires taking drugs for life and potentially irreversible life altering surgery, and a non medical pathway that could see distress relieved via other mechanisms such as talking therapy, the default should ALWAYS be the latter, with the former considered only after non medical approach has failed.

This theory of sacred 'inner transness' needing to be realised is so toxic. This is a metaphysical belief, just like the existence of God it cannot be tested, so there is no possibility of proving or disproving this theory. Gender affirming care is religion rendered as western medicine. These are distressed, confused v likely gay kids. A small number may benefit from transition, but the vast majority, with the right support will be able to live happily in their bodies.

It is a mess isn't it?
So many of our institutions have been compromised by trans ideology in terms of safeguarding children that they're now politically unable to speak out without demonstrating their previous culpability for pushing it.

For example, Ofsted were Stonewall champions. They left after Stonewall criticised them for failing to talk to primary children enough about trans issues - the messages were leaked. They now claim tackling these issues are outside their remit. Yet they openly pushed trans ideology at schools for some years, actually downgrading some primary schools for (amongst other things) not teaching about gender reassignment.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10931423/Ofsted-cites-lack-gender-identity-teaching-primaries-factor-inspection-reports.html

The same problem applies in the NHS, GMC, CQC, local & national government. A golden bridge to remedy this isn't enough. These organisations have openly promoted unsafe experimental medical care / unthinking social transitioning to vulnerable children at the behest of political activists. They're totally compromised and if they admit to their failings it will open a tsunami of lawsuits for their professional negligence.

Is this…balanced reporting? From the Guardian?!

Do I need to pinch myself or has the Graun editorial team realised that they might not be on The Right Side Of History on this one?

It does seem pretty balanced! but then I am sure the author has read Time to Think and the lack of safeguarding for the young in there is shocking

Yes.

I suppose though that at least we're seeing now the battle of others standing up saying this is not good (evidence and reasons), this shouldn't happen (evidence and reasons) and people need to know there are very big concerns here. As opposed to unhindered, quiet, uninterfered with galloping of children to medical transitions.

Rather like women are having to battle and go through court and argue and write, but it is no longer an uninterrupted one way totally controlled narrative.

Anyone still wondering how a movement based largely in white, straight, able bodied, affluent, educated, middle class men managed to get such control at such speed only needs to look at how very, very slowly and reluctantly the wheels are turning to protect the equality of humanity of women, children, homosexuals, BAME and those from minority faiths and cultures. It's rather like the Met. All sitting on a foundation of being fundamentally not inclusive at all beyond some nice shiny DEI awards and rainbowy tat.

Amelia Gentleman has always seemed pretty balanced. I'm astonished she's still there!

Amelia Gentleman has done balanced pieces on this issue before. She reported on the Mermaids/LGBA case, for example.

The Guardian policy these days seems to be to publish pieces that are on board with gender ideology, occasionally with a few balanced pieces thrown in to make it seems as if they're not completely ideologically captured. What you won't see is any article that is outright opposed to gender ideology, except in the Observer.

'As delays to the openings continue, NHS England (NHSE) has started to divert thousands of 17-year-olds, and 16-year-olds who turn 17 before next March, towards the adult waiting list, where they are likely to receive a different, less exploratory form of treatment.'

Oh, fuck.

'...some of those within the team involved in setting up the new services are challenging Cass’s recommendations. Several people told the Guardian tensions were emerging as clinicians tried to draw up training modules for staff. One person close to the work described the atmosphere as “tribal”.'

'One current member of Tavistock staff said: “What they are proposing to do is gender exploratory therapy. My view, as a clinician working in gender services, is that this is tantamount to conversion therapy for trans youth. It’s very problematic and very unethical.”'

And there we go.

We know that trans activists don't do debate, research, science, facts or safeguarding. It must be terrifying to be a child centred medic / therapist working there as you will have no idea when the activists will set the mob on you - online or in real life.
Sadly this needs courageous politicians like Duffield, Badenoch, Cates and others to force the government to intervene and insist that the NHS cuts strings with these adult focused political lobby groups. The biased activists must be removed from all the centres. We need qualified, ethical professionals who can unpick this mess and ensure that children get insightful, evidenced and compassionate treatment - first do no harm and all that.

Same thing I picked out, Arthur:

”the second is suspicious of exploratory therapy, arguing that it could enter the realm of conversion practices.”

They are laying out their intentions very clearly and I hope the government picks up on it before ramming home any damaging laws that would encourage these ghouls to throw their sane colleagues to the wolves.

“Some clinicians are very affirmative, and believe most patients will benefit from medication and will transition. Others are more cautious and want to think about the child’s development,” a source close to the training discussions said.
“It has been very challenging and there has been a lot of pressure to finalise things when there’s no consensus within the team. I don’t know how we will get to a middle ground.”

Genuinely, I don’t think finding a middle ground should be the aim.

What this needs is leadership to centre services for young people around holistic development considering the ecosystem around the child.

This should not be controversial. Open minded exploration of the problem is much better than going in with ‘we’ve all decided the solution before we even start’ affirmation. Especially since affirmation seems to mean a one-way medical pathway.

HCPs need to leave their activism at the door. Insisting their non-activist colleagues are ‘transphobes’ for favouring a holistic exploratory approach - especially in the absence of a proper evidence base - is really dangerous.

What he fuck has gone wrong that not giving setting children on irreversible medical pathways without checking it’s the right thing to do is positioned as bigotry?

Imagine insisting that clinicians must take an affirmation only approach to patients’ self diagnoses in other areas.

I see you’ve said you need a heart bypass; I’ll just schedule that now. No need for any tests or discussion to determine that it’s even a problem with your heart at all. 🙄

Genuinely, I don’t think finding a middle ground should be the aim.

This.

They need to be starting from a place of evidence based medicine. And the affirmation side is not, nowhere near it. (I don't know how well the "exploratory therapy" side is doing on that, I suspect they too are taking a lot of things as read that are not based on any actual data.)

This is the crux of it really.

If you a member of this faith, then it is heresy to not be wholly and entirely biased and to reject everything but the followings of the teachings of the faith.

Which is fine, we're a multi faith society, we live in tolerance of each other.

But this is the only faith that requires such total partiality and rejection of all other views, and cannot permit open mindedness or following of other responsibilities or even the law or facts if they conflict with the beliefs.

And unfortunately this renders a believer in this faith unable to hold a post of responsibility that requires equality and impartiality. It's incompatible.

This is going to have to be faced by the government. You cannot ask a staunch Catholic to run an abortion service. You cannot ask a believer in gender ideology to provide an impartial health service that is open minded about the best interests of a child questioning their gender.

And the service is there for the best interests of the child. Not for the believers to enact their faith upon the child.

Middle ground

Yes, this all sounds very nice and people realising that this is a major, major problem are clinging to it like a life raft, hoping that there is a nice win-win way to protect women, children, homosexuals, disabled people, people of minority faiths and cultures yada yada without actually having to upset the TQ+ lobby.

Their position is that anything but their beliefs is heresy. <Burn witch here>.

There was also the excellent point made a few days ago and I'm sorry I can't remember the poster's name: to the effect of if someone snatches your handbag should you be expected to find 'middle ground' with your mugger? How much of your handbag and its contents should you be willing to share to find a nice win-win solution? Or is this behaviour requiring boundaries, backbone and the word 'no' and 'I don't care how cross you get about not getting your own way in this, the law is there to protect others' rights, bodies and property from those who have no capacity for respecting them voluntarily'?