Anne health Susie Greens new clinic

[Hoardasurass]

So not happy with the puberty blockers ban in the UK and frustrated by Wes Streeting closing her planned loophole she found a new one and has been arranging for parents to take their kids abroad to get prescriptions of puberty blockers injections and testosterone for under 16s. The government has said its going to stop the practice but hasn't said how.

Gift token for the telegraph article

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/d5a10834b446c428

Detransitioners = a v small proportion of people who transition. Therefore (that’s why…) no one actually ever uses statistics when they cite detransitioners as a reason to deny care to the majority of trans people who will not detransition.

Your second point is quite eye opening. The failure of the NHS to recognise the capacity of women to decide if and then they want to be capable of becoming pregnant is atrociously sexist that has no role in a public health system. That you think it is reasonable should not surprise me.

Detransitioners = a v small proportion of people who transition.

How do you know? The lack of stats is in large part due to the Tavistock etc not doing any long range follow ups. There's even less incentive for long range studies in the privatised American system.

Now I know you pay close attention to the trans community, because you're always telling us to listen to them. You know how detransitioners are viewed in that world, how they're talked about, how they're shunned. It's quite an eye opener when you've been told that trans spaces are totally inclusive and supportive.

I suggest that you need detransitioners to be insignificant in numbers, because you regard them as morally insignificant.

The lack of record keeping and follow up means that there are no statistics.

Children were let down appallingly.

Dysphoria will have a starting point and being told you are wrong and in the wrong body because you like a colour, a toy, a length of hair is not going to help you appreciate that you are a healthy individual with your own characteristics.
It's fine to be gay, to be tall/short, love/hate dolls or trains or whatever.
These children are precious little people being messed about with to suit those who want Dysphoria to be called gender.

For so-called trans kids who are not affirmed and are allowed to go through puberty 80% will naturally resolve their body dismorphia and with talking and group therapy for the underlying causes of their body dismorphia those numbers increases to 95-98%.
This was the case for mine and all the other cohorts before affirmation therapy and the indoctrination of children at school, on tv, the media and online.
Trans kids are a self perpetuating fallacy created by gender idealogs to explain away the adult AGPs and push trans ideology.
Children with body dismorphia exist they're just not trans, they're proto gays/lesbians, autistic and/or abuse/trauma survivors.
I know this because I was one of those abused autistic kids but thankfully in my day noone affirmed me and watchful waiting was all that was offered so I got the therapy I needed. People pushing the trans kids fallacy are harming those children by denighing them the help they truly need

Sorry you're wrong the reason noone has stats on detransitioners is because noone kept records or did follow up and worst of all anyone who does detrans is immediately pilloried and attacked by the trans community as apostates

And yet here you are, telling us that trans kids are trans kids.

Yet still not explaining how a small child would know they are ‘trans’.

Who is observing these kids and determining they are trans?

Once a person is old enough to experience sexual desire then of course they can know they are gay. That doesn't happen at 7 years old though. As legal childhood doesn't end until age 18 and pretty much all humans go through puberty and start feeling sexual desires at younger than that, then obviously every gay adult was once a gay child. But pre-puberty they are all just children. There's no such thing as a gay 5 year old. Any 5 year old behaviour labelled as "gay" is basically someone either being sexist about gendered behaviour or worryingly sexualising of a child's innocent actions.

But that is a ridiculous and strawman comparison. A trans child can only exist by first lying to a child, bringing them up in a sexist way, telling them that boys like football and engines and dark clothing and getting muddy, and girls like unicorns and ponies and pastel colours and creative arts and pretty decorations, and then making sure they know that if what they like doesn't match the shape of their body then it's the shape of their body that is wrong. Creating this conviction in a child does not happen naturally or by accident. Making it happen is child abuse. It's an oversimplification to say that trans children don't exist. They don't exist until a child who should have been brought up free to be themselves, free from sexism, is forced into it. They weren't born trans, they were pushed into trans because their parents prefer to mould their child to a stereotype in one direction of the pendulum swing or the other. Don't dare pretend that sexism isn't out there. Every day on this and other parenting sites, pregnant women are posting their ultrasound results and getting excited as they find out whether to paint the nursery pink or blue, whether to buy a buggy and car seat travel system in sparkly rainbow style or rugged all-terrain camouflage. It's all-pervasive.

