Transgender rights discussion

[Stack]

Every now and then I lose track of what people are in actual fact debating. It gets confusing when multiple issues get used or thrown into the mix.

 

[Alex99]

Every now and then I lose track of what people are in actual fact debating. It gets confusing when multiple issues get used or thrown into the mix.

Well, some of us are debating.

Others are literally acknowledging that they're not reading the posts they're replying to, but still calling them "alarmingly sensationalist".

 

[Cloud7]

I mean for goodness sake, what kind of monster would listen to ideas of an impressionable kid and think "yep, let's get you transitioning". It's certifiable.

Language like this is not conducive to any sort of reasonable debate. This sort of terminology is very aggressive.

 

[Cloud7]

Every now and then I lose track of what people are in actual fact debating. It gets confusing when multiple issues get used or thrown into the mix.

The transgender athlete one is at least a worthwhile discussion. Somehow it’s degenerated into “mutilating kids and pumping them full of drugs….is it right?”

 

[stepic]

Sorry, but you don't get to pretend to be arguing in good faith, state that you haven't got time to go through my "many points", then call those very same points, that you have literally just acknowledged you haven't read properly, "biased interpretation" and "alarming sensationalist misinterpretations".

How could you possibly know? You haven't had the time to go through them.

I didn't even add comment to a lot of the points. I simply copied excerpts from the summarised findings.

For someone who professes to care so deeply about these children, I'm absolutely amazed that you can deny sheer number of very concerning findings that are in the interim report.

In all honesty, I've seen absolutely nothing from you to suggest you've even read the thing, despite your suggestion for others to read it.

As for what you have quoted, it's still just a blog post supporting colleagues, and despite your interpretation, is not defending the Tavistock. It's defending the NHS and the individuals that worked at the Tavistock.

Firstly, what is the "single specialist provider" if not the Tavistock and the GIDS service it ran? Secondly, it's not an attack to be critical of a service that the interim report has been very critical of. I've stated that the care was, to put it mildly, lacking, and added that the findings are tantamount to scandal, because they are.

Yes, the report is there as a platform to begin building a suitable care structure for the children and young people the Tavistock should have been there to support, but the fact remains that the report has found a number of worrying things in its review of the care provided there. I've not apportioned any blame to the NHS or any individuals working for this service, I've simply echoed the findings of the report.

i have read it. that's why i know your interpretation is heavily biased.

people can go back a page or two and see that you were saying that young people are not capable of making decisions about their own health in this area. your position here implies they shouldn't be treated, they should just be left to see how they go as they grow up:

What's wrong with simply letting these kids live and dress how they want (within reason, of course) and see how things go as they grow up?

when Wibble mentioned that there is extensive medical review by experts - i.e. no one is rushed into life changing operations - you stated:

the UK's gender services are essentially being shut down in disgrace because of how poorly they've handled the care of those referred to them

this description is a sensationalist interpretation of the closure of Tavistock. you're implying that Tavistock was closed as some kind of punishment due to severe failings - it was not. it was closed because the author recommends opening more regional centres so more young people can access them (which i've already stated) - i.e. that the level of care should be enhanced and strengthened.

the report is designed to improve the level of care for young people - on the whole it is designed to give young people better treatment and ultimately more power to make the right decisions about their welfare, to transition effectively and improve their lives - which is exactly the opposite of your original point mentioned above.

you're using the report as evidence that young people are not being provided sufficient care, and therefore they should not be allowed to transition, because ultimately you don't think young people should be transitioning period. you have literally said as such in this thread.

Here's the remaining key points which you neglected to mention:

Key points – moving forward

• Children and young people with gender incongruence or dysphoria must receive the same standards of clinical care, assessment and treatment as every other child or young person accessing health services. 
• The care of this group of children and young people is everyone’s business. Our initial work indicates that clinicians at all levels feel they have the transferable skills and commitment to support these children and young people, but there needs to be agreement and guidance about the appropriate clinical assessment process that should take place at primary, secondary and tertiary level, underpinned by better data and evidence. 
• Addressing the challenges will require service transformation, with support offered at different levels of the health service.
• The Review’s research programme will not just build the evidence base in the UK but will also contribute to the global evidence base, meaning that young people, their families, carers and the clinicians supporting them can make more informed decisions about the right path for them.   

A fundamentally different service model is needed which is more in line with other paediatric provision, to provide timely and appropriate care for children and young people needing support around their gender identity. This must include support for any other clinical presentations that they may have.

It is essential that these children and young people can access the same level of psychological and social support as any other child or young person in distress, from their first encounter with the NHS and at every level within the service.

The Review team will work with NHS England, providers and the broader stakeholder community to further define the service model and workforce implications.

At this stage the Review is not able to provide advice on the use of hormone treatments due to gaps in the evidence base. Recommendations will be developed as our research programme progresses.

all of which supports the need for children and young people to be given the support they require. as i said right at the beginning:

The solution isn't to deny young people the care they need because they're deemed 'too young', and instead force them to suffer through years of puberty which will have potentially detrimental effects on them in later years; it's to provide the facilities and care to ensure the correct medical treatment is available for each individual on a case by case basis.

 

[Newtonius]

They seem to be doing just fine. Everyone's an idiot until they're about 35, then the penny drops. If there's any age group to be ignored (in terms of letting kids make decisions as big as the ones we're talking about) it's kids. I mean for goodness sake, what kind of monster would listen to ideas of an impressionable kid and think "yep, let's get you transitioning". It's certifiable.

Its real scary how impressionable they are too not shocked at all the numbers are skyrocketing when its being taught in schools.

My niece for instance went to a religious primary school just down the road from where she lived and wouldn't you know it they brainwashed the feck out of her, was often told she could be found up on the dinner table praying to jesus after she thought she did something wrong.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

They seem to be doing just fine. Everyone's an idiot until they're about 35, then the penny drops. If there's any age group to be ignored (in terms of letting kids make decisions as big as the ones we're talking about) it's kids. I mean for goodness sake, what kind of monster would listen to ideas of an impressionable kid and think "yep, let's get you transitioning". It's certifiable.

You've been listening to your kids since birth. That's why they haven't died of starvation. Hopefully you've watched them grow and gained an understanding of who they are. Listening to the little tossers doesn't mean you have to agree but it's a good idea to know their thoughts. Sticking your fingers in your ears and calling them idiots don't always get it done. You make it out like Bernard, aged 13, suddenly decided that he wants to be a girl and parents are suddenly like "Sure Bernadette. Let's get you down to surgery, it's clearly what you want." That's just a mockery of a quite clearly long, drawn out and difficult process.

 

[pierrethesnack]

Listening to the little tossers doesn't mean you have to agree but it's a good idea to know their thoughts.

And where they come from.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

And where they come from.

Absolutely.

 

[Alex99]

i have read it. that's why i know your interpretation is heavily biased.

Are you actually going to respond to the points made then? Because as I said, it seems like you haven't actually read this report you're claiming to know so much about, and instead are just trying and deflect onto other things.

people can go back a page or two and see that you were saying that young people are not capable of making decisions about their own health in this area. your position here implies they shouldn't be treated, they should just be left to see how they go as they grow up:

Children can't make informed decisions about their own health in this, or any other area, at least not outside of describing symptoms. This shouldn't be a remotely controversial statement.

As I said in my other posts on the matter (and as have gone ignored by you and the other posters I posed the questions to) - we have determined that children and young people are not capable of making informed decisions on a number of things, and as a result, they are legally ringfenced from doing certain things. They can not consent to sex until they are 16 (in the UK). They cannot vote in general elections until they are 18. They cannot gamble until they are 18. They cannot even watch certain films in the cinema, or buy certain video games from a shop, until they are 18. I will add to this that they cannot get genital or nipple piercings until they are 16. They cannot get tattoos until they are 18.

I will ask again, what is different about a child's ability to make in an informed decision about potentially (or certainly in the case of surgeries) irreversible medical pathways than it is for them to make an informed decision about the above?

