News of the day

[randomlegend]

Doesn't seem a millions miles away from mutilation being a good description...

http://www.phsa.ca/transcarebc/child...kers-for-youth

It's just such a more nuanced discussion than you want to have. You're very prone to becoming entrenched in a position and then just making sensationalist proclamations about it, shutting yourself off to considering the depth of the issues.

I actually work with these kids. I'm not sure what the right thing to do for them is. I think - on balance - that trying to delay the irreversible development of significant secondary sexual characteristics until such a time as they are deemed a competent adult and can make decisions for themselves about a more permanent transition is not an unreasonable goal.

The problems - in my opinion - arise from the fact that there is simply not the data/evidence available to know whether such an approach has unforeseen safety issues and whether (should the child decide later that they do not wish to transition) pubertal development will proceed entirely normally at an older age if the GNRH analogues are stopped. Obtaining such data is incredibly difficult, because it's not something you can just run a randomised controlled trial on. Much of the understanding will be based on the other area GNRH analogues are used, which is to delay precocious puberty (when puberty starts unusually early) to an age more within the normal range. In that circumstance, they appear to be safe and children go through puberty normally when they are stopped. Is that knowledge entirely transferrable to delaying the puberty of trans kids until adulthood? Nobody knows. There are also of course potentially psychological issues borne out of the latter use which are not relevant to the former.

I will say, many of these kids are genuinely miserable in their given gender; not uncommonly to the point where they will make serious attempts to end their life. You are presumably advocating for an approach where nothing is done until these children are adults and can decide for themselves (correct me if I am wrong, I am not sure I've ever actually seen you say what you think SHOULD be the approach). Do you really think that's right? To tell these kids that they just have to deal with the fact they are going to go through puberty, irreversibly develop characteristics associated with a gender they don't identify as, and then they can try to undo that as far as possible when they are an adult if they still feel the same? I can understand the uncomfortableness of giving these kids drugs to block puberty without fully understanding all the possible permutations of the effects, but I am not sure I agree we should just do nothing (from a gender development perspective) for them either.

You can offer them all the "mental health support" you like, but often it doesn't help a great deal. By not allowing them access to these medications, you may well push them towards a path of self-harming, taking serious overdoses, being admitted to hospital under sections, being given hefty doses of psychiatric medications against their will (many of which have significant risks themselves). Is that better?

As I said, it's a complex, nuanced, and difficult topic. Screaming about "MUTILATING HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN" doesn't really add much or show any understanding of the situation. Have people/services made mistakes? I am sure they have. Has guidance been wrong and required iteration in light of new evidence? I'm sure it has. But in general, the people involved in these services are genuinely trying to help these kids.

[Don]

Like you fucking know a thing about the development of significant secondary sexual characteristics.

[Manc]

Question Time going off.

[Yevrah]

It's just such a more nuanced discussion than you want to have. You're very prone to becoming entrenched in a position and then just making sensationalist proclamations about it, shutting yourself off to considering the depth of the issues.

You have no idea what I've considered or otherwise and you shouldn't assume either way just because it isn't posted here. It's clearly a very complicated issue that I think ironically is massively oversimplified by those I've been taking a pop at in this thread - in that blockers as a child, op as an adult, job done.

I actually work with these kids. I'm not sure what the right thing to do for them is. I think - on balance - that trying to delay the irreversible development of significant secondary sexual characteristics until such a time as they are deemed a competent adult and can make decisions for themselves about a more permanent transition is not an unreasonable goal.

Which is the angle I'm coming at this from. We have overseen a culture of prescribing physically altering and (potentially irreversible) drugs to children, essentially at their request and clearly far more often than we should have.

The problems - in my opinion - arise from the fact that there is simply not the data/evidence available to know whether such an approach has unforeseen safety issues and whether (should the child decide later that they do not wish to transition) pubertal development will proceed entirely normally at an older age if the GNRH analogues are stopped. Obtaining such data is incredibly difficult, because it's not something you can just run a randomised controlled trial on. Much of the understanding will be based on the other area GNRH analogues are used, which is to delay precocious puberty (when puberty starts unusually early) to an age more within the normal range. In that circumstance, they appear to be safe and children go through puberty normally when they are stopped. Is that knowledge entirely transferrable to delaying the puberty of trans kids until adulthood? Nobody knows. There are also of course potentially psychological issues borne out of the latter use which are not relevant to the former.

