I have a son.I meant "read up" as "read up on people's first hand experiences", because what you keep doing is repeating the same argument from your perspective - which is not adequate. I infer from your writing that you don't have children of your own, so you are operating from your own experiences of becoming a teenager 10, 20, 30 (?) years ago. Your personal experience is not as relevant as someone who is a trans person. You keep positioning this discussion as if trans people are adopting a lifestyle choice, and you are using the same language as people who are hostile to LGBTQ. You sound like you don't have any first-hand interactions with trans people. That's why I am urging you to read their personal stories.
They are experiencing depression, suicidal thoughts (and actions), and other ways of self-harm because they are forced to be outwardly opposite to what they feel inwardly. If they were supported when they were younger, they would be happier. By denying teens the right to begin transitioning, you are essentially asking them to waste their teenage years.
• On the positive side of the equation, what continually surprises me is the mind-body alignment that brought about an indescribable amount of inner peace and calm. It was a state of being I could only achieve in the past through temporary and often self-destructive means.
• I spent several years thinking about medical transition before I took the steps, and the delay was 100 percent fear based. I wish I had known that while stabbing myself with a needle sucks, being able to look in the mirror and actually like the person I see makes it all totally worth it.
• I wish I had known just how embracing who I really am would dramatically bring me back to life. I spent half my life ashamed and scared of who and what I was.
• What I'd want my pre-transition self to know is that however more difficult life gets, fighting the world as your authentic self is better than fighting yourself on behalf of the world. Nothing is worse than constantly beating yourself up. I felt like I'd been renting a space in my body for what seemed like an eternity. Nothing feels more exciting, scary, and wonderful than deciding to really move into yourself. I like people to know just how much happiness was waiting for me after my transition.
• Knowing that there is something other than grief that can sit in this body has been so, so powerful.
• I knew when I was 3 years old. I was assigned female at birth, but I distinctly remember someone saying, “Oh, what a cute little girl.” And I said, “I’m not a girl. I’m a boy.”
• Keeping a secret that big just wears on you. Waking up every day just trying to find another excuse not to transition just made me want to cry. Coming out and transitioning was like removing the biggest weight in the world off my back. It was such a sense of relief.
• Before transitioning, I was completely numb. I didn't feel happiness or joy, nor sadness or sorrow. I felt dead on the inside, like I was acting out a script someone else had written for me. After deciding to transition, it was as if all my life the whole world had been a sepia movie, and all of a sudden it got colors. I started feeling lots of things for the first time — even being sad was amazing because it meant I was alive.
• Before deciding to transition, I had suicidal depression and anxiety, and a strong tendency to sabotage myself. I was very successful professionally, but always felt I was an impostor. Now, my depression is gone, and anxiety is greatly reduced. I am the happiest I have ever been in my adult life.
• Before, I was anxious, depressed, suicidal, miserable, and scared. I didn't experience much emotional range. I had no idea how it felt to be happy or in love.
• Before, I was incredibly depressed and angry at all times. I honestly don't know how I was able to function. It felt like I was in a dark pit I couldn't see the end of. I felt completely alone and powerless.
https://www.self.com/story/before-transitioning
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-m...voices-post-kff-survey-transgender-americans/
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolinekee/people-talk-about-transitioning-and-mental-health
https://www.theproudtrust.org/trusted-adults/coming-out/supporting-young-people-with-transitioning/
whateverI have a son.
I've read plenty about mental health and trans-issues.
As I said, specific individual accounts are anecdotal. The reality is that there simply isn't a lot of data and information out there. In fact, there are studies showing that many children do, in fact, grow out of their feelings of gender dysphoria.
Wonderful response.whatever
It's because discussing things with you is a waste of time. You might as well be a chat bot. You are proud of not knowing what you're talking about, so I am leaving off further discussion with you.Wonderful response.
I do know what I'm talking about. You just don't accept that I do because I haven't reached the same conclusion as you.It's because discussing things with you is a waste of time. You might as well be a chat bot. You are proud of not knowing what you're talking about, so I am leaving off further discussion with you.
absolutelyThe 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.
well saidTavistock was closed because it couldn't keep up with demand for its services. The Cass report recommended multiple centres be opened on a regional basis, rather than one centre in London.
The reality is that increased demand has lead to long waiting lists. It would take years for young people to even get a first appointment - they are certainly not being rushed into treatment - anything but.
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.