I will also point out again, that the Cass Interim Report has highlighted the severe lack of evidence supporting these medical pathways.

My position is that they should not be medicalised until there is enough evidence to support that medicalisation. I would also suppose that it could be possible once they've reached an agreeable age (be it 16, 18, 21, etc.) that is reasonably in-line with the other minimum ages we consider young people to be able to make informed decisions.

Prior to this, as I said, they should be left to live and dress (within reason) how they choose to, without intervention from the adults around them. I believe this would fall under social transition if a child decides they would prefer to use differing pronouns and dress in a manner not typically associated with their birth sex.

I implore you to actually engage with the posts I am making, instead of these repeated avoidance tactics.

when Wibble mentioned that there is extensive medical review by experts - i.e. no one is rushed into life changing operations - you stated

this description is a sensationalist interpretation of the closure of Tavistock. you're implying that Tavistock was closed as some kind of punishment due to severe failings - it was not. it was closed because the author recommends opening more regional centres so more young people can access them (which i've already stated) - i.e. that the level of care should be enhanced and strengthened.

The Cass Interim Report literally states that these extensive medical reviews by experts are not happening.

It states that clinical decisions have not been made by appropriate clinical experts.

It states that children are not routinely being offered therapy before being placed on puberty blocking hormone treatments. The same puberty blocking hormone treatments that it states do not have sufficient evidence regarding their long-term effects to recommend the continued use of.

It states that staff have felt forced into providing unwaveringly affirming care, despite this being in conflict with their medical training.

It states that once these treatments have begun, there is a drop-off, rather than an intensifying of appointments, as would be expected. It states that there is little in the way of follow-up appointments to determine whether these treatments have even worked.

It states that there are still fundamental disagreements over what exactly gender dysphoria is. The very thing these treatments are supposed to be for.

The Tavistock, despite the best efforts of the staff working there, absolutely was shut down for its severe failings. It's precisely why the only recommendation the Interim Report was able to confidently make was to move the service away from the clinic.

It is absolutely a disgrace that, what is effectively a paediatric clinic, has been shut down for numerous failings in relation to the care it has provided to the children referred to it.

You would know and understand all of this if you'd actually read the report, and not just clicked quickly through some of the landing pages on the website that hosts it.

the report is designed to improve the level of care for young people - on the whole it is designed to give young people better treatment and ultimately more power to make the right decisions about their welfare, to transition effectively and improve their lives - which is exactly the opposite of your original point mentioned above.

Yes, the report is designed to improve the level of care for young people. Thus far, the only recommendation it has been able to confidently make is that the Tavistock and GIDS, in their current form, are not fit for purpose, and a move to regional clinics is likely to be a more effective route.

It has also found that there are severe flaws relating to pretty much every aspect of the actual medical care provided to date.

This is not remotely the opposite of my point above. I literally said to Wibble that we should expect the medical routes to have been extensively reviewed by medical experts. One of the key findings of the Cass Interim Report is that these medical routes have not been extensively reviewed by medical experts. In fact, it found that clinical decisions were not necessarily being made by appropriate clinical experts.

Again, you would know this if you'd actually read the report.

you're using the report as evidence that young people are not being provided sufficient care, and therefore they should not be allowed to transition, because ultimately you don't think young people should be transitioning period. you have literally said as such in this thread.

The report is quite literally evidence that young people are not being and have not been provided sufficient care.

I remain steadfast in my assertion that until more research is done, children under a certain age (16, 18, etc.) cannot make an informed decision on whether these potentially irreversible treatments are right for them. Even if evidence regarding the long-term effects comes out and supports the use of these treatments, it's still an ethical minefield to suggest that children can reliably consent to them, due to the potentially irreversible nature of them.

Here's the remaining key points which you neglected to mention:

Yes, let's get into the rest of the key points (that are not actually part of the report and merely fill the landing page from which you can access it).

Key points – moving forward

• Children and young people with gender incongruence or dysphoria must receive the same standards of clinical care, assessment and treatment as every other child or young person accessing health services. 

So, moving forward, "children should receive the same standards of clinical care, assessment and treatment as every other child accessing health services".

What does this key point tell us?

It tells us that currently, children accessing the Tavistock Clinic and GIDs services are not receiving the same standards of clinical care, assessment and treatment as other children accessing other health services.

You know, the point I've been highlighting since this was brought up.

• The care of this group of children and young people is everyone’s business. Our initial work indicates that clinicians at all levels feel they have the transferable skills and commitment to support these children and young people, but there needs to be agreement and guidance about the appropriate clinical assessment process that should take place at primary, secondary and tertiary level, underpinned by better data and evidence. 

So, moving forward, "there needs to be agreement and guidance about the appropriate clinical assessment process", and this needs to be "underpinned by better data and evidence".

What does this key point tell us?

It tells us that currently, there is not adequate agreement and guidance about the the appropriate clinical assessment process, and the clinical assessments are not currently underpinned by adequate data and evidence.

You know, the point I've been highlighting since this was brought up.

• Addressing the challenges will require service transformation, with support offered at different levels of the health service.

This one just essentially acknowledges that there are a number of challenges to be overcome and that the current service is inadequate. No further notes, which is why I left it out.

• The Review’s research programme will not just build the evidence base in the UK but will also contribute to the global evidence base, meaning that young people, their families, carers and the clinicians supporting them can make more informed decisions about the right path for them.   

So, moving forward, we need to "build an evidence base", and this will will help everyone involved "make more informed decisions about the right path for them."

What does this key point tell us?

It tells us (again) that currently, we do not have an adequate evidence base for the treatments given, and that as a result, everyone involved is not able to make an adequately informed decision about the right path.

A fundamentally different service model is needed which is more in line with other paediatric provision, to provide timely and appropriate care for children and young people needing support around their gender identity. This must include support for any other clinical presentations that they may have.

Again, the current model is fundamentally flawed, hence the need for "a fundamentally different" one.

Additionally, the current model is not in line with other medical provisions for children, and the current model does not include support for any other clinical presentations.

It is essential that these children and young people can access the same level of psychological and social support as any other child or young person in distress, from their first encounter with the NHS and at every level within the service.

The Review team will work with NHS England, providers and the broader stakeholder community to further define the service model and workforce implications.

Again, this tells us that currently, children accessing these services are not able to access the same level of psychological and social support as any other child in distress.

At this stage the Review is not able to provide advice on the use of hormone treatments due to gaps in the evidence base. Recommendations will be developed as our research programme progresses.

I'm fairly sure I acknowledged this one, but as you didn't bother actually responding to any part of my post, you clearly missed it.

Just in case, as above, it's stating that there is not enough evidence surrounding the use of hormone treatments.

all of which supports the need for children and young people to be given the support they require. as i said right at the beginning:

I suppose, yes, it does support the general point that children need to be given the support they require.

However, at this point, I'm not even sure you're reading (or at least comprehending) the things you're copying across from the website, let alone the actual report.

You've repeatedly (and seemingly blindly) conflated your (and I imagine everyone else's) view that children should have access to adequate care with the idea that the care currently provided is remotely adequate.

The fundamental findings of the report, and even the key findings section that exists as a brief summary outside of it (that you've clearly failed to comprehend), are that the care provided is simply not adequate.

To bring this back to the start, my interpretations are not biased. My interpretations are based on the facts and evidence (or lack thereof) that have currently been presented.

Your interpretations, however, are quite clearly biased. This is evident as you repeatedly, blindly attribute your own personal feelings on the matter to draw wildly inaccurate conclusions from a report that quite clearly states almost the exact opposite of what you claim it states.

You have repeatedly failed to answer any of the questions posed or refute any of the points made to you.

Again, I implore you to actually engage with what I have said. I implore you to actually read the report, because I still see no evidence of you having done so. I implore you to actually comprehend the things you are presenting as supposed evidence for your claims.