I think a lot of this goes away to some extent if the barrier to being prescribed these drugs had been far higher, sure there's a risk that any child might change their mind at a later date but if the process had been more stringent then you're mitigating that risk far more than had been. As it was, a child may have presented with multiple issues, they wanted to transition so these issues were put down to gender dysphoria and drugs prescribed. It's just not been good enough. When you're potentially fucking with a kid's body for their entire life the assuredness with which you do that has to be far higher.

Now, I don't blame the medical profession solely for this, like I said above it's the culture of nonsense that has been allowed to develop unchallenged that plays a part in all of this - people have been genuinely hesitant to challenge things for fear of being labelled a TERF or worse. You accuse me of taking an entrenched position (probably fair), but where have all of the issues you cite with this been highlighted in the mainstream media? Nowhere near enough.

I will say, many of these kids are genuinely miserable in their given gender; not uncommonly to the point where they will make serious attempts to end their life. You are presumably advocating for an approach where nothing is done until these children are adults and can decide for themselves (correct me if I am wrong, I am not sure I've ever actually seen you say what you think SHOULD be the approach). Do you really think that's right? To tell these kids that they just have to deal with the fact they are going to go through puberty, irreversibly develop characteristics associated with a gender they don't identify as, and then they can try to undo that as far as possible when they are an adult if they still feel the same? I can understand the uncomfortableness of giving these kids drugs to block puberty without fully understanding all the possible permutations of the effects, but I am not sure I agree we should just do nothing (from a gender development perspective) for them either.

You can offer them all the "mental health support" you like, but often it doesn't help a great deal. By not allowing them access to these medications, you may well push them towards a path of self-harming, taking serious overdoses, being admitted to hospital under sections, being given hefty doses of psychiatric medications against their will (many of which have significant risks themselves). Is that better?

There are clearly cases where children are unhappy in their born gender, but also cases where people have had treatment and already changed their minds. You haven't addressed my question on why the Tavistock was closed, but from my understanding some serious malpractice was at play through a willingness to brush any doubts under the carpet. If a child's presenting with mental issues beyond just being unhappy with their gender then to put it down to that as a solution based on questioning the child alone is a dangerous game. So in short, I'm not saying it never should have happened, but that it obviously has far too much. There were/are even trans support groups online coaching children how to answer the questions clinicians would ask ffs.

As I said, it's a complex, nuanced, and difficult topic. Screaming about "MUTILATING HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN" doesn't really add much or show any understanding of the situation. Have people/services made mistakes? I am sure they have. Has guidance been wrong and required iteration in light of new evidence? I'm sure it has. But in general, the people involved in these services are genuinely trying to help these kids.

I don't believe that's always been the motivation. Those involved may have thought it was, but they've been caught up in the nonsense, abuse and general hatred towards anyone who disagrees with a child's right to choose their gender. Which is madness as we don't let them do anything on their own steam in any other walk of life.

In terms of my information on the subject, I've read a fair bit, which is hard as the mainstream and genuinely more objective media hate going anywhere near the negatives associated with this (hello BBC), but the video below was what really crystalised my thoughts. It's long, but a seemingly objective take from someone who was in the thick of it at Tavistock and blew the whistle. It's pretty shocking and as you're in the game I'd be curious to hear your thoughts if you watched it, particularly if you disagree with anything he says.

[Lewis]

I haven't seen a multi-reply post like that since Harold was in his pomp (YouTube video in there as well). Quite excellent.

[Lewis]

I don't believe that's always been the motivation. Those involved may have thought it was, but they've been caught up in the nonsense, abuse and general hatred towards anyone who disagrees with a child's right to choose their gender. Which is madness as we don't let them do anything on their own steam in any other walk of life.

After two solid years of heavily-politicised SCIENCE exposing itself day after day, I'm inclined to think that the people intimately involved in this particular field are much more likely to be sympathetic to a particular approach or beholden to the high-status vibes than any normal doctor, and therefore unlikely to be approaching any of it dispassionately.

[Yevrah]

Essentially all you need for good people do to bad things is a culture where those perpetrating the bad things think they're right and are supported by wider society (or at least by those in it who are shouting, abusing or being DISGUSTED the loudest). We've hit the motherload on both counts with this one.

[Spikey M]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64497868

What is the point of this review exactly? As horrible as it clearly was, it ended more than 30 years ago, they didn't really understand HIV and haemophiliacs need treatment or they die. I'm not sure what they were meant to do?

