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

Sorry but if your starting point is that we can’t trust a 29 year old woman to decide she does not want children, etc

It’s not MY starting point - it’s the starting point of the NHS based on treatment of millions of women.

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

Are you genuinely suggesting that it’s ‘transphobic’ not to allow an 18 year old ‘bodily autonomy’ to sterilise themselves and have healthy body parts amputated for no medical reason and entirely shaky mental health grounds? And to allow other 18 year olds full bodily autonomy for other entirely spurious medical procedures?

I’m guessing you haven’t met many 18 year olds then.

Sorry but if your starting point is that we can’t trust a 29 year old woman to decide she does not want children, etc

It’s not MY starting point - it’s the starting point of the NHS based on treatment of millions of women.

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

Are you genuinely suggesting that it’s ‘transphobic’ not to allow an 18 year old ‘bodily autonomy’ to sterilise themselves and have healthy body parts amputated for no medical reason and entirely shaky mental health grounds? And to allow other 18 year olds full bodily autonomy for other entirely spurious medical procedures?

I’m guessing you haven’t met many 18 year olds then.

Oops double posted - not sure how that happened. I guess I feel extra strongly that kids/young people shouldn’t be blamed for medical harm at the hands of doctors who should know better.

Oops double posted - not sure how that happened. I guess I feel extra strongly that kids/young people shouldn’t be blamed for medical harm at the hands of doctors who should know better.

So you keep saying... 😁

No, I don't think every child who thinks they are trans will necessarily turn out to be trans as adults, which is why I don't support irreversible transition before full medical competence.

But yes, I think the vast majority of children who experience gender dysphoria persistently through puberty will still be trans as adults.

This is just not how medical decisions are made in any field.

If your position is really that if even a single patient regrets a medical decision, that medical decision is one that no other patient should be allowed to make, then that is simple nonsense.

But I suspect that's not actually your position - because you only seem to apply this principle to women's right to decide on their own fertility, and trans people, including trans adults.

You seem confused by the idea of capacity to consent. In no area should capacity to consent be contingent on a guarantee that you will not, ever, regret the decision you are making.

The only test ought to be whether someone has the mental capacity to understand what a procedure is, what the risk are (including the risk of future regret) and can take a fully informed decision.

If I decided at 35 that I did want children, that does not render my 25 year old self incapable of consenting to a sterilisation in full recognition that I may later regret that decision. Its startling how close your rhetoric on capacity to consent to decisions you may later regret is that of anti-abortion activists who insist that the potential for a woman to regret an abortion is a reason to deny all women reproductive freedom.

You think the NHS is the arbiter and exemplar of upholding bodily autonomy of women?

There is a very real and qualitative difference between being gay ( same sex attracted) and 'being trans'.

That difference lies in the fact that everyone is either male or female and that nobody can actually change sex. People who are same sex attracted are not making impossible claims. They are simply stating that they are attracted to members of their own sex.

'Trans' people remain either male or female/the sex that they are, but they may choose to dress or present in a manner typically associated with the opposite sex ( or they may not)"Trans' is simply a framing device for those that want to express cross sex roles, performances or presentations. It does not make a man a woman, or a male person into a female person.

We have medical ethics for a reason..........to stop the free for all, wild west of american style pharmacology.

If abortion were likely to lead to infertility or osteoporosis, or impact brain development, it’s likely that the rules would be different.

All of that could be claimed about gay people when the concept of homosexuality as an orientation and identity emerged in the late 19th C. Prior to that, homosexuality was seen as an act, and the emerging thinking was essentially a 'framing' around that act. To some extent that distinction is still relevant - the term MSM is used to describe men who have sex with men but don't identify as gay or bi, for example.

So something being a 'framing' for a state of being is not a reason it cannot be understood at an early age. You're right that the framing of transgender is relatively new, and that framing gives clarity to the feelings of trans people that previous generations did not always have; just as the emergence of gay and lesbian identities have come to help gay and lesbian kids to understand what it is they are experiencing, and so the age at which we see people coming out as gay or bi has tended to fall as a result.

As with trans kids, this gave rise to a moral panic that kids were being indoctrinated to become gay, ignoring the much more obvious point that kids who were always gay felt more comfortable being openly themselves in a society that had the right framing and social conditions around it.

What? You think that if abortion led to infertility, that would be grounds for denying women under 30 - who is fully aware of that risk and is willing to take it - access to an abortion?

And, of course, abortion has legal limits for a reason of ethics.

All I have said is that we know that many trans adults describe knowing they were trans as a child.
The only blanket statements here are people erroneously claiming that there are no trans children.