I find it interesting that, as a daughter of parents that were born in the 1920s / 1930s, I was brought up to understand I could be anything I wanted to be - and that being female should not be a barrier to anything. No pressure to conform to gender stereotypes, in fact we were all (several daughters) encouraged to be independent and gender non conforming.

Cite your figures?

It’s been a while but as far as I remember those figures relate to an incredibly broad cohort of gender non-conforming children.

Not specifically children with severe and persistent gender dysphoria.

Your second point is quite eye opening. The failure of the NHS to recognise the capacity of women to decide if and then they want to be capable of becoming pregnant is atrociously sexist that has no role in a public health system. That you think it is reasonable should not surprise me.

I imagine you are not of the sex that would ever have an issue with the ‘biological clock’ and the consequences of it suddenly kicking at an apparently random part if your life. The sudden and overwhelming urge of a woman to have a baby after spending years I sharing they didn’t want one is well documented.

While frustrating for some, it is well founded and well intentioned.

Re detransitioners, you have no idea how many there are. It is clear that there are numbers of them and as with any other medical harm, every single case should be treated seriously and fully investigated to identify the failings that led to it and robust measures put in place to prevent any more cases.

The NHS mistakenly removing body parts and causing sterility at a young age (under 30) should never happen and must be stopped. I think that during the course of investigations, the NHS will find that there is no justification for these procedures. I’m guessing that’s what you’re afraid of.

There is no way to diagnose severe and persistent gender dysphoria in children and distinguish it from other co-morbidities and social influences, and no evidence that surgery and/or hormone treatment improve health and well being.

On the other hand there is evidence that these treatments cause harm.

It’s as though a pathology was created in the last few decades to service the needs of the people who want to provide the ‘cure’.

It’s been a while but as far as I remember those figures relate to an incredibly broad cohort of gender non-conforming children.

Not specifically children with severe and persistent gender dysphoria.

The Tavistock and other doctors giving puberty blockers and x sex hormones to children and vulnerable people were not exercising those selection criteria though. They relied on self reporting and often made a diagnosis of ‘trans’ within the first few meetings.

They clearly got it badly wrong in at least one high profile case and actually Keira DID fulfil your criteria above. Given the fallout she experienced, there will be more that haven’t dared say anything yet.

True. I don’t understand how they get away with inflicting unnecessary drugs and surgery on healthy children.

This Keira Bell made the long term decisions she made when she was an adult, not a child. One - or a small minority - who experience regret is not a reason to deny treatment to the majority who do not.

Also, if puberty blockers were as routinely or easily accessed at the Tavistock then their numbers would have been considerably higher. The fact that something like 5% on the Tavistock books were prescribed puberty blockers suggests their threshold for prescribing was pretty high.

Yes there is. And no one on this thread has advocated surgery for kids.

But there certainly is evidence that puberty blockers can improve outcomes for some trans kids.

Sorry but if your starting point is that we can’t trust a 29 year old woman to decide she does not want children, is settled in that view, and is prepared to take an informed decision to ensure that she cannot become pregnant (insofar as it can be guaranteed at least), fully aware of the risk that she may later regret that decision, then we are so far apart on the rights of bodily autonomy that people should enjoy that there’s no point really in discussing this further.

All medical procedures carry risks of regret later on. Adults take medical decisions based on that. Most women would not seek a sterilisation at a young age precisely because they recognise that potential for regret. But those who wish to decide what happens to their own body, fully recognising the risk of later regret, should not be prevented from making that decision by doctors or a state who determines that preserving, against their will, their capacity to have babies is more important than allowing them to control their own fertility.

No where is the overlap between transphobia and the attack on womens bodily autonomy more evident than in this post.