I am not closed off to this, but the fact is that there is very little (if anything) in the way of evidence to support pretty much anything you have said.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Are you actually going to respond to the points made then? Because as I said, it seems like you haven't actually read this report you're claiming to know so much about, and instead are just trying and deflect onto other things.



Children can't make informed decisions about their own health in this, or any other area, at least not outside of describing symptoms. This shouldn't be a remotely controversial statement.

As I said in my other posts on the matter (and as have gone ignored by you and the other posters I posed the questions to) - we have determined that children and young people are not capable of making informed decisions on a number of things, and as a result, they are legally ringfenced from doing certain things. They can not consent to sex until they are 16 (in the UK). They cannot vote in general elections until they are 18. They cannot gamble until they are 18. They cannot even watch certain films in the cinema, or buy certain video games from a shop, until they are 18. I will add to this that they cannot get genital or nipple piercings until they are 16. They cannot get tattoos until they are 18.

I will ask again, what is different about a child's ability to make in an informed decision about potentially (or certainly in the case of surgeries) irreversible medical pathways than it is for them to make an informed decision about the above?

I will also point out again, that the Cass Interim Report has highlighted the severe lack of evidence supporting these medical pathways.

My position is that they should not be medicalised until there is enough evidence to support that medicalisation. I would also suppose that it could be possible once they've reached an agreeable age (be it 16, 18, 21, etc.) that is reasonably in-line with the other minimum ages we consider young people to be able to make informed decisions.

Prior to this, as I said, they should be left to live and dress (within reason) how they choose to, without intervention from the adults around them. I believe this would fall under social transition if a child decides they would prefer to use differing pronouns and dress in a manner not typically associated with their birth sex.

I implore you to actually engage with the posts I am making, instead of these repeated avoidance tactics.



The Cass Interim Report literally states that these extensive medical reviews by experts are not happening.

It states that clinical decisions have not been made by appropriate clinical experts.

It states that children are not routinely being offered therapy before being placed on puberty blocking hormone treatments. The same puberty blocking hormone treatments that it states do not have sufficient evidence regarding their long-term effects to recommend the continued use of.

It states that staff have felt forced into providing unwaveringly affirming care, despite this being in conflict with their medical training.

It states that once these treatments have begun, there is a drop-off, rather than an intensifying of appointments, as would be expected. It states that there is little in the way of follow-up appointments to determine whether these treatments have even worked.

It states that there are still fundamental disagreements over what exactly gender dysphoria is. The very thing these treatments are supposed to be for.

The Tavistock, despite the best efforts of the staff working there, absolutely was shut down for its severe failings. It's precisely why the only recommendation the Interim Report was able to confidently make was to move the service away from the clinic.

It is absolutely a disgrace that, what is effectively a paediatric clinic, has been shut down for numerous failings in relation to the care it has provided to the children referred to it.

You would know and understand all of this if you'd actually read the report, and not just clicked quickly through some of the landing pages on the website that hosts it.



Yes, the report is designed to improve the level of care for young people. Thus far, the only recommendation it has been able to confidently make is that the Tavistock and GIDS, in their current form, are not fit for purpose, and a move to regional clinics is likely to be a more effective route.

It has also found that there are severe flaws relating to pretty much every aspect of the actual medical care provided to date.

This is not remotely the opposite of my point above. I literally said to Wibble that we should expect the medical routes to have been extensively reviewed by medical experts. One of the key findings of the Cass Interim Report is that these medical routes have not been extensively reviewed by medical experts. In fact, it found that clinical decisions were not necessarily being made by appropriate clinical experts.

Again, you would know this if you'd actually read the report.




The report is quite literally evidence that young people are not being and have not been provided sufficient care.

I remain steadfast in my assertion that until more research is done, children under a certain age (16, 18, etc.) cannot make an informed decision on whether these potentially irreversible treatments are right for them. Even if evidence regarding the long-term effects comes out and supports the use of these treatments, it's still an ethical minefield to suggest that children can reliably consent to them, due to the potentially irreversible nature of them.



Yes, let's get into the rest of the key points (that are not actually part of the report and merely fill the landing page from which you can access it).

So, moving forward, "children should receive the same standards of clinical care, assessment and treatment as every other child accessing health services".

What does this key point tell us?

It tells us that currently, children accessing the Tavistock Clinic and GIDs services are not receiving the same standards of clinical care, assessment and treatment as other children accessing other health services.

You know, the point I've been highlighting since this was brought up.

So, moving forward, "there needs to be agreement and guidance about the appropriate clinical assessment process", and this needs to be "underpinned by better data and evidence".

What does this key point tell us?

It tells us that currently, there is not adequate agreement and guidance about the the appropriate clinical assessment process, and the clinical assessments are not currently underpinned by adequate data and evidence.

You know, the point I've been highlighting since this was brought up.

This one just essentially acknowledges that there are a number of challenges to be overcome and that the current service is inadequate. No further notes, which is why I left it out.



So, moving forward, we need to "build an evidence base", and this will will help everyone involved "make more informed decisions about the right path for them."

What does this key point tell us?

It tells us (again) that currently, we do not have an adequate evidence base for the treatments given, and that as a result, everyone involved is not able to make an adequately informed decision about the right path.



Again, the current model is fundamentally flawed, hence the need for "a fundamentally different" one.

Additionally, the current model is not in line with other medical provisions for children, and the current model does not include support for any other clinical presentations.



Again, this tells us that currently, children accessing these services are not able to access the same level of psychological and social support as any other child in distress.




I'm fairly sure I acknowledged this one, but as you didn't bother actually responding to any part of my post, you clearly missed it.

Just in case, as above, it's stating that there is not enough evidence surrounding the use of hormone treatments.



I suppose, yes, it does support the general point that children need to be given the support they require.

However, at this point, I'm not even sure you're reading (or at least comprehending) the things you're copying across from the website, let alone the actual report.

You've repeatedly (and seemingly blindly) conflated your (and I imagine everyone else's) view that children should have access to adequate care with the idea that the care currently provided is remotely adequate.

The fundamental findings of the report, and even the key findings section that exists as a brief summary outside of it (that you've clearly failed to comprehend), are that the care provided is simply not adequate.

To bring this back to the start, my interpretations are not biased. My interpretations are based on the facts and evidence (or lack thereof) that have currently been presented.

Your interpretations, however, are quite clearly biased. This is evident as you repeatedly, blindly attribute your own personal feelings on the matter to draw wildly inaccurate conclusions from a report that quite clearly states almost the exact opposite of what you claim it states.

You have repeatedly failed to answer any of the questions posed or refute any of the points made to you.

Again, I implore you to actually engage with what I have said. I implore you to actually read the report, because I still see no evidence of you having done so. I implore you to actually comprehend the things you are presenting as supposed evidence for your claims.

I am not closed off to this, but the fact is that there is very little (if anything) in the way of evidence to support pretty much anything you have said.

Going by the BBC report on this that was on Newsnight a few weeks ago, there are serious questions to answer about how we ended up here.

The scientist who conducted the original follow up study was very concerned about the way it had been used/misinterpreted by doctors as a green light for what are now controversial treatments.

It might turn out to be the right thing to do but that will be luck rather than science based treatment with verified benefits doing more good than harm in most cases. That wasn't what the report said about real world outcomes.

 

[ScholesyTheWise]

I don't think trans-athletes who made the change from male to female should be allowed to compete against athletes who were born female,
for physiological reasons. it makes a mockery of women's sports in my eyes.

There would be types of sports where a woman who trained her entire life and reached the level of a national champion, could get beaten by a male who's very very far from being top of his sport.

It's been claimed (by Peirs fecking Morgan, but alas...) that the number 1500# seeded in men's tennis game could beat Serena Williams.
sounds far-fetched to me with this specific number but I get the drift and tend to agree.