The problem is, you could just as easily post individual accounts of people who started transitioning and later regretted it. It's not like 100% of people who have feelings of gender dysphoria are actually trans or find the solution that's right for them by transitioning. One of my friends from school is in a relationship with a girl who started FTM hormone therapy and later regretted it. If I post a quote from her and say that discussing with you is a complete waste of time, is my post any less legitimate than yours? Is it then you who is proud of not knowing what you're talking about?It's because discussing things with you is a waste of time. You might as well be a chat bot. You are proud of not knowing what you're talking about, so I am leaving off further discussion with you.
If if if if if if if. Just post the stories of the people who regretted it, add some evidence to your thoughts and opinions. Let people read and make up their minds. I have plenty of experience with that community, so reading stories of people who regret the transition is not really going to outweigh that. But people may find it helpful, so add those stories.The problem is, you could just as easily post individual accounts of people who started transitioning and later regretted it. It's not like 100% of people who have feelings of gender dysphoria are actually trans or find the solution that's right for them by transitioning. One of my friends from school is in a relationship with a girl who started FTM hormone therapy and later regretted it. If I post a quote from her and say that discussing with you is a complete waste of time, is my post any less legitimate than yours? Is it then you who is proud of not knowing what you're talking about?
This isn't a black and white issue. What's right for one person might not work for others, and given the long term effects of the treatment it needs to be very carefully considered by a qualified adult before any treatment starts.
Anecdotes aren't evidence my friend. This is the internet, anyone can just make shit up.If if if if if if if. Just post the stories of the people who regretted it, add some evidence to your thoughts.
This isn't a trial. What we are talking about are people's actual thoughts who have gone through this process, and those thoughts are found by reading these people's stories - which is what I'm trying to get people to do, and which is why I posted 4 links to get people started. So instead of the other guy saying, "people regret it", show examples of people regretting it. Those are anecdotes but they also support his argument. They are probably not evidential and admissible in court, but we are simply trying to get first hand accounts.Anecdotes aren't evidence my friend. This is the internet, anyone can just make shit up.
4 kids.I’m guessing you don’t have kids? Puberty can start anywhere between 9 and like 15, but 13-14 is most common. You should listen to them Instead of telling them what you think they should do. If it’s not you, your family, or your friends, be grateful because it’s rough. If you do meet someone who it affects directly, just listen.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Not-Now-Bernard-David-McKee/dp/17834429054 kids.
And no, I wouldn't listen to them, because they're kids. They're like I was - an idiot who knew nothing. The fact that they're being exposed to different ideas earlier than any of us were doesn't make them wiser, or better informed. It changes nothing. They're kids.
Poor record keeping is what happens when a service is overrun by demand with 5k people on waiting lists.That's a very selective view of the report considering it also found that the Tavistock had woeful to non-existing record keeping, and that the medical pathways had little in the way of supportive evidence.
This is exactly what the Cass report proposes as part of the recommended regionalised services. The whole report is aimed at improving healthcare for young people, not reducing it.should want these things to be extensively reviewed by medical experts, but from what I've read, I'm not sure that's necessarily the case.
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.
Are you not the poster that was accusing everyone of being a transphobe that said trans people shouldn't be allowed to compete with born females in elite level sports?It’s pretty hilarious that you think trying to support trans people’s rights equals misogyny. Especially given more women are supportive of trans people than men, and most people who are anti actually misogynistic policies like anti-abortion are also against trans rights.
Trans people don’t want to compete in a third category a) because there’s barely any trans people in the first place let alone professional sports people so it’s basically a pointless competition b) they were never consulted in the first place so this was a token gesture at best, and c) they most likely don’t want to be treated like some kind of ‘third’ category anyway when they’re men and women.
I don’t have all the answers either but this certainly wasn’t the one. But equating inclusion with misogyny is a pretty silly stance.
Firstly, I've not suggested the answer is to simply pull care. As you've quoted me saying, we should want the care to be extensively reviewed by medical experts. As things stand, this isn't the case. As a result, it's effectively experimental treatment.Poor record keeping is what happens when a service is overrun by demand with 5k people on waiting lists.
As for selectivity, on the contrary, you are misrepresenting the report to push your own narrative. You can read what Dr Cass has to say on the matter here - https://cass.independent-review.uk/entry-8-beyond-the-headlines/
This certainly is not the case of a clinic being shut down 'in disgrace because of how poorly they've handled the care of those referred to them.' She says in her statement: 'In medicine, when there is controversy or doubt about treatment decisions, the immediate reaction is to blame individuals, and sometimes organisations. However, the most important way to reduce risk, improve decision-making and manage uncertainty is through safe systems. The purpose of my Review is to be forward-looking and define what a safe system of care should look like, and how to support that care with the best evidence.'
