Hilary Cass sent a document to every single MP and Peer, justifying and defending the puberty blockers trial

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://x.com/JamesEsses/status/2075512549248745744?s=20

There are ten images on X, sorry can't add them all here, or upload a file with it all in.

In the case of the 11 year old boy it is to help him to continue disguising himself as a girl ( begun at 2 1/2 by his parents), just like his parents have made sure he has all his life up until more recently. Now he is growing up, obviously it isn’t so easy. Hence he has been hiding in his room so no one can see him.

This is very unlikely to be a ‘pause’ for him.

The horrific, abusing parents will get a lot of coddling by trial attention and a nice boost for their Transhausens by proxy (ex Tavistock Dr Azeem Hakeem coined phrase).

Thanks. I was trying not to become blasphemous there, and you have lowered my blood pressure about ten points.

Who's going to insure this nonsense?

Let's get all the existing data together (even if it means interviewing every child/now-adult that's been given PB ever)
And then let's look at that data openly.

As I mentioned earlier, surely clinicians have some experience of helping boys with XY 5ARD, who have been brought up as girls, reconcile to their sex? Is there really no-one who can help the fictional 'Jo', without trying to turn him into an imitation of a woman?

We know 2 things from the documented history of Puberty Blockers.

They are trying to allow males to pass by keeping them smaller adults and hoping that the more testosterone driven development is abated.

They are petrified of having butch lesbians for daughters and would rather have a pretty son instead.

The fact that this study is specifically designed to end before the more horrendous effects of the drugs kick in and thus will not be part of the results is especially evil.

This is one of the most cogent things I've ever read on MN, or anywhere else, re this subject.
It's the bookend to the entirely artificial and confected need to create the concept of "the trans child". Concept it most certainly is, because no-one is born in the wrong body.
"Give me the trans child and I'll give you the transexual man".
What's crazy is that a male kink has, like Japanese knotweed, been deliberately planted in Western liberal civilisation, allowed to grow and spread and suffocate society.
And across the world, nations are sacrificing their children ostensibly to be kind and to affirm happiness in those kids, but in reality, without so many noticing, to be kind to men with kinks and affirm their happiness.
I can't think of any societal warp that comes anywhere near close to a small subset getting what they wanted from the larger group literally not seeing this.
The only good I can see is that the energy for this arrow of history is dissipating, but this group of men, feral and backed into a corner, are conspiring to continue the destruction any way they can.
Reality and sanity still need vigilance, and protection, and bloody mindedness from JKR all the way down to us.

What can end up meaning these days is that a ‘tomboy’ is really trans, and a boy who likes drawing, pretty colours, fashion and dancing is trans.

(note that this is not an issue for trans-identifying women - testosterone is pretty powerful in that regard)

TwoLoons I agree with your post but regarding women passing as a man, I think it brings different issues. Testosterone may (though it doesn't always) give facial hair, a partial change in body shape and a deeper voice, enough to be convincing to a degree. But no female is ever going to have a convincing, functional penis via either testosterone or surgery, and that's pretty important in relationships especially if you want a relationship with someone who is attracted to men. I think (based on various first-person accounts) many trans-IDing people struggle a lot not just with not passing externally, but with not really being seen as the opposite sex, even by those who pretend to think they are. And that's because they know they haven't actually, and can't ever, really have what the opposite sex has, physically - for both TW and TM.

Two great posts. Thank you
The idea that society has enabled and allowed the men pushing the notion of the trans child to have such power - especially over child health care - shows how flimsy our child safeguarding measures are.

In the face of the demands from these men - and we've seen countless of them on here arguing that children must have pbs for a myriad of reasons - "...the doctors then devised a treatment which involved taking prepubescent gender confused patients, and stopping them going through male puberty, in the hopes that they would grow into adult transsexuals who passed better as women..."

To repeat @1984Now :
"The only good I can see is that the energy for this arrow of history is dissipating, but this group of men, feral and backed into a corner, are conspiring to continue the destruction any way they can".

selecting candidates who have persistently, insistently & consistently maintained GD long term and yet, we still have young adults who swore blind as teenagers they were true trans, often for years, then desist as they got older. Is two years between 8-10 years or 9-11 years really long enough to be ‘persistently’? Putting aside the impossibility of a 10 year old giving consent, are those two years really sufficient to make potentially life changing decisions?

It is not ethical to test drugs on children, but we are in a situation where it is happening anyway and the only way to stop it long term is to prove how unsafe puberty blockers really are.

The problem here is that the trial will not recruit those children whose parents have already been given PBs without medical oversight. That might have been an acceptable trial.