I admit to not reading the entire thread, but I wonder-

is my opinion even allowed in 2023? or am I considered to be some sort of bigot?

Seems to me that anyone who doesn't agree with 100% of the agenda of the "inclusive side" of the map,
better keep their mouth shut or else they get crucified.

 

[Tarrou]

I don't think trans-athletes who made the change from male to female should be allowed to compete against athletes who were born female,
for physiological reasons. it makes a mockery of women's sports in my eyes.

There would be types of sports where a woman who trained her entire life and reached the level of a national champion, could get beaten by a male who's very very far from being top of his sport.

It's been claimed (by Peirs fecking Morgan, but alas...) that the number 1500# seeded in men's tennis game could beat Serena Williams.
sounds far-fetched to me with this specific number but I get the drift and tend to agree.

I admit to not reading the entire thread, but I wonder-

is my opinion even allowed in 2023? or am I considered to be some sort of bigot?

Seems to me that anyone who doesn't agree with 100% of the agenda of the "inclusive side" of the map,
better keep their mouth shut or else they get crucified.

I think agree with you (but not sure) and I don't think it should be considered it a bigoted view, but I don't know anywhere near enough to have a properly informed opinion. I rarely get involved in the discussion because of that.

We've built a non-trans inclusive society over decades and centuries to the point where there is no perfect solution to the problem now. If you solve the problem to 100% for one group you cannot solve in 100% for another. And to be clear, I don't consider the trans community the problem, I consider a non-inclusive society the problem.

Therefore there's gonna be a period of back-and-forth where society course corrects and eventually settles on a solution, and it's gonna take a long time to sort out.

What I really detest about the whole debate is the demonisation of the trans-community by the media/politicians and random twats like Laurence Fox. It must be so painful to be on the end of their hatred and see some in the general public lap it up.

 

[lilcurt]

The main problem in these discussions is that you have 10% of people who are genuinely worried about women sports and 90% of people who have never watched a women sports event in their life and just don't like transgender people. This second set of people will pretend to be in the first one 100% of the times.

This is just bluster. You are plucking numbers from thin air to make a case which is very common around the arguments of this subject.

I'm sure some people are purely transphobic as you suggest but to claim that is the vast majority at 90% is tosh.

You completely ignore that women themselves have a say and opinion on this, as to father of daughters and fair minded people.

I always find the 'sports' side of the argument an odd hill for the very strong 'pro' movement to die on. Presumably wanting to transition from a man to a women is such a massive life choice far beyond sporting achievement, an therefore if the sacrifice needed is one can transition but not take part in their new genders sporting category so be it. It's no different to a heavy weight not being able to compete in the feather weight category, a dwarf not playing in the NBA or a 7 ft jockey.

 

[Pickle85]

The main problem in these discussions is that you have 10% of people who are genuinely worried about women sports and 90% of people who have never watched a women sports event in their life and just don't like transgender people. This second set of people will pretend to be in the first one 100% of the times.

So do you think that people who aren't interested in women's sports can't have an opinion on whether allowing trans people to compete is fair or not?

 

[Bole Top]

yeah, that argument is utter stupidity. I don't need to be particularly interested in women boxing in order to be allowed an opinion that they shouldn't enter the ring disadvantaged from the start, and the same goes for every other sport.

basic sport principles aren't dependant on average Joe actually watching certain fight, match or race.

 

[stepic]

I will ask again, what is different about a child's ability to make in an informed decision about potentially (or certainly in the case of surgeries) irreversible medical pathways than it is for them to make an informed decision about the above?

because if you suffer from gender dysphoria, going through adolescence is going to make that dysphoria significantly worse. young people receiving treatment early can save their lives - literally. of course there needs to be thorough engagement with health professionals as part of this process, just like any other treatment young people receive. that should be the priority - provide young people with the best possible care and treatment to help support them - not just outright stop them from being able to transition.

My position is that they should not be medicalised until there is enough evidence to support that medicalisation. I would also suppose that it could be possible once they've reached an agreeable age (be it 16, 18, 21, etc.) that is reasonably in-line with the other minimum ages we consider young people to be able to make informed decisions.

i would prefer to leave this with the professionals. i would be hesitant to have in place a one size fits all approach, because it can potentially do more harm than good.

The Cass Interim Report literally states that these extensive medical reviews by experts are not happening.

It states that clinical decisions have not been made by appropriate clinical experts.

It states that children are not routinely being offered therapy before being placed on puberty blocking hormone treatments. The same puberty blocking hormone treatments that it states do not have sufficient evidence regarding their long-term effects to recommend the continued use of.

It states that staff have felt forced into providing unwaveringly affirming care, despite this being in conflict with their medical training.

It states that once these treatments have begun, there is a drop-off, rather than an intensifying of appointments, as would be expected. It states that there is little in the way of follow-up appointments to determine whether these treatments have even worked.

It states that there are still fundamental disagreements over what exactly gender dysphoria is. The very thing these treatments are supposed to be for.

The Tavistock, despite the best efforts of the staff working there, absolutely was shut down for its severe failings. It's precisely why the only recommendation the Interim Report was able to confidently make was to move the service away from the clinic.

i'll grant you that i have not acknowledged the failings of Tavistock enough. there have been failings - no denying it.

but these failings are not due to the clinic not attempting to provide appropriate care to its patients, it is due to a vast array of factors. in 2009, it became a national service, in 2016 GPs, schools and other groups were able to refer to it directly. the demand has grown as a result - 210 referrals in 2011/12 to more than 5k in 20/21. the service has struggled to recruit and train staff to cope with this increased demand, and cases have become more complex. it's pretty obvious to see why there have been issues.

Does it need reform? Sure. Do we throw out all the good work it has done because of its failings? Of course not.

The key message coming out of the report is that services need to be expanded and increased. It's a key message in the report:

I have heard that young service users are particularly worried that I will suggest that services should be reduced or stopped. I want to assure you that this is absolutely not the case – the reverse is true. I think that more services are needed for you, closer to where you live. The GIDS staff are working incredibly hard and doing their very best to see you as quickly as possible but providing supportive care is not something that can be rushed – each young person needs enough time and space for their personal needs to be met. So, with the best will in the world, one service is not going to be able to respond to the growing demand in a timely way.

If you had been promoting the need for increased care for young people in this thread then I would not be as dubious about your motives concerning this report. instead, you don't think young people should be transitioning at all, and you are using the failings of Tavistock as evidence to support that. it's literally not the point of the Cass report at all, and for someone who has read it, you should know that.

 

[NotThatSoph]

As a pre-teen, I was offered the choice on whether or not to have a significant operation on my back. The operation had a relatively low, but very real, chance of crippling me. Even if successful, that could mean anything from a perfect result, to a year in a wheelchair, to permanently very restricted mobility. It was an edge case, and while my doctor advised me to not do it, it was ultimately left up to me. My parents were also involved in the process, but they too let me have the final say.

This was extremely irreversible. During this process, weirdly enough neither my parents nor my doctor pointed out that they weren't allowed to feck me due to my age. That is rhetoric we only use when talking about gender identity.

 

[Sky1981]

How robust do you think these so callled gender assessment professionals? What's their accuracy rate? Can they at least guarantee 98%? Cause if they mess this up that's one child ruined.

How much of it is tantrums? How much of it is just kids being kids? How much of it are genuine? Kid says alot of things let alone 5 years old, i honestly doubt sitting them in an 8 hour session can decide what gender they should be.

And what are the odds that the whole process is self fulfilling? Getting a hormone blocker, which is the very essence that made you a man or a woman will turn you into the other. Was it due to the drugs? There are still so many unclear and no scientist can claim 98% accuracy of their assesment. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And there are possibility of conflict of interest when pharmacist are offering gender affirming care which i believe doesnt come cheap.

