Why the NHS puberty blocker trial is appalling

[Soontobe60]

Stella O’Malley from Genspect telling it like it is - that a state endorsed trial of puberty blockers for gender dysphoric children should NOT go ahead.
the NHS are not walking into this nightmare blindly - there are enough experts out there telling them what will happen happen to these children if they’re given these life changing drugs.
https://x.com/genspect/status/1989896741358113127?s=61&t=gKvvk-rWmOlYFGMZN8QVvQ

I just don't understand how it is not a serious violation of medical ethics for a parent to consent to the sterilisation of their child UNLESS the child would with 100% certainty die without treatment (e.g. lifesaving cancer treatment).

They are relying on the parents being abusive because consenting to allow doctors to sterilise your child is an abuse. There is enough information out there now that parents have no excuse not to know that this whole thing is a farce. I feel sorry for parents whose children are sucked into this mania but ffs find another way.

I agree completely.

No adult under 25 or 30 can consent to sterility, and even then perhaps only hafter having several children. No adult at all can consent to genital mutilation or breast amputation or an early menopause or a loss of bone density.

Unless, of course, the condition was life threatening in a way that has nothing to do with alleged suicide risks.

The suicide threats prove infinitely less ability to consent than more balanced people.

Also no child or adult can consent unless they understand that the vast majority of people are sex realists, who do not date outside of their sexual orientation, and even within their sexual orientation they only date manly men or femine women (or indeed, in the case of some lesbians, masculine women who are not overly masculinized by use of testosterone). They need to know that they will never be able to pass with people who are close to them (and if they somehow did the entire relationship would be a lie, and possibly rape as well, if it involved intercourse) They will never gain real benefit from tricking strangers and they will never be welcome in opposite sex book groups let alone toilets or refuges.

And consenting after all that proves no rational thought process.

Those given PBs so they don't go through puberty can never ever go through puberty so will never be able to have an orgasm or indeed may never have the sexual desire to want to date people in any case.

Which is why we are seeing so many TQ organisations pushing the normalisation of asexuality:

https://www.lgbthero.org.uk/what-is-asexuality

Seriously, this is just mad.

Apart from anything else, what bloody teenager wouldn't want to change most of their body.

They're being asked if it was possible to change it, would you?

It's so broad and nebulous as to be utterly meaningless. You can't change your penis, can you??

You can cut it off, yes, you can't change it.

I mean come on. Face? Weight? Stature?

What possible conclusions can be drawn from the number of ticks next to each one of those?

This is being run by transactivists, from start to finish. The over significance on everything sexual should be the first clue.

I thought trans children knew when they were two. So what's it got to do with sexuality?

If there isn't a question that says do you prefer playing with dolls or dinosaurs, I bet they wanted one.

Exactly. Thoughtless throw away comments that the speaker doesn’t give a second thought to but which can stay forever in the mind of the hearer.

Asking a twelve year old these questions, in a clinical setting:

a) How happy are you with your breasts?
b) Would you want to change your breasts if it were possible through medical or surgical treatment?

a) How happy are you with your clitoris?
b) Would you want to change your clitoris if it were possible through medical or surgical treatment?

a) How happy are you with your ovaries?
b) Would you want to change your ovaries if it were possible through medical or surgical treatment?

a) How happy are you with your vagina?
b) Would you want to change your vagina if it were possible through medical or surgical treatment?

Amounts to abuse, imo.

https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/policies-standards-legislation/research-involving-children/

'Consent for research

In the absence of law relating specifically to research, it is commonly assumed that the principle of 'Gillick competence' can be applied not only to consent for treatment, but also to consent for research.
A child / young person's right to give consent is dependent upon their capacity to understand the specific circumstances and details of the research being proposed, which in turn will relate to the complexity of the research itself.
Children and young people's; competence may well be reflected in their ability or otherwise to understand and assess risk.
Competence to understand will be heavily influenced by how the information is presented to the child or young person, and the language used. You must ensure that you maximise a child / young person's chances of understanding what is involved in your study. '

Helen Joyce has been on GB News this morning.

