Trans rights orgs outraged at NHS review of children's 'gender services' care

[ArabellaScott]

Things seem to be happening post-Cass, and various organisations are not happy.

The Good Law Project and various trans rights orgs have launched a new appeal/action, prompted by children/young people apparently receiving letters asking them to attend a review/assessment and seeking info on hormone treatment.

Copied and pasted excerpts from GLP's crowdfunder page (I can't link to it, obvs) below :

'The document, which does not bear the name of any NHS professional, asks providers of mental health support to children and young people (CYP) to invite those on the national waiting list for gender services for a face-to-face appointment. Providers are told: “We request all CYP who have been allocated to your service for mental health review are assessed as soon as possible.” One group is asked to be “reviewed and or assessed by… 30 June 2024.”'

'As part of this process, children and young people on the waiting list for trans healthcare have been sent a “Gender Experience Summary Form”, asking them or their families whether they are receiving support from “the private sector or from abroad… such as… hormone treatment.”'

'.... the document recognises that many trans youth will have sourced hormone treatment from “unregulated providers or unregulated sources.” It states that the largest “unregulated provider” is a service called GenderGP, which it says is “registered overseas and is therefore outside the reach of the UK health regulators.”'

'We are concerned about what appears to be a misleading exercise in gathering data on which trans youth are obtaining private treatment from abroad, for the purposes of seeking to cause or compel them to stop treatment.'

Other 'trans rights' organisations have been posting about it, too.

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1cknfxz/callout_to_trans_teenagers_and_their_families_in/

'QueerAF, What the Trans and Trans Safety Network are looking to speak to families affected by the plans leaked by the Good Law Project this week that could see some young trans people left with no choice but to medically detransition.

Parents, families and young trans peopleWe understand letters are going out to transgender young people and their families inviting them to have a mental health assessment. This will be framed as "enhanced support", but the assessment process will also gather information about what gender-affirming care, hormones or puberty blockers trans youth are taking, and where they are being prescribed for.

This information may be used against families who will be "advised" to stop care from sources without "appropriate care" (for example: private healthcare) - or face safeguarding referrals to local services.

We're seeking to gather information about the letters being sent to families, and the process because we're concerned this activity is designed to leave families and young transgender people with no choice but to medically detransition.'

Everyone is their enemy apparently.

To be fair to those caught up in it, it has been presented as the answer to all their problems, a quasi religious movement with its own rituals, incantations, tenets and unbelievers/outcasts.

Recovery from that will not be easy and not everyone will be able to accept a return to evidence-based thinking.

I hope that the NHS have taken into account the likelihood of extreme and irrational responses to anything that isn't instant, complete and total capitulation, agreement and affirmation.

Both for supporting those struggling with it and for those activists who are likely to respond in the usual narc-rage ways that feminists have become accustomed to seeing. This'll be why Cass has been told not to use public transport.

Arabella is absolutely right. My own family member has a young man identifying as a woman (used to be non-binary, then trans femm then some other combo I forget). The absolute rage and "tragic me" since this has been off the charts. And he's not a child nor is he even in the UK!!!

A reluctant but still affirming parent of his is also in denial, despite not having given him puberty blockers but did pay for hormones at 18. This parent believes that the Cass Report is full of lies, despite not reading it nor any news regarding it. This parent had what I can only describe as a shocking display of anger, shouting and hitting objects upon hearing other family members discussing this topic.

Textbook cognitive dissonance.

Slightly OT but I was watching a video of Billboard Chris at a campus in Australia. He was talking to a young man who was on puberty blockers and he seemed to really believe that Dr Cass was funded by Ron DeSantis. You want to laugh but he looked so young and unhappy.

My guess is that a large part of the reaction is to do with the wording of the letter and the possibility of safeguarding referrals being made. I think that comes across quite threatening. Ultimately in the vast majority of cases parents want what's best for their children and parents who are supportive of their children using certain puberty blocking medication are doing what they feel is in the best interests of their child weighed up on the information that they have - just as all of us do every day. The idea that you could be subject to safeguarding for trying to do the best you can for your child is unfair in my opinion. And will probably encourage people to disengage rather than attend the assessments which could lead to further problems. It's also not a safeguarding issue that I see social services taking on board or being able to enforce in any way if a family are overall loving, caring and a child's needs are otherwise met. So it seems like an unnecessary and empty threat that's derailed what otherwise should be an okay letter because a mental health review is fine to ask for.