5 is way too young to even tampering with hormone. I'd say let them hit 15 and if that's what they want go do it.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

As a pre-teen, I was offered the choice on whether or not to have a significant operation on my back. The operation had a relatively low, but very real, chance of crippling me. Even if successful, that could mean anything from a perfect result, to a year in a wheelchair, to permanently very restricted mobility. It was an edge case, and while my doctor advised me to not do it, it was ultimately left up to me. My parents were also involved in the process, but they too let me have the final say.

This was extremely irreversible. During this process, weirdly enough neither my parents nor my doctor pointed out that they weren't allowed to feck me due to my age. That is rhetoric we only use when talking about gender identity.

Your doctor definitely didn't leave it up to you. You cannot legally consent to surgery when you're not an adult. Your parents had to consent on your behalf.

Your second last sentence is bizarre.

 

[Camilo]

You've been listening to your kids since birth. That's why they haven't died of starvation. Hopefully you've watched them grow and gained an understanding of who they are. Listening to the little tossers doesn't mean you have to agree but it's a good idea to know their thoughts. Sticking your fingers in your ears and calling them idiots don't always get it done. You make it out like Bernard, aged 13, suddenly decided that he wants to be a girl and parents are suddenly like "Sure Bernadette. Let's get you down to surgery, it's clearly what you want." That's just a mockery of a quite clearly long, drawn out and difficult process.

You're being far to generous to disgusting parenting. If it wasn't so tragic I'd mock it more.

 

[The Corinthian]

As a pre-teen, I was offered the choice on whether or not to have a significant operation on my back. The operation had a relatively low, but very real, chance of crippling me. Even if successful, that could mean anything from a perfect result, to a year in a wheelchair, to permanently very restricted mobility. It was an edge case, and while my doctor advised me to not do it, it was ultimately left up to me. My parents were also involved in the process, but they too let me have the final say.

This was extremely irreversible. During this process, weirdly enough neither my parents nor my doctor pointed out that they weren't allowed to feck me due to my age. That is rhetoric we only use when talking about gender identity.

???

 

[The Corinthian]

As a pre-teen, I was offered the choice on whether or not to have a significant operation on my back. The operation had a relatively low, but very real, chance of crippling me. Even if successful, that could mean anything from a perfect result, to a year in a wheelchair, to permanently very restricted mobility. It was an edge case, and while my doctor advised me to not do it, it was ultimately left up to me. My parents were also involved in the process, but they too let me have the final say.

This was extremely irreversible. During this process, weirdly enough neither my parents nor my doctor pointed out that they weren't allowed to feck me due to my age. That is rhetoric we only use when talking about gender identity.

Also this example makes very little sense.

As Poguey mentions - you can't consent to the surgery as you were a minor. Secondly, there was undoubtedly a test to determine there was something wrong with your spine - think MRI, CT scan, X-Ray or whatever. There's something that exists in objective reality that says that your back isn't what it should be and hence the discussion of surgery came up.

 

[Spoony]

There's still so little known about gender dysphoria. There's a link between GD and schizophrenia, there's a link between GD and autism, there's a link between GD and depression. I'd say let's find out the root causes that leads to GD before we advocate for surgery on little kids(!) and pumping them full of all sorts of cocktails of medication.

I agree.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

because if you suffer from gender dysphoria, going through adolescence is going to make that dysphoria significantly worse. young people receiving treatment early can save their lives - literally. of course there needs to be thorough engagement with health professionals as part of this process, just like any other treatment young people receive. that should be the priority - provide young people with the best possible care and treatment to help support them - not just outright stop them from being able to transition.

I thought the statistics and studies show that puberty causes most gender dysphoria cases to desist.

 

[maniak]

This is just bluster. You are plucking numbers from thin air to make a case which is very common around the arguments of this subject.

I'm sure some people are purely transphobic as you suggest but to claim that is the vast majority at 90% is tosh.

You completely ignore that women themselves have a say and opinion on this, as to father of daughters and fair minded people.

I always find the 'sports' side of the argument an odd hill for the very strong 'pro' movement to die on. Presumably wanting to transition from a man to a women is such a massive life choice far beyond sporting achievement, an therefore if the sacrifice needed is one can transition but not take part in their new genders sporting category so be it. It's no different to a heavy weight not being able to compete in the feather weight category, a dwarf not playing in the NBA or a 7 ft jockey.

It's as if sometimes people use these random percentages to make a point.

My experience in these conversations, online or real life, has been pretty consistent. Most people are just transphobes and a minority really care about the integrity of sports. Try going to any commentary box on newspapers or social media and tell me what you see: genuine concern for women sports or a tsunami of transphobia.

If you read my posts in this thread you will see I'm not ready to die on any hill. I've made my point that any exclusion in non-professional sports, particularly school sports, is wrong and shouldn't happen. When we talk about pro sports we need to go case by case, and you will find most transgender women agree with this.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

Your doctor definitely didn't leave it up to you. You cannot legally consent to surgery when you're not an adult. Your parents had to consent on your behalf.

Your second last sentence is bizarre.

???

flabbergasted

 

[maniak]

So do you think that people who aren't interested in women's sports can't have an opinion on whether allowing trans people to compete is fair or not?

I think you missed my point.

The fact transphobes use women sports as a way to discriminate against transgender women poisons the discussion, because those discussing never really know if the other person is being genuine or just ohpleasesomeonethingofthechildren-ing them.

If you are discriminated against on a daily basis, it's only natural you become very defensive.

 

[stepic]

Your second last sentence is bizarre

???

flabbergasted

come on guys, you know what he meant. just add the word 'over' after 'feck me'. the doctors and the parents didn't feck him over by ignoring his wishes, despite the legal responsibility being with the parent.

young people are given treatment all the time, some of which can be risky. it's not unique to those requiring care in this area.

 

[stepic]

I thought the statistics and studies show that puberty causes most gender dysphoria cases to desist.

i don't have those stats in front of me, but i'd be interested to see them if you have them. i'd say that sometimes it does for some individuals, but not for others. it stands to reason that if you're already suffering from gender dysphoria (and not all trans people do suffer from it, although most do) already, then the changes to your body as a result of puberty are only going to exacerbate that problem. however ultimately what is required is individual care. there shouldn't be a blanket approach, which is why we need to increase the quality and availability of services to young people.

 

[Alex99]

because if you suffer from gender dysphoria, going through adolescence is going to make that dysphoria significantly worse. young people receiving treatment early can save their lives - literally. of course there needs to be thorough engagement with health professionals as part of this process, just like any other treatment young people receive. that should be the priority - provide young people with the best possible care and treatment to help support them - not just outright stop them from being able to transition.

Firstly, and has as has been repeated to you ad nauseam, the evidence basis simply isn't there to be confidently asserting that "going through adolescence is going to make that dysphoria significantly worse". There are even studies showing that going through adolescence can relieve these feelings of dysphoria. Again, I implore you to actually read and engage with the literature and studies that are out there.

Secondly, as the Cass Interim Report highlighted as one of its key points, there isn't even consensus of what gender dysphoria even is. How can you possibly expect to treat something that we can't even define?

Thirdly, for someone who was so concerned with my apparent "alarmingly sensationalist misinterpretations", you've tried to paint my views a few times now as wanting to "stop them from being able to transition" and not the clearly stated view of "let's wait until there's evidence to support the medical pathways being used (as we do for pretty much every other aspect of medical treatment) before allowing kids to begin potentially irreversible treatments".

Finally, this doesn't actually address the question answered about making informed decisions. It's essentially conjecture around the effects of delaying medical treatment (unless you're able to produce evidence that the Cass Interim Report has been unable to find supporting your stance).

Given that minors are not able to provide consent for other elective treatments, with parents or guardians having to do so on their behalf, I ask again, why this is different to that, or any of the other many things we recognise that they are not able to make informed decisions on?

i would prefer to leave this with the professionals. i would be hesitant to have in place a one size fits all approach, because it can potentially do more harm than good.

I'm also not really advocating a one-size fits all approach, but it seems quite clear to me that placing minors on potentially irreversible medical pathways is never going to be anything more than an extreme, last resort.

