Trans children have been lied to by adults – the Cass report may now see the legal dam break - Suzanne Moore

[LogicLoverLlama]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2024/04/09/cass-report-trans-children-have-been-lied-to-by-adults/

@guinnessguzzler well exactly. Apparently it’s come from some of the trans identifying pupils themselves - makes them feel like we’re allies.

This makes me think of an experience when talking to an affirming doctor in another, very affirming town with a big, very affirming university - 'we use trigger warnings when talking to students - we know new evidence doesn't support it but students value them'

Ffs! You're a doctor! Applying evidence is your metier!!

RainWithSunnySpells · Today 08:27

Archive link.

Thank you. Suzanne is on the button, as usual. The Guardian threw out a crown jewel, didn't they?

The whole ‘it comes from students themselves’ thing is ridiculous. Especially in schools.

Educational institutions make all sorts of decisions and do all manner of things that are not what students (children when we are talking about schools) want. They do this for very good reasons.

Similarly, they also ignore or discourage many of the things that students do within the peer culture.

Why on earth are institutions that insist on restricting students’ haircuts, choice of footwear or choice of foodstuffs at lunch all ‘well students are socially transitioning anyway; we have to affirm this and use the right pronouns’?

It makes absolutely no sense.

The educational and medical professions simply cannot understand that ‘validating’ (a word I loathe) a person’s feelings does not mean validating or affirming their particular take on reality. Somehow ‘I know you’re feeling anxious/upset/scared/whatever’ has turned into ‘yes you have transubstantiated a sex change by saying it and we must all be good allies who protect you from any evidence to the contrary’. It’s bizarre.

The educational and medical professions simply cannot understand that ‘validating’ (a word I loathe) a person’s feelings does not mean validating or affirming their particular take on reality.

It's selective. Far too many examples to state from anorexia nervosa to forms of dementia demonstrate that individual takes on reality are set aside.

To state the obvious, women wouldn't wait 10-20 years for a diagnosis of endometriosis if their narratives of their own experience were respected.

I don't think we begin to understand the influence of Denton's work and the scale of organisational capture that has created this.

It’s clear that the validation is driven by the fact that ‘affirming’ gender identity is fashionable.

The selectivity is really obvious. And so problematic.

I'm really glad she started out by referring to anorexia. We make the comparison all the time on here and see it so clearly (ditto bulimia and cutting) but people fresh to the debate are quite likely to have first hand experience of the determined self-destructive impulse of young women with anorexia, and it gives them a reference framework.

Self-destructive, family destructive, wrapped in lies, leaving long term scars even for the people who manage to recover. We need to offer girls a better view of their future.

Yes, I liked that she used the comparison with Anorexia too; it’s clear and striking.

We’ve been encouraged to announce our pronouns to new classes
Wow.
Does "I identify as a woman, last time I looked!" count?

I hugely recommend James Davies' book Cracked. It'll make you question everything you think you know about mental health care. And I say that as a person with a diagnosis.

I don't remember it covering trans at all - it's several years old - but it's completely relevant in its exposé of lack of scientific rigour and big pharma influence.

That Youtube talk is really interesting - I'll look out for James Davies. It seems as though psychiatry really is more like the lunatic fringe of medieval theology than any aspect of science.

Thanks for making me laugh.
Wearing black socks over black tights = detention.
Wearing the wrong trousers = detention.
You want the teacher to refer to you as "he, him", even though you are a girl, yes of course, no problem.
Also, we actively teach vocabulary like "invidious", while actively breaking the meanings of "girl", "boy", "safe", "diversity".

It's going to be especially tricky for the Lib Dems, with their big donations from puberty blocker manufacturers Ferring Pharmaceuticals.

Comment (from the BBC's article) :
Shadow health and social care secretary Wes Streeting called on the government to "immediately act" and said a Labour government, if in power, would work to bring in the recommendations.
He added he was committed to working with the health secretary "to put children's health and wellbeing above the political fray".