Incidentally your irrelevant snipe about my sex is incorrect. I am a woman who knew early on that while I may want to have a family, I did not feel a need for some genetic connection to my child. That is partly a product of knowing from an early age that if I ever was to have a child with a partner, at least one of us would not have that genetic link.

I never had to make decisions about removing my fertility - avoiding conception wasn’t an issue for me, and I never had to deal with health issues like severe endometriosis that could be improved by a hysterectomy. But if I had, the idea that at 25 I lacked the capacity to make that decision is paternalistic nonsense that prizes women’s fertility over their autonomy.

Of course at 25 I could not guarantee that I wouldn’t change my mind in the future. But I had capacity to take a decision that the benefits of sterilisation would outweigh that risk.

Can you post a link to that evidence?

Keira Bell was given puberty blockers at 16 and testosterone at 17. Legally, she was still a child.

All I have said is that we know that many trans adults describe knowing they were trans as a child.

We know that's what they say. But I'm sure you're as aware as the rest of us that backstories can be embroidered or even simply invented. We don't know if they really knew or believed that as children, since we can't really know what's going on inside their heads.

But let's assume for a moment that those claims are true.

A trans adult says they knew they were trans as a child. They grew up and became a trans adult.

Are we also to assume that the converse is true? That every child who "knows" they are trans will grow up to be a trans adult? Or will it turn out to be just a phase or social contagion for many of them? After all, there are many more trans children, proportionally, than there are trans adults. If we are to assume that it's not just a phase or social contagion, why aren't there many more trans adults coming out later in life and saying how they knew they were trans all along?

How do you explain the high numbers of trans-identifying girls compared to boys, particularly as teenagers? If these girls are 'really trans' (whatever that means, since I think we still don't have a definition), where are all the middle-aged women coming out as trans who felt the same as these girls when they were teenagers?

I'm not referring to puberty blockers. They did not carry the long term changes she regretted. It was the cross-sex hormones and top surgery that did that.

The top surgery was indisputably done when she was an adult.

As I've said, I would not object to CSH not being prescribed until 18, though of course it is important to know that from the perspective of UK law, for consent to medical procedures, 16 is the age at which anyone is presumed to have capacity to consent.

But in any event, given we are taking about puberty blockers, they did not cause the issues that KB regretted.

Puberty blockers are not a pause button, especially not when given later in puberty. They retard development. There's no guarantee development will continue as normal without medical intervention if you stop taking them.

No, you don’t understand. Whatever diagnostic criteria the Tavistock used for Keira failed. Patients shouldn’t making ‘decisions’ ti have elective amputation surgery and heavy medication and being expected to take full responsibility for the consequences of those decisions. 18 year olds absolutely should not be making decisions about elective amputation surgery and medication likely to make them infertile. We know this, the NHS knows this.

Keira suffered serious medical harm at the hands of the NHS. The standard procedure is to review how that happened and out robust steps in place to prevent it happening again.

It doesn’t matter if only 5% of kids on the Tavistock books were prescribed puberty blockers if they haven’t got robust procedures that prevent unnecessary harm to ANYONE through misprescribed surgery and drugs.

One - or a small minority - who experience regret is not a reason to deny treatment to the majority who do not.. It absolutely is a good reason to deny ‘treatment’ to others - it means the diagnosis and assessment is not good enough. There is no proven harm from doing nothing.

Of course at 25 I could not guarantee that I wouldn’t change my mind in the future.

Exactly. By the power of observation, medical professionals obviously looked at the reactions of women who made irreversible decisions about their future fertility and how they felt when the biological clock started ticking loudly. Lots of women think they know they don’t want kids until they suddenly do - desperately.

But I had capacity to take a decision that the benefits of sterilisation would outweigh that risk.

Not quite. You thought you had the capacity but only time would tell if you got it right. Thankfully it sounds like you did but many women have got it wrong.
Funnily enough, the NHS doesn’t want to sterilise women if there is even a tiny risk that they’ll regret it.