Obviously Maggies hatred of gay people enjoyment of traditional marriage and partnership held things back a fair bit, but you know, (na na na nananana) Maggie's in a box now.

It feels a bit like those men from Northern Ireland that want an apology from the Prine Minister for being tortured during The Troubles. Everyone in power then has gone lads and not even I can find a way of blaming Rishi and Truss for Torture carried out in the 60's, 20 years before the former was even born.

[Shindig]

View Tweet

What a fucking terrible thing to say. Like, in response to a rapist of women being removed from a woman's prison. FUCK.

[phonics]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64497868

What is the point of this review exactly? As horrible as it clearly was, it ended more than 30 years ago, they didn't really understand HIV and haemophiliacs need treatment or they die. I'm not sure what they were meant to do?

Obviously Maggies hatred of gay people enjoyment of traditional marriage and partnership held things back a fair bit, but you know, (na na na nananana) Maggie's in a box now.

It feels a bit like those men from Northern Ireland that want an apology from the Prine Minister for being tortured during The Troubles. Everyone in power then has gone lads and not even I can find a way of blaming Rishi and Truss for Torture carried out in the 60's, 20 years before the former was even born.

I have to presume you missed the entire point of this case.

[randomlegend]

You have no idea what I've considered or otherwise and you shouldn't assume either way just because it isn't posted here. It's clearly a very complicated issue that I think ironically is massively oversimplified by those I've been taking a pop at in this thread - in that blockers as a child, op as an adult, job done.



Which is the angle I'm coming at this from. We have overseen a culture of prescribing physically altering and (potentially irreversible) drugs to children, essentially at their request and clearly far more often than we should have.



I think a lot of this goes away to some extent if the barrier to being prescribed these drugs had been far higher, sure there's a risk that any child might change their mind at a later date but if the process had been more stringent then you're mitigating that risk far more than had been. As it was, a child may have presented with multiple issues, they wanted to transition so these issues were put down to gender dysphoria and drugs prescribed. It's just not been good enough. When you're potentially fucking with a kid's body for their entire life the assuredness with which you do that has to be far higher.

Now, I don't blame the medical profession solely for this, like I said above it's the culture of nonsense that has been allowed to develop unchallenged that plays a part in all of this - people have been genuinely hesitant to challenge things for fear of being labelled a TERF or worse. You accuse me of taking an entrenched position (probably fair), but where have all of the issues you cite with this been highlighted in the mainstream media? Nowhere near enough.



There are clearly cases where children are unhappy in their born gender, but also cases where people have had treatment and already changed their minds. You haven't addressed my question on why the Tavistock was closed, but from my understanding some serious malpractice was at play through a willingness to brush any doubts under the carpet. If a child's presenting with mental issues beyond just being unhappy with their gender then to put it down to that as a solution based on questioning the child alone is a dangerous game. So in short, I'm not saying it never should have happened, but that it obviously has far too much. There were/are even trans support groups online coaching children how to answer the questions clinicians would ask ffs.



I don't believe that's always been the motivation. Those involved may have thought it was, but they've been caught up in the nonsense, abuse and general hatred towards anyone who disagrees with a child's right to choose their gender. Which is madness as we don't let them do anything on their own steam in any other walk of life.

In terms of my information on the subject, I've read a fair bit, which is hard as the mainstream and genuinely more objective media hate going anywhere near the negatives associated with this (hello BBC), but the video below was what really crystalised my thoughts. It's long, but a seemingly objective take from someone who was in the thick of it at Tavistock and blew the whistle. It's pretty shocking and as you're in the game I'd be curious to hear your thoughts if you watched it, particularly if you disagree with anything he says.

I'm 6 minutes into this and he's already either lying/misrepresenting the facts or he doesn't actually understand what he's talking about.

Under 16s are NOT given "hormones". They may be given hormone blockers, which prevent them from developing male/female characteristics (breasts for example) by delaying puberty. Current understanding is that the effects of this are reversible if they are stopped. I.e. the child will go through puberty and develop the characteristics of their birth gender as they otherwise would have. As I said before, the research is not there to be absolutely sure this will happen entirely normally in all cases, particularly where someone is significantly older than the normal age for puberty when they decide to stop.