I'm happy to respect that you believe early medical treatment can be life-saving, and this is something that remain open to, but the fact remains that we simply do not have the evidence to support this belief, and until we do, I'll be sticking with my stated view of things.

i'll grant you that i have not acknowledged the failings of Tavistock enough. there have been failings - no denying it.

but these failings are not due to the clinic not attempting to provide appropriate care to its patients, it is due to a vast array of factors. in 2009, it became a national service, in 2016 GPs, schools and other groups were able to refer to it directly. the demand has grown as a result - 210 referrals in 2011/12 to more than 5k in 20/21. the service has struggled to recruit and train staff to cope with this increased demand, and cases have become more complex. it's pretty obvious to see why there have been issues.

Does it need reform? Sure. Do we throw out all the good work it has done because of its failings? Of course not.

I'm glad you've acknowledged that there have been failings, but in all honesty, you still don't seem to be grasping the severity of these failings, or indeed what I have had to say about them.

Yes, the clinic has not failed due to simply not attempting to provide care. Neither I or the Cass Interim Report have stated as much. Yes, it's abundantly clear what some of the contributions to some of the failings have been. It is highlighted in the report that the organic growth of the service was one such contributing factor.

None of this changes the fact that the actual clinical processes and treatments carried out there were woefully inadequate.

The key message coming out of the report is that services need to be expanded and increased. It's a key message in the report:

I have heard that young service users are particularly worried that I will suggest that services should be reduced or stopped. I want to assure you that this is absolutely not the case – the reverse is true. I think that more services are needed for you, closer to where you live. The GIDS staff are working incredibly hard and doing their very best to see you as quickly as possible but providing supportive care is not something that can be rushed – each young person needs enough time and space for their personal needs to be met. So, with the best will in the world, one service is not going to be able to respond to the growing demand in a timely way.

Again, you seem to have fundamentally failed to comprehend what the report has said. This is not the key message. This is simply a recommendation for increased service, and is the first and only recommendation it can make at this time. The report essentially spells out that it can not even begin to place recommendations on what the actual details of this service will be because the evidence is not there to support any of the currently used medical processes.

To spell it out for you again, within the current service:

• Children and young people using the service were not routinely offered or given therapy before being placed on puberty blocking hormone treatments.
• Children and young people that had been placed on pathways of hormone therapy (including puberty blockers) routinely saw a drop-off in the frequency of their appointments. The exact opposite of what you would expect to happen.
• Children and young people that had been placed on pathways of hormone therapy, and indeed referred for surgery, were not kept track of, and outcomes of these treatments were not sought nor recorded.
• The medical pathways that children and young people were placed on were not supported by evidence or extensive review by medical experts.
• Clinical decisions were not always being made by appropriate clinical experts.
• There were not appropriate safeguarding procedures in place.

These are also just some of the findings. You can read up on more in the report, or indeed, my earlier posts quoting the report.

As I have said now on numerous occasions, it is simply not enough for the staff that worked there to have tried their best. I have never doubted that they did anything other than do their best for the children placed in their care. I haven't even denied that demand for the service has been a contributing factor; I've simply pointed out that this is not a phenomena unique to the gender services as practically the whole NHS has demand vastly outweighing available treatment. I also agree wholeheartedly that the service, in whatever form it takes in the future, needs to be readily available at more than a single location, at a single level of the NHS care structure.

If you had been promoting the need for increased care for young people in this thread then I would not be as dubious about your motives concerning this report. instead, you don't think young people should be transitioning at all, and you are using the failings of Tavistock as evidence to support that. it's literally not the point of the Cass report at all, and for someone who has read it, you should know that.

Once again, you are deliberately misrepresenting my posts and responding to things that haven't actually been said, rather than engaging with the things that I am actually saying to you. You could not be arguing with much more bad faith.

What do you even mean by "if I had been promoting the need for increased care"? What are you on about when you say I "don't think young people should be transitioning at all"?

Literally one of the posts you quoted of mine literally shows me saying that we should want the treatment and care available to children and young people to be extensively reviewed by medical experts. What is this, if not advocacy for better care for young people? As above, I have not once expressed that I disagree with the recommendation for more availability of services.

Another post you've quoted quite literally has me advocating for leaving children to choose how they live and how they dress. How does this oppose transition? You are conflating my (current) opposition to early medical transition with your entirely misplaced belief that I believe children should not be free to express themselves how they wish. I could not have been clearer about why I believe that medical transition should be off the table for children (again, it's because there is little to no evidence supporting these treatment pathways), and yet you continue to ignore these explanations to instead repeat complete falsehoods about my views and present straw-men arguments in response.

I am not using the failings of the Tavistock of evidence "to stop young people transitioning" at all. I am using the failings of the Tavistock to highlight to the many people in this thread that the care provided to children and young people is not remotely close to the quality and standards they seem to believe it is, or indeed the quality and standards these children deserve.

For the nth time, you quite clearly do not understand what the Cass Interim Report is for. You quite clearly do not understand what it has found. You quite clearly do not understand my position on this issue.

The Cass Interim Report is an intermediate report published part way through an extensive review of the services provided to children and young people in relation to gender dysphoria or feelings of gender incongruence. It is not a report advocating against gender transition, which is not something I have ever claimed it to be, despite your numerous attempts at suggesting such. It is also not a report strictly designed to "help children transition", as you seem to believe it to be.

The Cass Interim Report is a report designed to highlight the failings and flaws of the current services provided (of which there are many), and present an early outline of how the service can move forward to resolve and correct these issues, so that the children and young people requiring access to the service can receive care of an adequate standard. Helping children transition will form just part of this reformed service, but there are many failings in practice and gaps in evidence that need resolving, including providing actual therapeutic treatment, before transition can even be determined as the best option for these children.

I have no idea what you are even suggesting by saying you are "dubious about [my] motives" when your motives seem to extend no further than blind advocacy for transitioning children, despite the obvious failings in the entire structure through which these transitions take place, stemming right from diagnosis of gender dysphoria, right through to a complete lack of aftercare or follow up on treatment outcomes, and despite an extremely fragile evidence base upon which the whole structure has been built.

From very early on in this thread it was clear that you have decided that anyone that disagrees with your stubborn, largely conjecture-based stance, is a horrible bigot. You have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to engage with actual evidence put to you - be that in relation to the participation requirements for trans-athletes in Olympic competition, the performances of Lia Thomas in NCAA competition, or indeed what the Cass Interim Report has to say about gender care for children in the United Kingdom, instead choosing to either ignore and disengage from discussion, or misrepresent points and argue against strawman.

Engage in good faith. Respond to my actual points. Stop making things up.

As a pre-teen, I was offered the choice on whether or not to have a significant operation on my back. The operation had a relatively low, but very real, chance of crippling me. Even if successful, that could mean anything from a perfect result, to a year in a wheelchair, to permanently very restricted mobility. It was an edge case, and while my doctor advised me to not do it, it was ultimately left up to me. My parents were also involved in the process, but they too let me have the final say.

This was extremely irreversible. During this process, weirdly enough neither my parents nor my doctor pointed out that they weren't allowed to feck me due to my age. That is rhetoric we only use when talking about gender identity.

You've shown a remarkable ability to consistently talk out of your arse in this thread, but this has to be the most blatant load of bollocks you've come out with yet.

As a pre-teen, you (and your parents) were presented with the option to undergo elective surgery on your back. You (and your parents) were told the full range of possible outcomes, because this is standard practice when presenting a patient with any surgical treatment (I was once due an appendectomy and they told me there was a slim chance I'd die during it - fortunately it turned out to be a kidney stone). Your doctor advised you (and your parents) against electing for the surgery.

Your parents may well have asked you what you wanted to do, and ultimately respected your decision, but be under absolutely no illusion that had you elected to go for it (it is not clear that you did), your parents would have been the ones signing the consent form(s) for the operation to go ahead.