I love the idea that services will have picked up all these children by the end of June. They are talking about CAMHS right?!!!

Interesting stuff.

The plus side for gender critics is GLP being involved the legal challenge will be badly designed and doomed to fail. GLP has raised over £300,000 to fight gender based cases six so far - 4 straight loses, 2 ongoing.

Labour Pains' checklist of GLP failure is spectacular. They haven't won a case since October 2022.
https://labourpainsblog.com/2024/05/03/good-law-project-three-score-and-ten/

They have raised over 5 million pounds for all their cases while most fail in court, some not even going to court at all. The blog points out donations are falling as people are getting wise to the scam. Looks like the fox killer will be short of kimono cash if this keeps up.

"If that £5.368 million had been my money, I would definitely be feeling a bit short-changed. And a growing number of those who’ve been beguiled by Jolyon’s platinum-grade grifting since March 2017 now seem to feel much the same way: the average number of donors to a GLP crowdfunder has fallen from 7,640 in late 2020, and 3,260 in mid-2021, to just 850 in 2024 to date. As a result, on current trends, the GLP’s annual income from crowdfunders is set to shrink from £1.863 million in 2021/22, and £633K in 2023/24, to just £275K in 2024/25. Such rapidly diminishing returns suggest we may not see another 70 GLP crowdfunders.
Oh dear, how sad, never mind."

Moreover GLP's name is mud amongst legal professionals due to their long history of failure and taking cases which were legally pointless or near impossible and making bad arguments for them, while making sure they got paid. This discredits genderism in the courts.

We have better lawyers, motivated by a search for justice and reality rather than just cash and delusions and tend to win. That matters.

@Lavender14 I don’t think the NHS is threatening safeguarding referrals, is it? I’ve not seen the text of the NHS letter, only what’s reproduced here - where the suggestion of safeguarding referrals has been concocted by TRAs to try to frighten the [parents of] recipients of letters into supporting whatever nonsense they’re cooking up rather than engaging honestly, openly & fully with the new services. You know, the new services necessary for the very survival of this population 🤦‍♀️

It is a safeguarding issue though, isn’t it? The parents who want what is best for their child will be the ones who comply with the NHS - getting proper face to face assessments and taking them up on their recommended treatments. Those who insist on going ahead with harmful treatment for their kids regardless, will need to work with social services and get to the bottom of why they are doing it and be supported to make better choices as parents.

I don’t think safeguarding referrals are a ‘threat’, otherwise it would be some kind of punishment to have them involved. Social services exist to help.

Some of those comments on the reditt thread are very worrying

It's Pink News reporting the Good Law, Project, so you know, a bushel of salt is advised:

https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/05/06/nhs-trans-healthcare-detransition/

I have been watching Chris Elston in Australia and the watching the swerves activists and trans people have repeated when he mentions Cass. They all though follow a couple of tacks.

Firstly, the discounted studies.

Then that Cass is politically right wing and lacks the expertise.

It is very bizarre. They have been very quick to repeat falsehoods and I don’t believe any of them had read it for themselves. Only the ‘safe’ versions. It is horrific that none of them questioned. At all.

I will say I find it slightly strange that there's all this fuss and a big crowdfunder raking in - so far - over £8k, but nobody has produced a copy of the letter.

Seems odd.

Here's the reference to safeguarding. It's a couple of phrases that appear to be quoted without full context:

'At the assessment the providers have been asked to “advise” children, as per the recommendations of the Cass Review, not to take puberty blockers or gender-affirming hormones obtained through these routes without "appropriate care." However, the leaked document does not identify what "appropriate care" means but does advise against "unregulated" and "overseas" providers of care, which rules out the vast majority of private gender-affirming healthcare.

If a young trans person is then found to disregard this advice in a way that the provider considers "puts the child/young person at increased risk" then they are told to consider a safeguarding referral "in line with standard safeguarding approaches."

https://www.wearequeeraf.com/nhs-england-to-tell-transgender-children-to-medically-detransition-or-face-safeguarding-referrals/

Be good if someone could publish a copy of the letter (obviously with any personal info redacted) so we could see the actual text. Perhaps it can be FOIed?

My pro-gender American friends say that the Republicans are putting pressure on the NHS, the Swedish Karolinska Institute, the Finnish and Dutch researchers, and that Norway isn't the socialist Utopia we think it is. They've gone off the deep end and it's very disheartening.