Edit: I should clarify slightly what I've said above. GNRH analogues (the puberty blocking drugs) essentially work by mimicking the activity of GNRH. If you Google GNRH you'll see the H does stand for "hormone". Colloquially, when the average person hears "hormone" they think oestrogen or testosterone i.e. sex hormones which promote development of gendered sexual characteristics. He either understands this and is deliberately using the word "hormone" because he knows how most people will interpret that (which is intentionally misleading) or he doesn't really understand what he's talking about (because nobody who does would use the word "hormones" to describe GNRH analogues to a layperson as they know it will be misinterpreted).

After the age of 16, people who have been on hormone blockers for at least a year can start gender affirming hormone therapy. That means they may be given hormones of the gender opposite to their birth sex so that they start to develop the characteristics of their chosen gender. This is likely to have some permanent physical effects. I'd like to point out at this point that 16 is the age of consent for medical procedures regardless of whether it's to do with transitioning or not (and you can actually consent to things earlier than that without parental consent if you are judged competent by a doctor. This is called Gillick competence and it is how kids under 16 are able to be - for example - prescribed contraceptives without their parents' knowledge).

Once you turn 17, if you have been on gender affirming hormone therapy for at least a year then you can proceed to surgery if you do wish.

So the burden of consent is actually already dramatically higher than it is for most of medicine. I don't know of any other procedure or treatment which is gated behind an age higher than 16 like transition surgery is.

[randomlegend]

To be clear, I don't doubt there have been failings in these services, as I have said. I just took (and take) issues with the "Children have been MUTILATED" stuff, because it simply isn't reality.

[phonics]

Of course old gammon Yev is watching videos by people called TRIGGERnometry

[Yevrah]

Fair enough, I shan't phrase it like that again.

Did you watch the rest of the video? Other than his hormones comment was it fair from your perspective?

[Yevrah]

Of course old gammon Yev is watching videos by people called TRIGGERnometry

I was watching it for the man they were interviewing, not the platform themselves. Had he been on the BBC for an hour I'd have watched that instead, but... what's that? He hasn't? Oh.

[Spikey M]

I have to presume you missed the entire point of this case.

Quite possibly. The first line of my post was a genuine question.

[randomlegend]

Fair enough, I shan't phrase it like that again.

Did you watch the rest of the video? Other than his hormones comment was it fair from your perspective?

I haven't watched it all, I will when I'm home.

[Yevrah]

View Tweet

What a fucking terrible thing to say. Like, in response to a rapist of women being removed from a woman's prison. FUCK.

An interesting insight into the thought process at work here in some cases mind - in that trans rights come above all other rights no matter the situation and God forbid anyone who gets in the way of that. Having now got up to speed with JK Rowling's comments (she's unnecessarily antagonistic at times, but she's not saying anything like the sentiment against her would have you believe), these people simply cannot accept another point of view, to quite staggering degrees really.

[phonics]

Quite possibly. The first line of my post was a genuine question.

If the government infected your child with HIV or Haemophelia from poorly sourced foreign prisoner blood and covered it up for 30-40 years I presume you'd want, at the very least, some sort of financial compensation for the complications in their life that may have caused.

[Spikey M]

If the government infected your child with HIV or Haemophelia from poorly sourced foreign prisoner blood and covered it up for 30-40 years I presume you'd want, at the very least, some sort of financial compensation for the complications in their life that may have caused.

In that case, yes, I have misunderstood the point of the case. The radio made it sound as if the review was just to find out how blood donor recipients ended up with HIV.

[phonics]

That part they know. They bought it off US Prisons. Who approved to buy it off US Prisons, effectively, who was responsible for the murder of hundreds of people and who then worked to cover up these hundreds of murders for decades and how they were able to do so as well as decide the governments liability in the issue is less known and while I'm no lawyer, the crux of the issue, I presume this currently sits in a state of 'unprovenness' as the records of this all has been sealed to cover it up in the first place. If the review doesn't happen then victims are unable to sue for compensation.

[Lofty]

Fuck me that Question Time ep, you know what people's views on this will be before they open their mouth

[randomlegend]

If the government infected your child with HIV or Haemophelia from poorly sourced foreign prisoner blood and covered it up for 30-40 years I presume you'd want, at the very least, some sort of financial compensation for the complications in their life that may have caused.

Haemophilia is a genetic bleeding disorder and was the reason they needed the blood products. The infections they contracted were HIV and (probably) hepatitis.

I think it's also a worthwhile exercise to (and I know it's a cliche) "learn the lessons". People like to think things like this can't happen now, but unless you look closely how they happened (and were allowed to happen) in the past and put safeguards in place, they will happen in future.