Glad someone watched it. Yes, the DSM on which the whole of the psychiatric disciple is based is put together by a small bunch of (mainly) blokes who throw a few ideas into the ring fully aware that they have no physiological or any other real evidence or research to back it their claim that such a condition exists. They then argue with each other until one side or another gives in and thus yet another unsubstantiated condition, with all the unknown real-life complexities that will arise from its adoption, is added to the book.

As you say, it's positively medieval. Thank goodness James Davies and his organisation are pointing out the madness among the psychiatrists. I can't help feeling that Tom Stoppard needs to write a play about it.

I'm hearing talk from within Labour circles that when Labour says it will go along with the Conservatives adopting Cass it is on the basis that Labour interprets a conversion therapy ban rather differently from the way we, or the government, do. I'm trying to find out more about this — there is a lot of speaking with forked tongues from the direction of Anneliese Dodds.

But in the meantime, don't trust Yvette Cooper and Wes Streeting bearing what look like gifts.

'..but the adults who have encouraged this, while patting themselves on the back for their progressive views, still need to be challenged. Cass is but the start. '
If only.. the Cass report is being welcomed by the likes of Mermaids and Stonewall who are interpreting its criticism of care for 'trans' children as criticism that the waiting lists are too long or people aren't being respectful enough, so isn't Cass wonderful and hopefully now children will get onto the treatment path more quickly.
Their ability to twist things is breathtaking, and unfortunately there are lots of reporters happy to go along with this bonkers take on the Cass report.

At the risk of sounding thick, why are people quite so excited about this report? Is it really the end? It's just one report, which people are going to interpret how suits them. When the Race Report came out, it's not like people said 'Oh, there's not systemic racism in the UK, that's OK then, we can stop pushing for equality and diversity'. Why is this going to be any different?

It's the first time the medical establishment have been confronted with clear evidence that children have been unethically treated by the NHS. Remember, Stonewall etc existed on the mantra #nodebate.
Now a 4 year Research project has exposed the most awful medical abuse of children and young people and the excessive influence of trans lobbyists. We've known this for years but trans ideology has dominated thought elsewhere for years.
It's a game changer but only the start. Promoting the sterilisation of children in pursuit of the false belief that they can change sex was always going to end in disaster,

I know that's what it looks like, but how can it be proved one way or the other? What does an objective research project even look like? How do we even define 'regret'? Any attempts to research abortion regret, for instance, have been dismissed as 'those women are suffering from depression' and 'it's a right-wing conspiracy'. At the time the woman thought this was the best way forward and nobody has time to listen to her moaning that she didn't have enough counselling. I know that's adults ... but ... I just don't share the optimism, knowing how these scripts go. In the US, where everything is so polarised, this isn't going to fly.

What does an objective research project even look like? How do we even define 'regret'?

That is exactly what clinical trial design is for and why it involves multiple stakeholders. It's also why clinical trials are pre-registered so there can be no rannygazoo, changes of mind, p-hacking, or conveniently forgetting to include some outcomes for publication.

If anyone is interested in this, or evidence-based medicine and how it's evaluated, I strongly recommend the book, Testing Treatments, that is free to download and interactive, the audiobook is also a free download.

https://www.testingtreatments.org/

The Cochrane Handbook is the formal guide to the methods, processes, and tools for systematic reviews. It explains types of clinical trial design along the way.

https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/part-1

Rather as I expected, we're seeing this kind of reaction:
We accept teenagers taking the pill - why don't we feel the same about puberty blockers? (msn.com)

I know defining something like 'regret' is what trials are meant to be able to do. But can science even study something that subjective? How can somebody be sure that they wouldn't have regretted going through puberty more? They haven't got that reality to compare?

I don't want to pour cold water, I just don't share the optimism that this isn't anything more than a blip in the basic 'we must affirm transpeople, or we'll cause them distress' messaging.