As for that last line, you are clearly incapable of coherent debate.

come on guys, you know what he meant. just add the word 'over' after 'feck me'. the doctors and the parents didn't feck him over by ignoring his wishes, despite the legal responsibility being with the parent.

young people are given treatment all the time, some of which can be risky. it's not unique to those requiring care in this area.

Given that I have repeatedly asked (and failed to receive) clarification as to how a minor can make an informed decision on electing to undergo potentially irreversible treatment while it is acknowledged that a minor cannot make an informed decision when it comes to consenting to sex, and the entire precursor to that post was a quite clearly false recounting of a tale of being offered elective surgery as a minor, it seems abundantly obvious that NotThatSoph was, in fact, referring to the doctor's ability to "feck" them.

It's well established at this point that reading comprehension is not a strength of yours though, so it's not really a surprise that you've failed to grasp this.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I think you missed my point.

The fact transphobes use women sports as a way to discriminate against transgender women poisons the discussion, because those discussing never really know if the other person is being genuine or just ohpleasesomeonethingofthechildren-ing them.

If you are discriminated against on a daily basis, it's only natural you become very defensive.

This is true. Although the discussion is equally being poisoned by those on the opposite side of the debate implying that everyone who disagrees with is a transphobe.

 

[maniak]

This is true. Although the discussion is equally being poisoned by those on the opposite side of the debate implying that everyone who disagrees with is a transphobe.

Do you think the numbers compare? In my experience the kind of poisoning you're describing is residual compared to the amount of actual transphobes out there using women sports as ammunition.

 

[stepic]

Firstly, and has as has been repeated to you ad nauseam, the evidence basis simply isn't there to be confidently asserting that "going through adolescence is going to make that dysphoria significantly worse". There are even studies showing that going through adolescence can relieve these feelings of dysphoria. Again, I implore you to actually read and engage with the literature and studies that are out there.

Secondly, as the Cass Interim Report highlighted as one of its key points, there isn't even consensus of what gender dysphoria even is. How can you possibly expect to treat something that we can't even define?

Thirdly, for someone who was so concerned with my apparent "alarmingly sensationalist misinterpretations", you've tried to paint my views a few times now as wanting to "stop them from being able to transition" and not the clearly stated view of "let's wait until there's evidence to support the medical pathways being used (as we do for pretty much every other aspect of medical treatment) before allowing kids to begin potentially irreversible treatments".

Finally, this doesn't actually address the question answered about making informed decisions. It's essentially conjecture around the effects of delaying medical treatment (unless you're able to produce evidence that the Cass Interim Report has been unable to find supporting your stance).

Given that minors are not able to provide consent for other elective treatments, with parents or guardians having to do so on their behalf, I ask again, why this is different to that, or any of the other many things we recognise that they are not able to make informed decisions on?



I'm also not really advocating a one-size fits all approach, but it seems quite clear to me that placing minors on potentially irreversible medical pathways is never going to be anything more than an extreme, last resort.

I'm happy to respect that you believe early medical treatment can be life-saving, and this is something that remain open to, but the fact remains that we simply do not have the evidence to support this belief, and until we do, I'll be sticking with my stated view of things.



I'm glad you've acknowledged that there have been failings, but in all honesty, you still don't seem to be grasping the severity of these failings, or indeed what I have had to say about them.

Yes, the clinic has not failed due to simply not attempting to provide care. Neither I or the Cass Interim Report have stated as much. Yes, it's abundantly clear what some of the contributions to some of the failings have been. It is highlighted in the report that the organic growth of the service was one such contributing factor.

None of this changes the fact that the actual clinical processes and treatments carried out there were woefully inadequate.



Again, you seem to have fundamentally failed to comprehend what the report has said. This is not the key message. This is simply a recommendation for increased service, and is the first and only recommendation it can make at this time. The report essentially spells out that it can not even begin to place recommendations on what the actual details of this service will be because the evidence is not there to support any of the currently used medical processes.

To spell it out for you again, within the current service:

• Children and young people using the service were not routinely offered or given therapy before being placed on puberty blocking hormone treatments.
• Children and young people that had been placed on pathways of hormone therapy (including puberty blockers) routinely saw a drop-off in the frequency of their appointments. The exact opposite of what you would expect to happen.
• Children and young people that had been placed on pathways of hormone therapy, and indeed referred for surgery, were not kept track of, and outcomes of these treatments were not sought nor recorded.
• The medical pathways that children and young people were placed on were not supported by evidence or extensive review by medical experts.
• Clinical decisions were not always being made by appropriate clinical experts.
• There were not appropriate safeguarding procedures in place.

These are also just some of the findings. You can read up on more in the report, or indeed, my earlier posts quoting the report.

As I have said now on numerous occasions, it is simply not enough for the staff that worked there to have tried their best. I have never doubted that they did anything other than do their best for the children placed in their care. I haven't even denied that demand for the service has been a contributing factor; I've simply pointed out that this is not a phenomena unique to the gender services as practically the whole NHS has demand vastly outweighing available treatment. I also agree wholeheartedly that the service, in whatever form it takes in the future, needs to be readily available at more than a single location, at a single level of the NHS care structure.



Once again, you are deliberately misrepresenting my posts and responding to things that haven't actually been said, rather than engaging with the things that I am actually saying to you. You could not be arguing with much more bad faith.

What do you even mean by "if I had been promoting the need for increased care"? What are you on about when you say I "don't think young people should be transitioning at all"?

Literally one of the posts you quoted of mine literally shows me saying that we should want the treatment and care available to children and young people to be extensively reviewed by medical experts. What is this, if not advocacy for better care for young people? As above, I have not once expressed that I disagree with the recommendation for more availability of services.

Another post you've quoted quite literally has me advocating for leaving children to choose how they live and how they dress. How does this oppose transition? You are conflating my (current) opposition to early medical transition with your entirely misplaced belief that I believe children should not be free to express themselves how they wish. I could not have been clearer about why I believe that medical transition should be off the table for children (again, it's because there is little to no evidence supporting these treatment pathways), and yet you continue to ignore these explanations to instead repeat complete falsehoods about my views and present straw-men arguments in response.

I am not using the failings of the Tavistock of evidence "to stop young people transitioning" at all. I am using the failings of the Tavistock to highlight to the many people in this thread that the care provided to children and young people is not remotely close to the quality and standards they seem to believe it is, or indeed the quality and standards these children deserve.

For the nth time, you quite clearly do not understand what the Cass Interim Report is for. You quite clearly do not understand what it has found. You quite clearly do not understand my position on this issue.

The Cass Interim Report is an intermediate report published part way through an extensive review of the services provided to children and young people in relation to gender dysphoria or feelings of gender incongruence. It is not a report advocating against gender transition, which is not something I have ever claimed it to be, despite your numerous attempts at suggesting such. It is also not a report strictly designed to "help children transition", as you seem to believe it to be.

The Cass Interim Report is a report designed to highlight the failings and flaws of the current services provided (of which there are many), and present an early outline of how the service can move forward to resolve and correct these issues, so that the children and young people requiring access to the service can receive care of an adequate standard. Helping children transition will form just part of this reformed service, but there are many failings in practice and gaps in evidence that need resolving, including providing actual therapeutic treatment, before transition can even be determined as the best option for these children.

I have no idea what you are even suggesting by saying you are "dubious about [my] motives" when your motives seem to extend no further than blind advocacy for transitioning children, despite the obvious failings in the entire structure through which these transitions take place, stemming right from diagnosis of gender dysphoria, right through to a complete lack of aftercare or follow up on treatment outcomes, and despite an extremely fragile evidence base upon which the whole structure has been built.

