Kemi Badenoch statement re GRC recognition 6/12/23

[Signalbox]

From about 1.47

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/a62238ef-8cdd-4407-8cc7-66bd96242a46?agenda=True&_gl=1161ausy_gaMTY4ODE4OTg5Ni4xNzAxODY5NzIz_ga_L0NJWDWMGN*MTcwMTg2OTcyMi4xLjEuMTcwMTg3MDIxNi42MC4wLjA.

And here is the pivot.

Those reading along will notice this tactic has been used to deflect the points raised by different posters on this thread that clearly addressed this poster’s posting history on this forum.

Those points such as the safeguarding risks having people such as this poster in positions of giving advice to children and young people. If that group is representative of the current majority cohort, the majority will be female children and young people. Such as this poster’s proud boasting of using female single sex spaces and their determination to continue despite having it pointed out that their presence causes distress (even if that service user finds out in retrospect).

The pivot is to focus on detransitioners.

I am sure that many readers will have noticed the similar but opposite switch in linguistic tone and language. Whereas before, the tone and language was used to increase the sphere of influence and degree of prevalence, now it is minimising.

“why are you claiming that the tiny slice of the tiny proportion of the small number of people”

I mean, this statement is almost farcical when viewed compared to the previous language used to exaggerate numbers and the relevance of this poster’s experience.

Previously, the tone was all about projection. For instance this poster making their own experience ‘universal’ in nature, now it is all about limitation. Limiting the validity of the detransitioner experience.

This is a common tactic used by extreme trans activists who wish to diminish the voices of the trans people raising the alarms that the current treatment protocols are not working and have significant issues that have been ignored in favour of ‘affirming only’ treatment. Those activists wish to also distract from the reality that there has been a significant failure to follow up long term after treatments to confirm whether that treatment worked.

They want to dismiss the growth of these detransitioner groups. They want to distract readers from the fact that gender clinicians themselves are raising alarms about the treatments and the treatment’s relevance to the current cohort of those seeking gender identity treatment.

This is done through fear that the treatments will be stopped for children and adolescents. Because to stop those treatments, we are told, will bring on suicide. Particularly amongst a cohort where they have been told every day about the high suicide rates, the disproportionate murder rates and the genocidal nature of any discussion that focuses on the negatives of treatment of this cohort.

I can only surmise this poster now wishes to minimise the potential impact of their very own behaviour. Now that the risk has been clearly stated by numerous posters. The impact they have proudly described that centred them as being in a position of leadership and influence. And where children and young people were being advised how transition worked for this poster by this poster. Who has also described their needs as being unique in the past. Ie. Of little direct relevance to the huge % of transitioners today.

That is the motivation behind the post diminishing the detransitioners.

Now, all of a sudden, we as readers should consider the such a small group as being worthy of being rejected. Whereas, the poster’s own unique and small group of any similar reasons and health condition comorbidities was to projected to be of great benefit and importance to all in previous posts. When it had very little similarity and relevance at all.

Particularly now that the majority of adolescents seeking treatment is female. I am sure that the pattern is now glaringly obvious.

Notice now that detaching of that previous much needed support and influence? Now those patients who make the decisions are blamed for making the wrong decisions. No one else is to be blamed. Certainly not those giving advice about experiences that has little relevance to the majority of those registered at gender clinics.

This is why posters have been clear about the safeguarding aspect here. This pivot is not new.

And the cycle continues.

It is important to also realise that the majority of the detransitioner voices at this time are female detransitioners. Misogyny knows no bounds here. It is further continuation of the dismissal of the female transition experience, the needs of female trans people.

This pivot is about limiting the impact of current treatment and support impacts on female children and adolescents. Limiting the impact of poor service driven by male transitioner needs and driven by adult male transitioners. Limiting the impact of the lack of acknowledgement about the needs of the current cohort, majority being female, being different from those in the past, the lack of studies and curiosity about their needs.

TL/DR

This post is about limiting the recognition of the harm being done.

Who benefits from limiting recognition and discussion of these harms?

“Glad we got there in the end.”

The gift that simply keeps on giving.

It's tiring that men come here with the most disingenuous long winded "arguments" and then completely ignore every single question.

And it's so typical of queer theory extremists that they act like a 16 year old is capable of making decisions that will affect them for the rest of their life.

We all know it's because it makes it so much easier for predatory adults to justify grooming and fucking a teenager, but it's still harrowing to see they got so much fucking arrogance and stupidity that they think they can do it here on a women's forum without us understanding full well how much of a vile degenerate man they are.

Yep.