Instead, they will recruit parents who may well have not secured off licence black market PBs for their child but they will give consent because it is a NHS run trial and they trust the medical professionals.

For the life of me, I read the arguments for why it should run and yet still do not understand how this unethical experimentation on children can go ahead.

It just has come to me and I write it here so it can be explained, refuted or corroborated.
All this “reducing women to their biology” that TERFS are accused of when saying TWANW is really what the trans ideology is actually doing by trying to replicate that biology on the bodies of the opposite sex.

so, if its not about biology, why insisting on altering biology with a very high cost? What about just be you and pick and mix stereotypical characteristics but stay with your sex. Isn’t that what the androgynous trend in the 60s was all about?

leave kids alone!

These seem no longer in the archive?
Were they there earlier Betty?

Was chatting about this (as you do) with an "alternative" lifestyle woman (Wicca, astrology) who works in showbiz surrounded by luvvies, who's had it with a particular man in her workplace who's always behind her in the toilet (strange, that) going on about how much better a woman he is than her (and by extension, every other woman on the planet). Yada yada.
She agreed with me, that despite her openness to multiple ways of living, his presumption of female ID steps on so many tripwires, almost every woman on the team feels at least harassed, at worst, fearing for their safety.
So yes, child safety boundaries have been damaged in so many ways (to the point so many just don't see, or ignore, the risks of the PB trial), but liberal societal mores are also crushed.
Because transsexual men have gone from a niche lifestyle choice in the past, just about tolerated but not cherished or championed, because of its inherently incongruity and issues on female safety/comfort/child's rights to absolute protection, to an argument about social/human rights.
Once men who were roundly criticised for exercising personal choices inimical to broader societal functioning if those rights were promoted over women's/children's rights, were then promoted to their kink being an essential human right where women's and children's rights were butted up against, who was going to win the war of volume and aggression to have rights come out on top? Well, it was always going to be men.
And the laser focus that the most motivated men always bring to a project meant that men belittled in the 70s walking around a supermarket in their twin set and pearls, have a half century later wrangled liberal society their way, in their own image.
And what better way to embed this than to create "the trans child" that the Be Kind and Suicidal Empathy broader civic society were only too eager to subscribe to.

Agree @TwoLoonsAndASprout @1984Now @MrsOvertonsWindow

This is why, as well as writing letters, discussing, arguing, contributing, sharing information, suing, and pushing back, WE WATCH. The ones who want this to be happening won't disappear, and we need to be ready for wherever they pop up next, in whichever guise they put on, with whatever tactics they decide to use next.

Oh, completely agree - my take was predominantly with regard to the introduction of PBs into the medical procedures offered to transsexual men.

First off, it was the doctors who came up with the idea that passing or not passing was the source of their patients’ ongoing lack of improvement in mental health. There was no sense (to my knowledge) that they were doing this on the basis of a deep understanding of the psycho-social state of their patients’ minds - it seemed to just have been a theory they threw out there.

And second, PBs are not really needed for trans-identifying females (that’s what I meant about testosterone being a strong drug). Testosterone in a female body that has gone through puberty causes much greater physical changes than estrogen in a male body that has gone through puberty. Kiera Bell has commented on this, querying why they’re prescribed for girls at all (she found the mental and physical effects of them so dreadful that she couldn’t wait to get switched from them to hormones).

Basically, whatever you think about the whole idea of medicalisation of gender confusion, the scientific motivation for including PBs in that treatment path is slim to nonexistent.

And the laser focus that the most motivated men always bring to a project meant that men belittled in the 70s walking around a supermarket in their twin set and pearls, have a half century later wrangled liberal society their way, in their own image.

Yes, that’s a good way to summarise that mindset. The laser focused men with a kink, I get. Angry, entitled and wholly focused on his wants experienced as his right, I can understand that man. I’ve seen enough variation of him without the dress.

And what better way to embed this than to create "the trans child" that the Be Kind and Suicidal Empathy broader civic society were only too eager to subscribe to.

I still do not get these people, those eager to do the angry transsexuals bidding and throwing children under the bus to do so. Just why?

I used to think it was fear. Fear of losing their jobs, fear of being doxxed, fear of losing their children, their families, their friends. Some of it is that. But it can't be all of them.

FOMO?
Wanting to be with the "in crowd?"

That's just stupidity, isn't?

If there's any joy in this totally destructive detour for the West, it's reading the increasingly unhinged anger of the likes of Ian Dunt, James Blob'rien and Jolyon Maugham, as Terf Island just will not shut their mouths.