There are no trans children. These stories are invented by adult cross-dressers & AGPs to justify their kink. A very common story is of wearing their sister's or mother's knickers because they are "trans" but it's definitely not a sexual thing of course.

Of course abortion is a perpetually contentious issue for a multitude of reasons, even if we do have fairly settled laws in the U.K.

There is always a risk with all forms of surgery and you have to consent to these possible risks beforehand. Though infertility is not a major or guaranteed risk of early stage abortion at all.

The defining factor seems to be whether someone makes 'an identity' out of something. The advent of identity politics has seen people feel they have to buy into a whole suit of opinions or feelings about all sorts of things and try to solidy an identity and make it a fixed feature. Then join forces with an identity community or family.

Identity, though is not a fixed thing. It is a central integrating force but one which is fluid and changes with time and experience. Bringing new components in, and releasing others

The only fixed reference points are: male or female: place of birth: parents. These are the only things that you cannot change or which do not morph over time. All else is social/emotional.

There are lots of gay people who do not 'identify as' gay. They simply are, and all it says about them is that they have a strong tendency only to be attracted to people of the same sex. It says nothing else about them or about their views on anything.

Agree fully.

Which is why the approach advocated here that women under 30 should be denied a sterilisation which is clinically indicated for the desired outcome (i.e. permanent contraception that does not come with the issues associated with abstinence, IUDs, pharmacological contraception or condoms), is actually against medical ethics.

Medical ethics prize bodily autonomy. The clinician's role is to determine if a treatment is clinically indicated, and whether capacity exists or not. And when it comes to capacity, 'a person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because [s]he makes an unwise decision'.

Do you think Stephen Whittle also invented knowing he was trans as a kid because of a 'kink'?

That doesn't address the question.

Yes, of course you have to have capacity to consent to any medical decision. In the case of sterilisation, those risks include the risk that the patient may change their mind about not wanting children (or not wanting more children if they already have children).

Provided that someone has the capacity to understand that that is a risk, they should not be denied treatment that is otherwise clinically indicated.

You might have missed my question:

Are you genuinely suggesting that it’s ‘transphobic’ not to allow an 18 year old ‘bodily autonomy’ to sterilise themselves and have healthy body parts amputated for no medical reason and entirely shaky mental health grounds? And to allow other 18 year olds full bodily autonomy for other entirely spurious medical procedures?

Medical ethics are shaped by consensual and shared societal codes about what is right or wrong. By that which can be seen as crossing a line and making oneself a god. That is why such issues are so fraught. Because at heart we know that human beings are flawed and make decisions for all sorts of reasons, not all of which have been properly thought through, and yet which have profound human implications not just for the individual, but also for society.

Medical ethics does not prize 'bodily autonomy'. I'd say that is a very individuated, self focused take on it. Medical ethics starts with the assumption that not everything is about us and our individual foibles or desires. That we also have a shared responsibility to the health and maintenance of the group in the long term.

As I suggest, the U.S is very Wild West in this respect, in certain ways, in that people are treated as pharmalogical customers who can make demands on health professionals about their preferences and desires. This is rooted, I feel, in a combination of late stage american capitalism and the cult of the individual.

Which is where I also see the whole trans movement being located. It really is an aptheosis of all things American. Be whoever you want to be; your best self; your true self; all that self referential stuff. and of course, in this sort of culture trans surgeries are re-framed as being 'health care'. When really it is not about bodily health or integrity....it is about knowingly damaging a functional and healthy body - in pursuit of the impossible. And doing this to children, too.

Access to abortion is highly regulated and scrutinised to ensure the balance between enduring access to those who need it while protecting life. There is generally a verifiable medical reason to allow it.

Elective sterilisation is viewed differently to medical sterilisation afaik but the decisions are made with the ‘first to no harm’ angle. Elective amputation and x sex hormones is the polar opposite - ‘cause harm first and see if it helps’.

You still haven’t explained why you think it is ok to allow 18 yr olds to elect to have amputation surgery or take drugs likely to sterilise them with no observable clinical reason, no proven improvement in long term outcome, the only change guaranteed is a decline in health and there’s a reasonable risk of total regret?

Theer are no clinical indications for trans surgeries. We don't remove people's body parts because they feel traumatised by them. We offer them counselling and therapy. It would be highly unethical to remove a functional body part.

This is on the NHS, of course. The NHS should not be performing such surgeries.There wil always be people who will perform surgeries for money, though,regardless of the ethics..which is why some prominent trans clinicians are not covered by insurance...the risk is entirely on the customer.