For anyone who missed the latest study released.

This is the newly released peer reviewed reanalysis of the UK study. McPherson & Freedman both worked on the initial analysis of the patient clinical data.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2023.2281986

Psychological Outcomes of 12–15-Year-Olds with Gender Dysphoria Receiving Pubertal Suppression in the UK: Assessing Reliable and Clinically Significant Change

Susan McPherson & David E. P. Freedman

Published online: 29 Nov 2023

Abstract

The evidence base for psychological benefits of GnRHA for adolescents with gender dysphoria (GD) was deemed “low quality” by the UK National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Limitations identified include inattention to clinical importance of findings. This secondary analysis of UK clinical study data uses Reliable and Clinically Significant Change approaches to address this gap. The original uncontrolled study collected data within a specialist GD service. Participants were 44 12–15-year-olds with GD. Puberty was suppressed using “triptorelin”; participants were followed-up for 36 months. Secondary analysis used data from parent-report Child Behavior Checklists and Youth Self-Report forms. Reliable change results: 15–34% of participants reliably deteriorated depending on the subscale, time point and parent versus child report. Clinically significant change results: 27–58% were in the borderline (subclinical) or clinical range at baseline (depending on subscale and parent or child report). Rates of clinically significant change ranged from 0 to 35%, decreasing over time toward zero on both self-report and parent-report. The approach offers an established complementary method to analyze individual level change and to examine who might benefit or otherwise from treatment in a field where research designs have been challenged by lack of control groups and low sample sizes.

It was mentioned here in this Dutch documentary.

The one that de Vries minimises the lack of accuracy in the follow up in the study that then shaped the treatment protocols used today.

The growing evidence that provides a contradictory stance that current treatment protocol was ever the best treatment is growing. It is imperative to note here though, that even the Dutch protocol that is discussed here on this doco, was based on extensive mental health treatment and exploratory therapy first.

That extensive mental health treatment and exploratory therapy has been dropped in the current treatments that focus on affirming only and provide too little exploratory therapy when needed. Instead, children and adolescents get locked into their identities. And even now, when they reach 16 they have had little exploratory therapy, they have been coached via different sources to get hormones and surgeries, they get sent through to very busy adult clinics with people sharing the view that 16 is old enough to make such significant choices.

Those sharing the view that at 16 they are old enough to make those decisions tend to ignore the comorbidities that are present that create additional challenges for those patients to make their decisions.

Instead, you have female young people who have arrived to the clinic, receiving support supplied by male adult transitioners with personal and political agendas.

On another thread someone who is in KB's constituency thought she wouldn't get back is as she is hardly ever there doing the bread and butter work of a constituency MP.

Apparently Saffron Walden has been a Tory Safe seat for the last 100 years so it would be surprising if she loses it.

Everybody is bloody non binary. It's utterly meaningless.

'Do not align with arbitrarily applied social conventions related to one's sex' - Well fucking whoop de doo and enjoy getting the haircut of your choice. There is absolutely no need and many predictable downsides to getting a mastectomy or taking exogenous hormones just because you have had the stunning insight that social conventions are not Absolute Truth.

To suggest that bisexuality or gender non conformity somehow logically requires medical treatment is fucking disgusting, frankly.

Well said @ArthurbellaScott The determination that some people have to transition children - especially girls - demonstrates a fundamental lack of insight & care for children & their psychological & physical safety and wellbeing.
Chilling to see it demonstrated on a feminist board like this.

This post is about limiting the recognition of the harm being done.

Who benefits from limiting recognition and discussion of these harms?

Men benefit, children really lose out. We should be safeguarding them against that but somehow a law was created so we lack the ability. It’s incredibly messed up

I will cast a decidedly critical eye over anyone who seems to be trying to blame others for their own decisions, especially ones that they. made at or beyond the age of 16, rather than owning

I bet you will. Must punish those who stray.

Normal people, however, view detransitioning as a positive step.

A reduction in social contagion and/or gender dysphoria is healthy. Because most people don't need hordes of vulnerable children to justify their adult choices. They actually want children to be happy in their bodies without a lifetime of sterilising medication or brutal
surgery. Amazing eh?

But you keep telling people what you think of children who get better, eh? You and your 'critical eye'.

It must kill these extreme transactivists that not only has Kemi widely broadcast the 'trans away the gay' statement from the clinic that actually treats them, but is also saying that refusal to allow social transition at school is now the default.

A double whammy of child protection.

When I think back to the propaganda put out by the likes of GIRES and mermaids with teachers being told to give parties and celebration cakes to children who want to transition, I realise how much progress we have actually made.