Vipers, I had no idea you all were under the spell of Ron DeSantis. Peace be with you.

I don't know about FOI but I know some rote letters are so badly written that they can be intimidating.

A family member had a letter from a bank that kept referring to persistent debt and the need for payments. It was wrt a credit card for which all payments had been met and the final payment made last year.

It was so badly written, I understood his distress. I initially thought it was a scam until I googled and confirmed it was a correct phone number. It wasn't until 3rd paragraph of letter that it essentially said, "If you've completed your payments, you don't need to take further action" and then followed that with 3 more intimidating paragraphs.

Family member phoned the persistent debt number and the call answerer apologised and said lots of people had received them in error.

By and large, these 'helpful' letters seem to overlook that the estimated adult reading age in the UK is somewhere between that of a 9-12 year-old and that's before considering the impact of stress.

I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that helpful invitation from the NHS reads in the same way.

I agree. A few days ago I saw a message from a parent who had wanted to take up the offer of the referral to CAMHS as they were worried about their child's mental health and the possibility of them taking their life but they took advice from the Reddit experts and decided that DIYing with internet bought hormones would be the better option.

It's also not a safeguarding issue that I see social services taking on board or being able to enforce in any way if a family are overall loving, caring and a child's needs are otherwise met.

Agreed. There is a fine line on this one to getting the tone right, in a way that families and children will engage vs backing away. And obviously social workers have mostly been trained to adopt an affirming approach anyway, so it's not immediately clear how that would join up.

It would be good to see a copy of the letter.

Ultimately, it is a safeguarding issue if parents are actively seeking to give their children irrerversible medical interventions that don't have an evidence base - and social services would be the right pathway to supporting the whole family. The devil is in the detail on how that has been worded versus how it has been received (by the parents) and/or spun (by the wording in the crowdfunder).

The letter sent to the patients doesn't mention safeguarding and a copy can be seen on this Reddit thread

"Just had this come through the post. Is this what was being discussed after the Cass Review? I'm not even from the East Midlands, why is it from there? What if I'm already on the waiting list for CAMHS?"

Safeguarding is only mentioned in the guidance sent to practitioners, a portion of that guidance is in this link that I posted earlier

https://diva-magazine.com/2024/05/02/nhs-trans-private-healthcare/

@FlakyPoet so does that mean that parents who decide not to vaccinate their child will then also have to work with social services since they're also going against medical advice? Who refuse blood transfusions or abortion or the contraceptive pill due to religious beliefs? There's lots of people out there who make medical decisions for their kids that I wouldn't necessarily make for mine, but that's their call as the parent to make and it certainly doesn't mean they don't care or don't want what is best for their child.

"The parents who want what is best for their child will be the ones who comply with the NHS". I think that's really unfair to say. There's every possibility that for some young people this will be very difficult and distressing to engage with and some parents may feel its better not to take part due to that. It's not that they don't care about their child, they're doing what they think is in their child's best medical interests in their child's individual circumstances. Calling that a safeguarding concern is incorrect and would place undue (and unprecedented) pressure on an already beleagured service and social workers away from children who urgently need support with more kids than ever going into care. I agree that if a child is accessing unregulated medication that's a worry, but I'm not sure social services are the right people for that - it's a medical issue it should be dealt with by medical professionals. I agree a lot is going to weigh on the wording of the letter since this will naturally be highly distressing and worrying for a lot of children and their families. @FlakyPoet I work very closely with social services. I think two things can be true at once - they are there to help and for many their presence is worrisome and they will struggle to engage. For care experienced trans young people in particular, they may not be able to accept the information from a social worker.

Thank you. The distortion, omissions and hyperbole make me very angry.

It's children's health, not some stupid game!

I think the problem with this is until Cass, the NHS recommended treatments were those harmful unevidenced ones.

In some countries, it is parents resisting these treatments that are threatened with social services and child removal.

I understand the concern about folk accessing private or even black market "treatment" but I'm not sure threatening them with SS is the answer.

@Lavender14 it is standard practice to make a social services referral for all sort of things. They can assess the situation in case any intervention is required. It’s better to be upfront and say that a social services referral may be made.

does that mean that parents who decide not to vaccinate their child will then also have to work with social services since they're also going against medical advice?

There is a world between not vaccinating a child and actively going to the black market for non-prescribed drugs with known harmful and irreversible side-effects for your child.