No child is born in the wrong body - Kemi Badenoch. Letter to Wes Streeting

[IwantToRetire]

Saw this being shared on facebook. Quote:

No child is born in the wrong body.

I cannot believe we are back to square one, with NHS England backing an experimental trial of puberty blockers on healthy, vulnerable children, ignoring the damage already done.

The No1 rule of medicine is "do no harm".
This is activist ideology masquerading as research.

I'm urging MPs of all parties to sign this letter from me and Shadow Health Secretary Stuart Andrew for Daventry, calling for Wes Streeting to step in and stop this trial before more damage is done to children who are too young to understand what they are doing to themselves.

https://www.facebook.com/kemibadenoch/posts/pfbid02c3rSBKCtNCY5qHeLVtJN94j4MhB7fZnoW159VXbzJUBdrMrDDbC3C4v6KX3W7MEbl

He's after the top spot at any cost and will promise whatever he has to to get it. Like ole Boris and Brexit.

I haven't had time to read all of this thread, and never thought it would be used to replicate the existing discussion thread. I posted late at night any maybe should have indicated the existing discussion.

Thought it might lead to a discussion about how the politcians are dancing around this issue.

Though to be fair to KB I think she has been consistent and her letter isn't really a suprise.

What about the hairy heterosexual women? Like me. Why aren't you concerned about ME? Am I not IMPORTANT enough? Eh? Eh? Gah!

Haven’t read the whole thread.

Over 220 children on the trial. It seems like this “trial” is just a back door way of providing puberty blockers to children ie nothing has changed.

Has been ever thus since Cambridge circa 2002.

Used to write his name in chalk all over town.

20 years plus in the making.

You’re the bottom of the pile. Literally anyone else takes precedence:

• A manly man
• A feminine man
• A man who thinks he’s a woman
• A hairy lesbian
• A trans species human
• A trans identifying trans species cat
• Anything else that ever existed
• You

Didn’t you get the memo? Misogyny innit!

😥

Important to add though that the hairy lesbians taking precedence over you will inevitably turn out to be hairy in.... unexpected places shall we say, and with appendages and chromosomes you did not expect to find under that terminology.

The actual hairy lesbians are only ever purposed as a crowbar to get the others in the list into their desired space. After which they will be instantly discarded and threatened with violence should their fail to get their knickers off and shut up. The non hairy ones will not be treated any better.

True. Whatever the order is - you a woman born a woman die a woman type woman will be ground down.

A hairy lesbian trans species man beats an actual common garden hairy lesbian.

Possibly, but have to say I do like him and have long felt that he has the necessary political instinct, and a grasp of common sense, pragmatic politics. I could be wrong, and he could just be an extremely good actor ( better than Zack Polanski, anyway).

Did the last census analyse trans identity by age?

I don't believe 60% per class, but 5-10% seems believable.

If you believe that social contagion has an impact, you would also expect distribution to be uneven.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/genderidentity/articles/genderidentityageandsexenglandandwalescensus2021/2023-01-25#how-gender-identity-differed-by-age reports from age 16 upwards. In ages 16 to 24, ~0.4% identified as trans, so concerns of social contagion appear to be (at least) overstated.

"People aged 16 to 24 years were the most likely age group to have said that their gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth (in this article we refer to people in this category as being trans), with 1.00% (63,000) identifying as such."

This compares to 0.64% of 35 to 44 year olds and 0.47% of 45 to 54 year olds and 0.22% of over 75 year olds. (As an aside, were the figures adjusted when they realised that many people didn't understand the question? I would have thought that older people would have been the group least likely to understand what the question was getting at).

Social contagion might well be a reason for the increased percentage in the younger age group, and it also seems likely that the 1% isn't evenly spread across schools.

Also, More than 1 in 100 people [1.16%] who answered female [to the sex question] and were aged 16 to 24 years identified as trans

In contrast 0.84% in this age group said their sex was male and identified as trans. 1.16% is 36% higher than 0.84%.

However, in all other age groups, more people said their sex was male than female. Why the change?

Taking these numbers at face value, (it's not clear that everyone understood the question or answered it correctly, but it's all we have) it's difficult to conclude that social contagion isn't significant.

From my link:

"People aged 16 to 24 years had the highest proportions of people who identified as a trans woman (0.15% or 9,000), as a trans man (0.22% or 14,000), and as non-binary (0.26% or 17,000). The proportion who identified with these categories then decreased with each successive age group."

Trans people do not account for even half of 1%.

I'm quoting from your link.

and it also seems likely that the 1% isn't evenly spread across schools.

Quite. The 76 children in one school was in Brighton.

Really?

Which teens do you know filled in their own census information?

The census also says

A total of 262,000 people (0.5%) answered “No”, indicating that their gender identity was different from their sex registered at birth. Within this group:

• 118,000 (0.24%) answered “No” but did not provide a write-in response
• 48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans man
• 48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans woman
• 30,000 (0.06%) identified as non-binary
• 18,000 (0.04%) wrote in a different gender identity

Maybe the difference is caused by the majority of respondents who said that their gender identity was different from their sex registered or birth but either didn't fill in a gender identity or wrote in a different gender identity.

I think it is generally agreed that this question was flawed and that it is likely that some people didn't understand what was being asked, however it seems reasonable to suggest that the younger group would be most likely to describe themselves as having a different gender identity.

I certainly don't understand how you would explain the flip from majority male to majority female without reference to social influence.

The one where the headteacher says that a much smaller number identifed as trans?

Why would the head teacher be the authority on how the children identify?

Helen Joyce has a nice set of tweets about the fundamental flaw in the study:

Here's the research summary for the "puberty blockers trial". Inverted commas because it's not is a "trial of puberty blockers". The design makes it impossible to learn anything about the effects of taking puberty blockers, compared with not doing so 1/3

https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/application-summaries/research-summaries/pathways-trial/

It is simply a comparison of the short-term effect on the mood of kids who want puberty blockers between... Kids who get what they want straight away and Kids who are told they will have to wait a year for what they want. That's all. 2/3

This is insane. I can tell them right now that the kids who get what they want now rather than having to wait a year will be much happier in the immediate term. OBVIOUSLY. Even if what they want causes them lifelong problems that they are too immature and fixated to predict 3/3

36 children backed up by their families, and the other 40 just identifying that way.

edited, because I've just read it again.

There are 76 in total, but not that many are recorded officially, although he doesn't say how many.

Why is there so much effort being expended to discredit the numbers of children identifying as transgender in schools and in social groups?

On one hand there are apparently so many that people are pressured to make conscious accommodations in language for them, yet we are told that cannot be groupings of them and all accounts of those groupings are to be discredited. Either the children are having ‘just jokes’ on parents who they don’t even know and ‘wind them up successfully’ or something. Or they seek groups to join so they feel accepted - when the reality is no, the group was fully established and stable and still 5 out of 7 declared trans identities. But nothing at all to see here…

The incoherent positions are really something to see.