Despite men everywhere desperately trying to stop us.

"Trans the gay away"

"Trans-identified male"

"The UK does not recognise self-identification for the purpose of obtaining a gender recognition certificate"

"Labour’s Gender Recognition Act 2004 and Equality Act 2010 did not envisage that the words “sex” and “gender” would be used as differently as they are today."

Some useful facts laid out. And no, Labour did not correct her on the last one. So they must be in agreement with the direction, and I assume they'll support this:

"I am exploring how we can rectify these issues across the board and provide legal certainty."

And lest we forget:

"They laugh, but it was Labour party MPs who, during the debacle over section 35, stood on a platform, on stage, with an attempted murderer complaining about this Government, so I refuse to countenance any criticism from them."

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-12-06/debates/E7306EC2-EFCB-4331-BD82-F01FDF67CCBF/GenderRecognition

Imagine it being considered controversial to suggest that children can play and test and experiment, that young people can question and think and argue, and all can be loved, supported and encouraged, be cared for, listened to and challenged.

That no child needs to be put on a medical pathway because of how they choose to dress or play or who they're attracted to.

That it's okay to be just as you are and that there's nothing wrong with your healthy body. No need to have surgery. No need to try and pretend you are a different sex.

Staggering that this is being painted as the extreme position. We have adults insisting that children be dosed with hormones and prepped for surgery. And sterilised, as the healthy choice. Disordered adults claiming they know what's best for vulnerable teens.

No, dysphoria does not qualify anyone to 'know what's best' for children with dysphoria.

Agreed Datun. It's a worry to see someone who claims to be working with young people yet demonstrates such a profound ignorance of adolescent psychology & views with criticism teenagers who seem "to be trying to blame others for their own decisions, especially ones that they made at or beyond the age of 16, rather than owning them"

Criticising 16 year olds who fell into the "born in the wrong body" trap! Fortunately few responsible adults / parents would ever adopt this approach and as Mumsnet repeatedly remind us, people on here may well not be who they claim to be.

“yet here you are admonishing a counterpoint which has been overwhelmingly statistically represented across every study that has been made about transition outcomes.”

Do explain Butterfly, what you refer here?

Because readers, there are NO STUDIES that show that transitioning children and adolescents improves their mental health in the long term. And I cannot remember seeiing any that have not been discredited for adults.

Are you trying to tell readers that there are peer reviewed studies showing conclusively that medical transition improves the mental health and other outcomes of adults? Are you really? On a board where many of us read all the studies posted and have yet to see this overwhelming evidence that even medical transition for adults leads to better mental health.

Surely you cannot be talking about Branstrom and Pachenkis again? You know, the study that had to retract its conclusion that there was an improvement in mental health ?

Which peer reviewed studies are those? Link them up, please.

Otherwise you just told a huge fucking lie.

Lots of TRA claim the GRA is needed to give adults the right to a privacy and a family life.

But the way the same TRA aim to separate children from their family is shocking. TRA are invited into schools to preach an ideology and schools supported it by keeping information away from parents. Standing in the way of childrens right to a full family life.

The TRA are encouraging it, but the way head teachers and safeguarding leads are complicit is criminal. We can suss out dodgy ideology and dangerous rhetoric on this thread, why couldnt schools?

Detransitioners aren't trans, duh! They're just confused adolescents. Confused adolescents are ten a penny. Generalisations work just fine.

Butterflies are the adult stage of that type of insect, the stage that breeds. That's actually their only purpose for the species. It's only narcissistic humans who think they exist just to look pretty. A sterile butterfly might as well crawl back into its pupa. Some plants have evolved to exploit them. Often these plants are quite toxic.

Those sharing the view that at 16 they are old enough to make those decisions tend to ignore the comorbidities that are present that create additional challenges for those patients to make their decisions.

Instead, you have female young people who have arrived to the clinic, receiving support supplied by male adult transitioners with personal and political agendas.

Yes, let's place the blame for the harm that's been done to these children where it truly belongs.

It's groups like Mermaids, GIRES, Gendered Intelligence, Stonewall, pushing the "born in the wrong body" narrative. Mermaids going as far as coaching the children about what to say to doctors in order to get the treatment they want.

It's doctors like those at GIDS with their open homophobia. Their belief that they could "cure" children who would grow up to be gay by turning them into imitations of the opposite sex. And private doctors like the Webberleys who seem to have seen this as a money-making opportunity, with total disregard for their young patients.

