I would have liked Helen to have been challenged more in this area and for her whataboutery to be pushed to one side.
She knows full well that sexual orientation is not a condition for which medical intervention is required.
She knows full well that in order to access medical intervention, ‘being trans’ needs to be understood as a medical condition and as such, treatment options need to kept under review.
This fudging needs addressing and has direct links to the need for a strong evidence base and the conversion therapy nonsense.
Taking a middle ground - the medical establishment could adopt something like:
Good outcome: Distress has resolved, body‑focused preoccupation has ceased, and the patient demonstrates stable acceptance of their healthy body
Satisfactory outcome: (I) as per good outcome, but distress is not entirely resolved but is managed to a non impairing level (2) distress has resolved or reduced to a non impairing level with no long term medication needs of loss of function through surgery
Poor Outcome: Healthy organs or body parts have been removed, patient requires long term medication.
The fact that what constitutes good and poor outcomes is not being interrogated as part of the post Cass work to develop a stronger evidence base is, in my view, shocking and should have taken place in advance of the PB trial.
The ‘no debate’ strategy is live and kicking in this arena. Debates such as this one really do need to get stuck in to the detail.