IMHO, it's because what was always 100% a lifestyle choice has been 100% successfully reframed as civil rights, the last great evil of persecuted individuals to fall. As opposed to a kink or affectation to be tolerated in very restricted circumstances.
Once you reframe men in twin set and pearls tottering around the shops in the 70s from a pure lifestyle choice (even if most people back then understood these men were troubled and somewhat compelled), that could not come close to outranking women's and kid's rights, to civil rights, minority rights, then the whole focus and picture looks totally different. Now, those newly reframed rights are competitive with women and kids.
So, in an alternative universe where the liberal West didn't lose it's collective marbles, rights for transsexuals not to be harassed, to live their life free of fear, could and should have happened. That wouldn't mean broader society and those vulnerable within it having to accept it as normal, certainly not to subordinate to it. Certainly not to it becoming an equal and competing right.
It would mean men outed living their lifestyle in private couldn't be sacked or discriminated against unfairly.
But society would have maintained it's guardrails and general disdain.
The trans child, other than the most pathological expressions of self hate (which have always been recognized) would not have even been close to becoming a thing, let alone a phenomenon that has undermined all mores.
So, lifestyle choice to civil right, and thus civil right obliges the need for the trans child that becomes the transsexual man.
Because, if there was no trans child, then the transsexual man would have to be a lifestyle not a marginalized minority.
So, the trans child becomes the conveyor belt of useful bodies, and also the poster child that justifies the whole phenomenon.
Because without the trans child, all you have is a bunch of men unhappy in their skin, a kink and affectation that needs as much protection and affirmation as Furries or Goths or self IDd Jedi Knights.

Exactly! If it’s not about sex’ how can it some how, at the same time, be all about how you must replicate, as far as possible, the sex you are not.

Body dysphoria is about sex though, and hating your own. But again, getting another (apparent) sex instead is never really going to help. It is all just pasted on to the original body for a start. The answer must be through mental help, as far as that is possible.

People saying that Cass must be saying this because she has had death threats and been forced into it, or because she's madly in favour of transing kids are just barking. She has clearly stated her reasons, and while you may disagree with her reasons, there's no evidence of her being an ideologue or coerced into what she has said.

The is a very good point to be made. At the moment, we have two 'sides' yelling at each other - one saying that these drugs are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near kids and the other saying that these drugs are lifesaving and totally necessary. Both sides can wheel out people who have taken them to support their view.

And we have a method which can help decide who is right - the clinical trial which has long been used to provide statistically valid evidence of efficacy or otherwise of drugs.

Will not doing the study prevent harm to children - unlikely. There are many, many people, internationally, happily giving these drugs to kids.

Will doing the study and finding statistically valid evidence of issues prevent harm to children - yes. The unethical internet doctors will probably still keep peddling their crap but it should certainly halt at least some of the evidence-based ones. And parents and carers can be pointed in the direction of some solid research to protect them from the unethical snake-oil salesmen.

People going on about the 'data linkage' study: Cass has already outlined why it would be crap data and easily dismissible. It certainly wouldn't be statistically valid data against puberty blockers in particular and it definitely wouldn't stop the people yelling that they are life-saving.

I read a great line once.
"Gender dysphoria is simply body dysphoria"
Just as we don't infantilise people who learn to hate their limbs by offering to cut them off, and to top that, tell them that's just fine, pretend they'll be happier, and society will smile at them and never dissent against their choice, we shouldn't infantilise the body dysmorphics who rather than hate their legs, instead hate their breasts, and fucking never betray the trust of children as their protectors by buying into these fantasies.

@noblegiraffe

And we have a method which can help decide who is right - the clinical trial which has long been used to provide statistically valid evidence of efficacy or otherwise of drugs.

I think that many of the people who object to the proposed trial are doing so on the basis of a) understanding what makes a water-tight clinical trial, and b) recognising that the proposed trial is so far away from being water-tight as to have already sunk, beneath the waves, never to be seen again.

There is value in collecting good data. This trial is proposing to collect bad data, and in doing so will almost certainly harm a new cohort of children.

It blows my mind that we already have a cohort who've gone down the PB route, the thousands out there via the Tavistock etc.
But for whatever reasons, have not been followed up on.
In an area where your brain explodes regularly following this subject, this is right up there.
Let's say we were starting a trial on regular heading of a football causing (or not) brain effects long term, and we had data from decades of thousands of boys heading millions of balls, we would rather take hundreds of new kids to head balls thousands of times, rather than check previous data?
Ditto rugby injuries.
Road traffic accidents.
Asbestos poisoning.
Etc etc etc.
Society is absolutely stupid.