But that poster wants to blame those children themselves. Children as young as 12 who have been put on a pathway which will make them medical patients for life, sterile and with impaired sexual function. That poster thinks that children who made a poor decision at 12 or in their teens should "own" their decisions, which they were coached into by a variety of ideologically-driven adults, including doctors and psychologists.

That poster thinks that children who made a poor decision at 12 or in their teens should "own" their decisions, which they were coached into by a variety of ideologically-driven adults, including doctors and psychologists.

Yep, these children are bombarded with the propaganda that they, and we, are punished for not accepting, and then blamed for it when they do.

I think that last night really was an attempt at a sleight of hand.

On one hand, we have a male person who supports the use of puberty blockers because they want male transitioners to ‘pass’ (apparently as well as they like to tell us they do, if I remember correctly).

On the other hand, we now have a post trying to saying that in the UK only over 16s are getting medicalised treatment in any case, and then going on demonising detransitioners.

There is such a disconnect here. The thought process is either highly disordered or highly dishonest.

Trying to parse the incoherency of the posts is getting harder (or I am getting much too tired to put as much effort in now). But this really comes across as a sleight of hand or just a big fucking lie.

In any case, it seems the poster is not up to date.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/26/use-of-puberty-blockers-doubled-since-nhs-clampdown/#:~:text=At%20least%20100%20children%20–%20some,on%20an%20“irreversible”%20path.

(You might use a 12ft ladder to read this)

Here is the important part of that article:

“At least 100 children – some as young as 12 – have been put on the drugs to prevent puberty since July 2022, when health officials said the practice would be stopped outside of clinical trials after a damning review of children’s gender services.”

So…. Still happening apparently. And you wouldn’t give blockers to a 17 year old logically, because puberty will have gone too far already, what is the point of ruining a patients physical health for so little gain.

But the poster has now conveniently limited their discussion to the UK. Many other countries are still medicalising under 16 year olds. And in November, turns out the UK is too!

“and huge numbers of trans people actively protested the government's cowardly reversal on a conversion therapy ban - many of whom are survivors of actual conversion therapy.”

Here is more dishonesty.

Conversion Therapy is illegal already in the UK.

That is what this poster is conveniently leaving out of this paragraph. Conversion Therapy is illegal in the UK. What this poster wants less informed readers to think is that trans people are currently at risk of conversion therapy. They are not.

Some extreme trans activists have attempted to frame exploratory therapy as conversion therapy. Every discussion and debate about the topic shows that they are aiming to remove any therapy that does not only affirm the patient’s identity. The Dutch Protocol was devised on thoroughly exploring all reasons for a person’s sense of gender incongruence. This seems to be what extremist trans activists want removed because not one of them has provided a definition of what exploratory therapy is needed.

And in other countries, this wide ranging conversion therapy ban has resulted in removing exploratory therapy from treatment.

So many dishonest tactics in last nights post. So much to unpick.

Trying to parse the incoherency of the posts is getting harder (or I am getting much too tired to put as much effort in now). But this really comes across as a sleight of hand or just a big fucking lie.

It's so tedious the way these people twist and swivel, turning their face this way and that, depending on the bamboozlement du jour.

Specifically, this poster apparently passes so well, that both men and women hit on them, thinking they are female, to the point of sexual harassment from lesbians, and jealousy from fellow transwomen when they realise they're not a woman, has a wonderful social life and travels the world, whilst at the same time having a whole host of medical problems that leaves them in crippling isolation only talking to doctors.

All depending on what point needs backing up at the time.

I can see why you've switched from contesting minutiae to outright character assassination and pantomime levels of 'oh no it isn't' when encountering someone who Badenoch's core argument requires not to exist on multiple levels.

I'm sure we all know you exist, Butterfly, never fear.

Indeed oldcrone.

“That poster thinks that children who made a poor decision at 12 or in their teens should "own" their decisions, which they were coached into by a variety of ideologically-driven adults, including doctors and psychologists.”

The attempt to detach their own harmful activities, that we have highlighted are a huge fucking safeguarding risk, by now victim blaming vulnerable children, adolescents and young people is vile. They proudly told us they were advising young people. They are not alone, there are so many other hugely biased people doing it to.

But apparently, under the weight of all these people, and the glamorizing of transition by media and entertainment, a child or teen is now responsible for taking all that in and making a decision that is a disaster for them. The complete detachment of responsibility is horrific to see in that post.

And this poster wonders that we point out that complete lack of empathy. And the seeming need to be validated by the very children and teens they have shown again (because it is a regular occurrence) to have little empathy for.

It is really concerning.