From very early on in this thread it was clear that you have decided that anyone that disagrees with your stubborn, largely conjecture-based stance, is a horrible bigot. You have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to engage with actual evidence put to you - be that in relation to the participation requirements for trans-athletes in Olympic competition, the performances of Lia Thomas in NCAA competition, or indeed what the Cass Interim Report has to say about gender care for children in the United Kingdom, instead choosing to either ignore and disengage from discussion, or misrepresent points and argue against strawman.

Engage in good faith. Respond to my actual points. Stop making things up.



You've shown a remarkable ability to consistently talk out of your arse in this thread, but this has to be the most blatant load of bollocks you've come out with yet.

As a pre-teen, you (and your parents) were presented with the option to undergo elective surgery on your back. You (and your parents) were told the full range of possible outcomes, because this is standard practice when presenting a patient with any surgical treatment (I was once due an appendectomy and they told me there was a slim chance I'd die during it - fortunately it turned out to be a kidney stone). Your doctor advised you (and your parents) against electing for the surgery.

Your parents may well have asked you what you wanted to do, and ultimately respected your decision, but be under absolutely no illusion that had you elected to go for it (it is not clear that you did), your parents would have been the ones signing the consent form(s) for the operation to go ahead.

As for that last line, you are clearly incapable of coherent debate.



Given that I have repeatedly asked (and failed to receive) clarification as to how a minor can make an informed decision on electing to undergo potentially irreversible treatment while it is acknowledged that a minor cannot make an informed decision when it comes to consenting to sex, and the entire precursor to that post was a quite clearly false recounting of a tale of being offered elective surgery as a minor, it seems abundantly obvious that NotThatSoph was, in fact, referring to the doctor's ability to "feck" them.

It's well established at this point that reading comprehension is not a strength of yours though, so it's not really a surprise that you've failed to grasp this.

in future i suggest you try to engage with people without the constant snide remarks.

i'm glad to know you will now be advocating for young people to receive the best form of individual gender treatment and care they need in order to help them, should they and the relevant health professionals agree, to transition. glad to see it.

 

[Carolina Red]

because those discussing never really know if the other person is being genuine or just ohpleasesomeonethingofthechildren-ing them

So you make up a 10% vs 90% statistic to “prove a point”.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Your doctor definitely didn't leave it up to you. You cannot legally consent to surgery when you're not an adult. Your parents had to consent on your behalf.

Your second last sentence is bizarre.

I think @NotThatSoph acknowledges this in the sentence "My parents were also involved in the process, but they too let me have the final say". In this instance the parents and doctor honouring the wishes of the patient is functionally the same as the patient making the decision. Sure, from a legal perspective final consent rests with the parents but it's a decision rubber stamped having been delegated to the child.

 

[maniak]

So you make up a 10% vs 90% statistic to “prove a point”.

Make a point. I wasn't trying to prove anything, just use numbers as an expression. I'm sure in america people sometimes say "damn 90% of my students are annoying pricks" without conducting any sort of academical study.

But I'm sure you go around confronting people who say they're 50/50 on something demanding they prove it.

 

[Carolina Red]

Make a point. I wasn't trying to prove anything, just use numbers as an expression. I'm sure in america people sometimes say "damn 90% of my students are annoying pricks" without conducting any sort of academical study.

But I'm sure you go around confronting people who say they're 50/50 on something demanding they prove it.

The word make vs prove is the least important thing in a discussion about you making up a stat to support a made up view you have of reality that you then go on to say can’t even be known, just so you can cast aspersions at folks arguing against your opinion about an issue.

 

[Alex99]

i don't have those stats in front of me, but i'd be interested to see them if you have them. i'd say that sometimes it does for some individuals, but not for others. it stands to reason that if you're already suffering from gender dysphoria (and not all trans people do suffer from it, although most do) already, then the changes to your body as a result of puberty are only going to exacerbate that problem. however ultimately what is required is individual care. there shouldn't be a blanket approach, which is why we need to increase the quality and availability of services to young people.

I'm genuinely interested to hear the explanation as to what exactly makes someone transgender if not gender dysphoria. My understanding was that gender dysphoria (however that is meant to be defined) is the root of the discomfort that ultimately makes transition a necessary step to take. Take out this apparent discomfort with one's own body, and what exactly is it that is prompting people to transition?

Spoiler

Lebovitz, P. S. (1972). Feminine behavior in boys: Aspects of its outcome. American Journal of Psychiatry, 128, 1283–1289.

Zuger, B. (1978). Effeminate behavior present in boys from childhood: Ten additional years of follow-up. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 19, 363–369.

Money, J., & Russo, A. J. (1979). Homosexual outcome of discordant gender identity/role: Longitudinal follow-up. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 4, 29–41.

Zuger, B. (1984). Early effeminate behavior in boys: Outcome and significance for homosexuality. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 172, 90–97.

Davenport, C. W. (1986). A follow-up study of 10 feminine boys. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 511–517.

Green, R. (1987). The "sissy boy syndrome" and the development of homosexuality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Kosky, R. J. (1987). Gender-disordered children: Does inpatient treatment help? Medical Journal of Australia, 146, 565–569.

Wallien, M. S. C., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2008). Psychosexual outcome of gender-dysphoric children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1413–1423.

Drummond, K. D., Bradley, S. J., Badali-Peterson, M., & Zucker, K. J. (2008). A follow-up study of girls with gender identity disorder. Developmental Psychology, 44, 34–45.

Gender Identity Disorders in Childhood and Adolescence

Currently Debated Concepts and Treatment Strategies

Dtsch Arztebl Int 2008; 105(48): 834-41

Singh, D. (2012). A follow-up study of boys with gender identity disorder. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.

Steensma, T. D., McGuire, J. K., Kreukels, B. P. C., Beekman, A. J., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2013). Factors associated with desistence and persistence of childhood gender dysphoria: A quantitative follow-up study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 52, 582–590.

I have not read all of these in full, but I have read at least their summaries and the findings are largely consistent.

in future i suggest you try to engage with people without the constant snide remarks.

i'm glad to know you will now be advocating for young people to receive the best form of individual gender treatment and care they need in order to help them, should they and the relevant health professionals agree, to transition. glad to see it.

As I said, you are incapable of arguing in good faith.

The audacity to accuse me of making snide remarks when you have consistently misrepresented what I have said to the point of calling a post "alarmingly sensationalist misrepresentation" while simultaneously and continually refusing to actually engage with and explain how that is the case, and when you have spent half of your posts in this thread dancing around directly calling people transphobes, but definitely implying as much, for daring to have a remotely different view of things as you.

To give you the end of that post again (and thank you for proving my point):

From very early on in this thread it was clear that you have decided that anyone that disagrees with your stubborn, largely conjecture-based stance, is a horrible bigot. You have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to engage with actual evidence put to you - be that in relation to the participation requirements for trans-athletes in Olympic competition, the performances of Lia Thomas in NCAA competition, or indeed what the Cass Interim Report has to say about gender care for children in the United Kingdom, instead choosing to either ignore and disengage from discussion, or misrepresent points and argue against strawman.

Engage in good faith. Respond to my actual points. Stop making things up.


It has come as absolutely no surprise to me that the weight of evidence presented to you has become so large that you are no longer even pretending to engage in debate.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I think @NotThatSoph acknowledges this in the sentence "My parents were also involved in the process, but they too let me have the final say". In this instance the parents and doctor honouring the wishes of the patient is functionally the same as the patient making the decision. Sure, from a legal perspective final consent rests with the parents but it's a decision rubber stamped having been delegated to the child.

I certainly hope not. A child doesn’t have the emotional maturity to make a decision about a difficult risk vs benefit scenario. Even if that decision is purely about their own health. Hence they’re not allowed to vote/drive a car etc

The role of the parents/doctors there would have been to steer the child towards making the best decision for their own long term health. Not to rubber stamp a decision left entirely up to someone too young to understand the various nuances involved. Someone who can’t possibly understand why a long term view is so important as they’ve not yet been able to establish a long term perspective on anything.

Which seems to bring us neatly back on topic…