Health of transgender children tracked for years in major study

[Igneococcus]

I fear Prof Simonoff is showing some bias here
"The new study is being led by Professor Emily Simonoff, head of child and adolescent psychiatry at King’s College London, who said the UK is “taking the bull by the horns” and helping to build an evidence-base on important questions about gender care.
"A lack of evidence base allows toxic views [about transgender issues] to be more rampant and more free flowing. We’re here to provide an evidence base to guide greater knowledge about outcomes for children and young people and what interventions seem to be most helpful for them,” said Simonoff
"
https://www.thetimes.com/article/711e767a-ef32-4c60-a7f5-f1092ab15f66?shareToken=84c2203a6bd8b4f6090bfcb7ea3bd533

Tbf, I doubt that would be assessed as plain English. I don’t think the original is but your version is more complex.

Not my area, but I would probably have opted for “the sex you were born” or something similar.

I don't know why it can't just be 'their sex'. It's still their sex now, no matter their gender. Suggesting it 'was' the sex they were given at birth or at any other time suggests that it can change. It's just 'their sex' full stop.

Of course it should be ‘sex’. The fact it isn’t shows the whole exercise is one of ideology not medicine.

I'm not budging on this. We need to fight against language which somehow implies that sex is just an arbitrary thing that you get given at birth and you can change later on. It absolutely is "the sex that we acquire at conception" and nothing can ever change it. Find more elegant and direct wording to express that if you want to, but that's what it's got to say.

I disagree with “the sex that we acquire at conception”. It must just be “sex”

Yep. No life exists prior to conception, therefore there is nothing to 'acquire' a sex.

I can’t follow if PP are hung up on the plain English summary or the wider project.

Plain summaries are supposed to be suitable for adults with an average literacy level.

I think the term 'gender incongruence' arose from the WHO classification. It's a way of treating 'trans' as normal while at the same time allowing access to medical treatment.

"The shift in classification within ICD-11 is a significant step in depathologizing gender diversity, recognizing that being transgender or gender diverse is not a mental disorder."

IIRC Siminoff has funding for 2 years. That isn’t long term. The NHS have shedloads of long term data but the clinics won’t let researchers near it.

Wasn't the Cass review supposed to be the definitive, watertight takedown of all Gender Affirming Care for under-18's, and entirely beyond reproach?

Is it now flawed after all?

Classified in 'conditions related to sexual health' now.

Which is a bit mystifying.

Exclusions are paraphiliac disorders, which I presume is why some people are refused a GRC.

https://icd.who.int/browse/2025-01/mms/en#411470068

Isn’t this what the Tavistock was supposed to be doing before it accidentally ‘lost’ all the data? Possibly because it didn’t say what they wanted it to say?

I feel like a team who is prepared to harm children by giving them puberty blockers in the name of research may not be totally objective in assessing the outcomes of children caught in the ideology.

The fact that Cass talked about unscientific and hitherto undefined concepts like ‘gender identity’ and ‘transgender children’ doesn’t alter the fact that her investigation found no good quality evidence to support ‘transitioning’ children in any way. HTH.

Three things about Cass:

1. It was flawed in that it started from the basis of trans being a real thing.

2. It was an extensive review of existing evidence. This found that there was a lack of evidence base for treatment.

3. in response to 2) it decided a trial of puberty blockers were required despite there being extensive evidence of harm and as a result of point 1) there was no independent assessment of whether trans was a real thing for children.

Sexual health conditions in toddlers?

Yes. So that trans-identifying people could avoid the 'stigma' which would be attached to 'gender incongruence' if it remained as a mental health condition, it was reclassified as a sexual health condition. But they still include 'gender incongruence of childhood', which applies to pre-pubescent children, which presumably includes toddlers (and babies if you're a follower of Diane Ehrensaft).

Gender incongruence and transgender health in the ICD

ICD-11 has redefined gender identity-related health, replacing outdated diagnostic categories like ICD-10’s “transsexualism” and “gender identity disorder of children” with “gender incongruence of adolescence and adulthood” and “gender incongruence of childhood” respectively. Gender incongruence has been moved out of the “Mental and behavioural disorders” chapter and into the new “Conditions related to sexual health” chapter. This reflects current knowledge that trans-related and gender diverse identities are not conditions of mental ill-health, and that classifying them as such can cause enormous stigma.

Cass included the notion that some children may indeed “be trans,” hence the study suggestion.

The only “trans children” are those that adults have let safety be a second thought for.

Pathways is funded until 2031 according to the NIHR link.

I agree that sex is not something you can opt in or out of, but to include the very small minority of babies born where their sex is not clear, I would say that sex assigned at birth is the probably best option.

The very small minority of babies born where their sex is not clear undergo further testing to identify their sex. We are talking about the UK not third world areas without access to obstetric care. Sex is never ‘assigned at birth’.

most nhs trusts use nipt testing now where this would be identified in ten first trimester.

sex is observed, but is done so in the absence of these tests these days.

To be honest I think this boils down to - don't let psychiatrists play around with hormones or surgery. It didn't go well with lobotomies (which at least started when there were no antipsychotic drugs, but went on for far too long), it didn't go well with limb amputation for body dysmorphia & chemical castration of paedophils is of limited use.
A natural history study - fine. Do that first. There is no justification for a clinical trial when they haven't even defined the clinical condition and so far most children simply grow out of gender questioning behaviours.

Would that not also be a bias? Or is bias ok as long as it agrees with your own bias?

I couldn't agree more.
As a mother I feel completely let down by all the so called experts that are supposed to be protecting and helping our children, instead of going against all common sense and correct scientific practice and making parents out to be the villains.
I have no science or articles to quote to back my position, but I feel like the world has gone mad and common sense is a relic of the past.