You're doing the exact thing she is talking about in the bolded section.
She in fact praised the staff working at Tavistock: 'The staff working at GIDS have demonstrated compassion and a strong professional commitment towards their patient population. Their experience and continued engagement will be essential in ensuring a smooth progression to the new service model.'
This is exactly what the Cass report proposes as part of the recommended regionalised services. The whole report is aimed at improving healthcare for young people, not reducing it.
You're deliberately misleading people here.
So straight away we have it acknowledged that a) they don't really know what they're treating (second bullet point), b) the treatments are essentially experimental and haven't been subject to proper review and quality control (third bullet point), and c) children have been put on these courses of experimental treatment with little regard for the outcome, because they've simply not recorded it (first bullet point).
- We need to know more about the population being referred and outcomes. There has not been routine and consistent data collection, which means it is not possible to accurately track the outcomes and pathways that children and young people take through the service.
- There is lack of consensus and open discussion about the nature of gender dysphoria and therefore about the appropriate clinical response.
- Because the specialist service has evolved rapidly and organically in response to demand, the clinical approach and overall service design has not been subjected to some of the normal quality controls that are typically applied when new or innovative treatments are introduced.
And here's a line from the "A letter to children and young people section":At this stage the Review is not able to provide advice on the use of hormone treatments due to gaps in the evidence base.
Here are some key bits from the summary, which is essentially the same as above:We know quite a bit about hormone treatments, but there is still a lot we don’t know about the longterm effects.
What have I said that's misleading in relation the above?Many of the challenges and knowledge gaps that we face in the UK are echoed internationally, and there are significant gaps in the research and evidence base.
The Review is not able to provide definitive advice on the use of puberty blockers and feminising/masculinising hormones at this stage, due to gaps in the evidence base
At primary, secondary and specialist level, there is a lack of agreement, and in many instances a lack of open discussion, about the extent to which gender incongruence in childhood and adolescence can be an inherent and immutable phenomenon for which transition is the best option for the individual, or a more fluid and temporal response to a range of developmental, social, and psychological factors.
Children and young people can experience this as a ‘clinician lottery’, and failure to have an open discussion about this issue is impeding the development of clear guidelines about their care.
Evidence on the appropriate management of children and young people with gender incongruence and dysphoria is inconclusive both nationally and internationally.
A lack of a conceptual agreement about the meaning of gender dysphoria hampers research, as well as NHS clinical service provision.
A lack of routine and consistent data collection means that it is not possible to accurately track the outcomes and pathways children and young people take through the service.
I've separated this next bit because I think it warrants it's own space. I don't think it warrants further comment and speaks for itself:Primary and secondary care staff have told us that they feel under pressure to adopt an unquestioning affirmative approach and that this is at odds with the standard process of clinical assessment and diagnosis that they have been trained to undertake in all other clinical encounters
many of the children and young people presenting have complex needs, but once they are identified as having gender-related distress, other important healthcare issues that would normally be managed by local services can sometimes be overlooked.
From the point of entry to GIDS there appears to be predominantly an affirmative, non-exploratory approach
there does not appear to be a standardised approach to assessment or progression through the process, which leads to potential gaps in necessary evidence and a lack of clarity
There has not been routine and consistent data collection within GIDS, which means it is not possible to accurately track the outcomes and pathways that children and young people take through the service.
Internationally as well as nationally, longer-term follow-up data on children and young people who have been seen by gender identity services is limited, including for those who have received physical interventions; who were transferred to adult services and/or accessed private services; or who desisted, experienced regret or detransitioned.
There has been research on the short-term mental health outcomes and physical side effects of puberty blockers for this cohort, but very limited research on the sexual, cognitive or broader developmental outcomes.
Much of the existing literature about natural history and treatment outcomes for gender dysphoria in childhood is based on a case-mix of predominantly birth-registered males presenting in early childhood. There is much less data on the more recent case-mix of predominantly birth-registered females presenting in early teens, particularly in relation to treatment and outcomes.
Aspects of the literature are open to interpretation in multiple ways, and there is a risk that some authors interpret their data from a particular ideological and/or theoretical standpoint.
Same again for this bit:There is limited evidence of mental health or neurodevelopmental assessments being routinely documented, or of a discipline of formal diagnostic or psychological formulation.
This is probably one of the more concerning summarised findings:Of 44 submissions received by the MPRG, 31% were not initially assured due to lack of safeguarding information. And in a number of cases there were specific safeguarding concerns. There do not appear to be consistent processes in place to work with other agencies to identify children and young people and families who may be vulnerable, at risk and require safeguarding.