I am disappointed to not find a clip to share.
She was excellent.

Gender incongruence

• can not be defined. Therefore they are punching clouds.

School / and ongoing
A child can not use the facilities other than for their natal sex so it's putting them on a conflicted path immediately.

Many other good points made.

They will likely have a social desire to date, they see others dating and know it is the normal route to very close companionship that most of us want, and a complete inability to have a "proper" relationship due to not being sexually functioning, or even (possibly) fully mentally developed, due to PBs. Terrible outcome

On one level that’s reassuring.

Nevertheless, how can a parent possibly make an informed consent to agreeing to all the known harms of endocrinologically disrupting normal puberty processes? When not even physicians agree what are the enduring impacts though there is a body of evidence pointing to concerning outcomes.

And what does parental consent look like?

Parent: so you really feel you were born in the wrong body? And no teacher or friend or being autistic or reading online LGBTQ++ influencers have influenced you in any way?
12 yr old child: no, I hate myself. I am not M/F.
Parent: okay then, I give my consent.

They might consent, but it will not be fully informed.

Those given PBs so they don't go through puberty can never ever go through puberty so will never be able to have an orgasm or indeed may never have the sexual desire to want to date people in any case.

Why would consenting to a life of asexuality for their child not be tantamount to abuse? This whole trial hinges on a parent not fully understanding the wider implications for their child IMO.

“Puberty suppressing hormones (medicines that pause puberty) may help some young people with gender incongruence explore their gender identity more comfortably without feeling rushed or distressed about their body changing.”

“However, doctors and researchers don’t yet know for sure what the benefits or risks of this treatment are. We don’t know whether improvements in emotions and well-being are due to puberty suppressing hormones or other care that young people receive for gender incongruence.”

a unique situation in medical ethics:

using a physical intervention with systemic consequences
to treat a psychological distress response
to a normal physical process.

Another thing - surely the kids need to understand that some people in society are genuinely transphobic, and the majority are transphobic according the the TRA definition.

Are these kids able to consent to being victims of transphobia (as defined by the TRAs who want to run the experiments on vulnerable kids) for the rest of their lives?

Are there any other medical pathways that lead people into an oppressed minority group who are widely hated by society (as defined by TRAs who want to run the experiments on vulnerable kids).

To be clear, I don't think that kids can consent, in part due to the reality of not being accepted in the new identity by most normal people who believe sex is real and matters.

If TRAs cared they would say "I don't think that kids can consent, in part due to the fact that society are a bunch of hateful bigots who will never accept them for what they are, and they can never consent to being lifelong victims of bullying and hate"

I don't think this should be framed in terms of 'transphobia' of any definition - as that suggests society needs to change and these kids are right to fight 'prejudice'.

What should be made clear is that no human can change sex. Puberty blockers are not a step towards changing sex. Society is under no obligation to treat you as the sex you want to be.

I agree completely.

It was more that I was trying (quite possibly badly) to talk about consent, and if society is massively transphobic according to the sorts of people who are pushing for this PB trial to go ahead, then surely the people who are pushing for this PB trial to go ahead can only get informed consent after telling the potential child participants of the constant transphobia that they will face.

If the TRAs pushing this trial are not doing this, then it is yet another example of their hypocrisy and dishonesty.

Either society is not transphobic, and they need to stop with the accusations that we are, or society is transphobic and they need to ensure that PB trial participants who are at risk of a life of being on the receiving end of transphobic bullying know what they are letting themselves into.

I don't think this is quite the same argument as the argument about the law. Clearly for informed consent all "trans kids" would need to be made to fully understand that most people believe that the sex based rights of women and LGB trump the cross-sex privileges of trans people, and that the only way that they can "live as the opposite sex" is to play at dress up, and not to use opposite sex facilities.

