“Gender dysphoria in adolescence: examining the rapid-onset hypothesis” (‘Neuropsychiatrie’ [July 2024])

[NitroNine]

I have searched AND looked back through the last dozen pages & can’t see a thread on this; huge apologies if I somehow missed it!

Last month a group of Austrian psychiatrists published a paper about ROGD, saying that dismissing Littman’s theory (& her 2018 article) as transphobic is failing children & young people. They are absolutely right that the research needs doing - it should already have been done for goodness sake! - so that young people & their families can be certain they are receiving the best care possible.

The fact people working in the field are picking this up again is incredible. To be able to change the model of care, Littman’s theory must proven & evidenced to the highest standard - the call to do the research, for all it is beautifully balanced & measured, is a call to facilitate these changes.

Thanks for that. The worry is that while they're fine-tuning their research more and more are getting sucked into gender ideology. It's clear from the threads on parenting LGBT on Mumsnet that affirming gender identity is still the recognised pathway. It's terrifying.

It's painful watching doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists and the rest of the professions suddenly going "Oh dear, have we missed something? Was telling children their bodies are wrong but a sex change will fix them not such a good idea? Maybe we should take another look at this?"

Sorry for the cynicism - it is another positive but as @Lovelyview points out, it's too late for the tens of thousands of children and their families caught up in all this mess.

I totally agree that it's painful to see it unfold but on balance, this kind of article is really encouraging.

It allows clinicians who have previously embraced the full TWAW approach to medical treatment an opportunity to reverse ferret without needing to overtly state that they are doing so. Obviously it would be much better for everyone if GPs, psychologists and others had the confidence to make a clear statement that they realised they were wrong. But we're not at that tipping point... yet.

This article is similar to the Cass Report in that it embraces gender identity as fact (first highlight in screenshot below) but it makes the clear point that nobody should be having medical interventions where a) there is uncertainty about the root cause of that person's distress (second highlight) and b) there is a lack of supporting evidence regarding treatment.

This type of article offers the golden bridge that will bring more and more people in the medical profession on to the side of common sense. It's very accessible to anyone yet to even set foot on the bridge.

For me, the key threshold is whether someone uses the phrase "trans children" or not. If they do that, they are still too far on the other side of the bridge to be of any benefit to the children who are impacted by ROGD. I'm keeping a keen eye on Wes Streeting in this regard as his journey has been really interesting: 1) an overt u-turn and clear statement that he no longer believes TWAW 2) backing Cass in parliament in opposition, while still talking about "trans children" 3) commissioning the official governmental deep dive in to false claims (by Jolyon Maughan amongst others) that suicide rates have gone up since GIDS stopped taking referrals, after becoming Health Secretary 4) maintaining and then extending the puberty blocker ban (to plug the Northern Ireland loophole).

I would like to hope that I never hear him say "trans children" again. I would also like to hope that he's able to pass on pearls of wisdom to other colleagues, such as Bridget Phillipson and Lisa Nandy. He's quite the case study in to how someone can go from active hostility and trans activism (his involvement in the witch hunts via the Facebook group of MPs who targeted women like Rosie Duffield) to a realisation of the harm that is being done to individuals and society because of the lack of common sense and appropriate clinical approaches in the medical profession.

I’m pleased for Littman, her work deserves to be recognised

I'm glad this is being picked up. Placemarking to come back to

@BonfireLady thank you! I knew there was something in how it was written that was signalling the ship was coming about without overtly stating it; & it was the absence of the “trans child[ren]”!

It is frustrating & saddening & maddening how slowly the ship turns, especially when compared to going full steam ahead at TRA lunacy. But it is turning; & so is the tide - the 2 together will, we must hope, bring the vast majority to safe harbour.

In the world of autism advocacy, there has been a lot of teeth gnashing and aggression about the use of 'identity first' versus 'person first' language (e.g. autistic person or person with autism). Some people get very upset when the 'wrong' one is used.

Lots of people approach the 'trans' label in a similar way. Therefore, I am not convinced that the use of 'trans child' is a clear cut identifier of someone's positioning.

So what would you suggest? Child who has chosen a transgender identity?

I suppose it's lazy thinking. There's no doubt adult transactivists and groups are highly invested in the idea of the trans child being a thing for a variety of reasons (some of which are worrying)
However, challenging the misguided concept is really helpful as it allows the discussions about adult / social media /peer influence - especially when younger children are involved.

I see what you're saying but for me, it's more fundamental than the autism "identity first" issue. I don't intend to spend my time worrying about whether someone is an autistic person or a person with autism. Identity politics within autism groups is one of the reasons I no longer use any of the support groups as a parent of an autistic child. The biggest reason is the unquestioning adoption of gender identity as fact.

However, the difference between a "trans child" and a "trans-identifying child" is significant.

The former is a done deal: if the child is already described as "trans" this changes the lens through which they can be supported by professionals to unpick and address their (gender dysphoria) distress.

The latter is much more open, whilst acknowledging that this is how the child currently sees themselves. A useful phrase that has been used as an alternative is "gender questioning child".

I like the way that David Bell explains why "trans child" or "transgender child" are unhelpful descriptions (screenshots below).

@NitroNine I see it the same way as you describe. The lack of this phrase is the key point. That's why the Cass Report and draft Gender Questioning Children guidance for schools were complementary documents, even though the Cass Report is predicated on the belief that we all have a gender identity and the draft Gender Questioning Children guidance states that this belief is contested/not held by all.

Sitting through the kcsie updates today at school training day it was highlighted that children who are "gay, lesbian, bi or trans" has now become "gay, lesbian bi or gender questioning."

Certainly an improvement.

Cass wasn't mentioned unfortunately but the review was.

I felt a weight had lifted actually, hearing that in an educational setting.

Two simple words replacing trans has significant consequences across the whole school setting and curriculum.

That sounds very positive @WarriorN

Have you seen this thread on the KCSIE guidance?

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5156187-keeping-children-safe-in-education-update-020924

One question re your experience: did they explain in the training that LGB had been separated from T (with T being re-written as "gender questioning")? This is important because LGB isn't a safeguarding issue, whereas a child who is gender questioning could be, owing to the wider vulnerabilities that it talks about in para 206.

TBF my question probably belongs on the linked thread, rather than here, but it would be great to get an understanding of how it's being delivered IRL.

No they didn't today - it was a very different staff meeting to what we'd usually have (can't explain more). It was quite brief, outlining the key updates, and most word for word.

We also now have a company come into deliver safeguarding training as the LA's stuff went downhill following the departure of a really good trainer. i suspect it is due to happen during another staff meeting (I have looked at all their stuff and they don't seem captured) and I expect that will have more detail.