Who has been informing decision making for clinical treatments if not "appropriate clinical experts"?Appropriate clinical experts need to be involved in informing decision making.
Children with neurodiversity or mental health problems are not routinely given therapeutic support in advance of starting hormone blocking treatment in the NHS process. Not only that, but the medical professionals charged with administering these hormone treatments were not even privy to the details of the children they were treating. This is staggeringly negligent.Within the Dutch Approach, children and young people with neurodiversity and/or complex mental health problems are routinely given therapeutic support in advance of, or when considered appropriate, instead of early hormone intervention. Whereas criteria to have accessed therapeutic support prior to starting hormone blocking treatment do not appear to be integral to the current NHS process.
NHS endocrinologists do not systematically attend the multi-disciplinary meetings where the complex cases that may be referred to them are discussed, and until very recently did not routinely have direct contact with the clinical staff member who had assessed the child or young person
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.In many many cases it is apparent very early that there is a gender issue. At that point, subject to hugely extensive medical review by specialists and experts, preventing the onset of puberty until someone is older is a hugely beneficial action. My nephew did not get this help and it made life far far harder than neccesary.
One of the key findings of the Cass Interim Report is that there is no real agreement as to what gender dysphoria actually is.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.
It is him.Are you not the poster that was accusing everyone of being a transphobe that said trans people shouldn't be allowed to compete with born females in elite level sports?
Apologies in advance if it wasnt you, I know I could have the wrong poster here.
feel free to post evidence of me calling specific people in here transphobes.It is him.
i'm glad to know you are suggesting we increase the quality and care given to young people, i wholeheartedly agree. young people who are suffering in this area deserve the best quality care they can, and there should be consistency in the level of care provided to them.Firstly, I've not suggested the answer is to simply pull care. As you've quoted me saying, we should want the care to be extensively reviewed by medical experts. As things stand, this isn't the case. As a result, it's effectively experimental treatment.
Secondly, you're again being very selective. That link isn't even part of the interim report. It's essentially a blog post written to support medical colleagues receiving backlash. I'm also not talking necessarily about individual staff members, just as the interim report isn't, but the failings of the structure as a whole. I don't doubt that those working within it have been doing their best, but if the structure and processes are deeply flawed, their best will still be shoddy care.
You don't agree with what he read on the internet and thinks it's true, and nothing else makes sense, so that makes you a terrible poster.Wonderful response.
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".i'm glad to know you are suggesting we increase the quality and care given to young people. i wholeheartedly agree. young people who are suffering in this area deserve the best quality care they can, and there should be consistency in the level of care provided to them.
and i didn't say it was part of the interim report. it is, however, a post from the author of the report warning against people using the findings of the report - a report aimed at improving processes and care - as a way to attack Tavistock, which is exactly what you are doing in all your posts.
i don't have time to go through all your many points, which basically provide a snippet from the report followed by your biased interpretation of it. i would suggest everyone reading this to read the report yourself:
https://cass.independent-review.uk/publications/interim-report/
if i get time i'll try and reply to some of your more alarming sensationalist misinterpretations. but it's always the usual suspects in here and frankly it's a waste of time.
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.In my interim report I said that a single specialist provider model is not a safe or viable long-term option in view of concerns about lack of peer review and the ability to respond to the increasing demand.
Well, some of us are debating.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.
Language like this is not conducive to any sort of reasonable debate. This sort of terminology is very aggressive.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.
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?”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.
i have read it. that's why i know your interpretation is heavily biased.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.
when Wibble mentioned that there is extensive medical review by experts - i.e. no one is rushed into life changing operations - you stated: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?
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 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
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.
Its real scary how impressionable they are too not shocked at all the numbers are skyrocketing when its being taught in schools.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.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.
And where they come from.Listening to the little tossers doesn't mean you have to agree but it's a good idea to know their thoughts.
Absolutely.And where they come from.
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.i have read it. that's why i know your interpretation is heavily biased.
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.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:
The Cass Interim Report literally states that these extensive medical reviews by experts are not happening.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.
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.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.
The report is quite literally evidence that young people are not being and have not been provided sufficient care.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.
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).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.
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."
- 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.
Again, the current model is fundamentally flawed, hence the need for "a fundamentally different" one.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, 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.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.
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.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 suppose, yes, it does support the general point that children need to be given the support they require.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:
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.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.
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.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.
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.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?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.