[Yevrah]

Fuck me that Question Time ep, you know what people's views on this will be before they open their mouth

Caught it last night and an interesting shift in editorial policy - no chance that Woman sat on the left of the panel would have been allowed on with views like that previously.

[phonics]

Haemophilia is a genetic bleeding disorder and was the reason they needed the blood products. The infections they contracted were HIV and (probably) hepatitis.

I think it's also a worthwhile exercise to (and I know it's a cliche) "learn the lessons". People like to think things like this can't happen now, but unless you look closely how they happened (and were allowed to happen) in the past and put safeguards in place, they will happen in future.

I meant hepatitis not haemophilia my bad.

[Lewis]

An interesting insight into the thought process at work here in some cases mind - in that trans rights come above all other rights no matter the situation and God forbid anyone who gets in the way of that. Having now got up to speed with JK Rowling's comments (she's unnecessarily antagonistic at times, but she's not saying anything like the sentiment against her would have you believe), these people simply cannot accept another point of view, to quite staggering degrees really.

A bunch of mentally ill men, autistics, and high IQ fetishists being aggressive about something important to them is about the least staggering thing imaginable.

[Spikey M]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e4&ai=11710003

Police today cordoned off a car park and footpath nine miles downstream from where missing mother-of-two Nicola Bulley disappeared a week ago.

Officers have taped off Skippool Creek car park in Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancashire, with investigators wearing white forensic suits seen carrying away bags of evidence.

Lancashire Police have not yet disclosed what is happening at the site, which is bordered by a narrow tributary of the River Wyre.

The cordon has now been lifted and the car park reopened to the public, reports The Blackpool Gazette.

She's in the river somewhere.

[Yevrah]

She's clearly dead and statistically speaking, the partner most likely did it.

[-james-]

Yeah she's obviously in the river. The deed being done in broad daylight in the space of about fifteen minutes, without a trace, is quite impressive though.

[Spikey M]

I was thinking about this earlier, if he didn't do it, he is going through absolute hell at the moment. He's lost his partner, he's looking at life as a single parent, he can't tell the kids where their mum is and he must know that everyone thinks he most likely killed her.

That must be fucking rough.

[Ben]

It's one hell of an acting job if he has done it. The grief seems genuine.

[Jimmy Floyd]

He won't have done it, it'll be the local Levi Bellfield.

[-james-]

I don't think it was him. Two or three sightings of her walking the dog, but presumably none of him? Good effort if it was.

[Spikey M]

I am leaning the same way. You don't kill your partner in public in the middle of the day.

[niko_cee]

He won't have done it, it'll be the local Levi Bellfield.

Is there a wacky looking retired professor living locally?

[Shindig]

For what it’s worth, I don’t think any of the teenage trans claimants we have are on hormone treatments. If they’re getting their hands on it, the internet usually provides.

[Yevrah]

I am leaning the same way. You don't kill your partner in public in the middle of the day.

Depends what your motivation is.

[Yevrah]

I should add, I haven't even seen a video of the hubby, but I was reading something the other day that suggested 61% of Women murdered in the UK in 2018 were murdered by their partners.

[Sir Andy Mahowry]

It was a copper.

[Lewis]

The phone and dog business seems a bit deliberate to me, so I'm going for the outside bet of her faking her death for some as-yet-unknown reason.

[Yevrah]

The phone and dog business seems a bit deliberate to me, so I'm going for the outside bet of her faking her death for some as-yet-unknown reason.

It does ring a bit of the canoe man.

[Kikó]

I thought she just walked into the river when I first heard the details.

[Don]

Kiko seems to be closest and I assume those guessing complex theories didn't see this pic of her.

[Spikey M]

Take that to the shameful lustage thread.

[Kikó]

I've been on teams calls where I would want to walk into a river.

[Waffdon]

Surely it is quite easy to determine whether or not the partner done it based on him, I’m presuming, being at work. Unless he works from home I guess but an engineer wouldn’t, would they?

[Yevrah]

If he did it, given the lack of witnesses, I was thinking it'd be a hit.

[Shindig]

Dog jumps in the river. Dog gets into difficulty. She takes her phone out of her pocket before going in after the dog. Gets into difficulty herself.

Although I'd still be surprised if nobody saw a flailing woman floating down the river. Unless she sank like a brick. Honestly, the timeline of the events leaves very, very little time to straight up murder her.

[Yevrah]

Aren't dogs excellent swimmers? Has the pup been found?

[Spikey M]

The dog was bone dry and was found in the field just mooching about.