I'm trying to think of another example. Imagine you have severely damaged legs, which just about work but leave you moving around slowly and in significant pain. If you live in a very flat, modern country with amazing laws that ensure wheelchair bound people can get wherever they want, whenever they want, then amputation is probably your best option. If you live in a mountainous country with a history of associating physical disabilities with mental disabilities, and total disrespect for both, then maybe you're better off struggling up steps in pain. It would be totally wrong to have a conversation about consent for amputations that did not bring up the way the country is not set up (physically or in terms of attitudes) for those in wheelchairs.

a unique situation in medical ethics:

using a physical intervention with systemic consequences
to treat a psychological distress response
to a normal physical process.

Great summary of the key ethical dilemma and highlights the incongruence.

I don't have much to add to this discussion, you are all so thoughtful in your arguments.

I've felt physically sick this past weekend. My children are 10 and 11, they are vulnerable - they may well be eligible. However, they don't know about any of this nonsense, they know that men sometimes say they are women and vice versa - but that's it. I suppose we've been quite fortunate up until now in protecting them.

I cannot believe this is going to go ahead, this is how conspiracy theories begin - because after everything we know, after all the mistakes at the Tavistock and all the harms caused...many people in powerful positions are still pursuing this course of action.

Are children and their parents made aware that many people will never see them as the opposite sex, will not use the language they demand to describe them, and they will have to use the facilities for their sex in SSS.

They are being set up for a life time of distress that despite changing their bodies they still can't really be the thing they want, they can't make others pretend they are, and their happiness is dependent on the willingness of others to affirm the lie.

It's a disastrous pathway for long term mental health. A devastating lie to tell children they can become this thing they desperately want when they can't. It's a cruel lie they are selling.

Here:

https://x.com/GBNEWS/status/1992914049630159190?s=20

And also Rosie Duffield here:

https://x.com/GBNEWS/status/1992920086093373603?s=20

I wonder if we'll see children suing their parents in the future?

Could a young adult who detransitions could blame their parent for a lack of care in considering their future reproductive and sexual function?

@MalagaNights:

Are children and their parents made aware that many people will never see them as the opposite sex, will not use the language they demand to describe them, and they will have to use the facilities for their sex in SSS.

Once upon a time, back in the early days of so-called sex-reassignment surgery, a patient wasn’t allowed to progress with surgery unless they could demonstrate that they understood the above. They had to show that they knew that the surgery was strictly cosmetic, and that they likely would not be accepted as the opposite sex by the vast majority of the public, otherwise they were not deemed to be sane enough to be allowed to go through with it.

When obtaining consent for a surgical procedure you need to list in some detail all the potential adverse outcomes. If there is a 1 in a 10,000 chance of death or a 1 in a 1,000 chance of paralysis or a 1 in a 100 chance the operation won't achieve the desired result then these risks must all be discussed.

Really?

They need to bring this back. I think children are being led to believe a life where everyone sees them as what they want to be and where everyone uses the language they want and plays along, is possible.

The SCJ is so distressing to so many trans people because they've believed they could make everyone go along with the lie by coercion.

That game is up and children need to be aware of the reality of being trans before decisions are taken.

But what is success?

Puberty 80% successfully resolves them to accepting their healthy body.

Success with PB is being happy with your sterile, sexually non functioning, ill, body?

Both may be 'happy' but surely a healthy body is preferable to an unhealthy one and therefore a more successful outcome?

So why aren't they trying for the best outcome: happy and healthy?

I agree that there should be investigation of those who already have them but I don't have a problem in principle with a randomised trial.

Young people with gender dysphoria are able to consent to medical treatment in the UK if they meet the Granger criteria.

Ideally it might be say therapy along versus therapy with puberty blockers randomised. Edit - the therapy in both cases starting before puberty blockers. Screened out certain other mental illnesses as is standard in trials.

That way we can see if puberty blockers do or do not help those with gender dysphoria, a real condition that causes considerable suffering.

Opposing it sounds like the kind of "wanting to erase trans" gender criticals are accused of.