Tavistock Gender Clinic to close - it failed vulnerable under-18s

Clare Graham ( Far North will help me if I have got the name wrong) did some great work giving a perspective of those with a dsd.

I'm not hugely interested in identity politics, so I tend to ignore it. My take has always been that people are humans and I'm not really bothered by labels.
It is TRAs who are 'bothered by labels' by insisting that TWAW and refusing to even discuss how this is possible. When you think about why this matters it crystallises the issue. If TWAW they have access to women's jails, DV hostels, hospital wards etc, as well as the much-discussed changing rooms. If they appear as women in research projects the figures are skewed, which can work against women when it comes to social policy around areas where we are disadvantaged. Remaining as 'transwomen' would allow them to live their lives as they wish, but not impact on the lives of women, but they don't want this - they want to dominate women, hence the 'No Debate strategy.

My concern is that some people see gender dysphoria as a sort of mental illness which can be cured.
Which 'some people', and what makes you think that this is the case? My own take on it is that young people go through lots of 'phases', and it makes sense to let them grow up before taking irreversible medical action. I can't speak for 'some people', but 'some people' think all sorts of unaccountable things.

Of course, some people with gender dysphoria develop mental illnesses as a result of the bullying they experience and feeling of not belonging and/or other reasons and that all needs unpicking before any medical intervention.
Agreed.

However, I truly believe that there are some people who are born in the wrong body and don't identify with the sex they're assigned at birth
This hinges on the idea that 'gender' is something that is tangible and innate. I disagree - I think that gender expectations and norms exist, but that they are societal, not biological, therefore it is not possible for the body to be wrong. It is possible, of course, for people of one sex to identify more closely with the norms usually associated with the other, but IMO most people are neither one nor the other in that regard. The majority of us enjoy participating in some 'female' norms and behaviour and some 'male ones'. Insisting that people are one or the other brings us back to not liking labels but preferring to see people as humans. Without that insistence it is not possible to be in 'the wrong body'. We are in the body we are in, and societal norms, which change over time, are what constitutes 'gender'. If we change the expectation that people conform to the depending on their sex, there will be no question of 'right' or 'wrong' bodies, and no regressive return to sex-based roles outside of reproduction.

No definitive reason has ever been found (as far as I'm aware), but there are some indications that hormones in some people don't behave as expected. There have even been rare cases where sex at birth is indeterminate because reproductive organs haven't developed properly. It really isn't true to claim that an X or Y chromosome determines sex in all cases.
I am not a geneticist, so can't explain this properly, but there are no people with indeterminate sex. There are people whose genitals are not obviously male or female, but their cells are still male or female, and these people have pleaded not to get dragged into trans politics. To suggest that someone's genitals determine their sex is to suggest that someone who has had surgery for penile cancer or vulval deformity is not the sex that they are. It is labelling again. The 'Intersex' debate is complex but fraught with potholes and it is not the case that people exist on some sort of spectrum of sex. Elegran is much better than explaining this than I am, though.

How?
Go and read up on it growstuff. If you've not learnt anything from the dozens of previous threads on the subject on this forum, perhaps look elsewhere for feminist education.

Elegran Perhaps it is a transfer of some transwomen's own attitudes. It is a very male trait to find ANY female attractive if they are feeling horny.

Yes; and the arrogance that they have the right to demand it. Some time ago I posted a link about a young lesbian, who had been violently attacked and assaulted whilst she was out with her female partner late at night. They were in an area of town that was considered to be safe for gay and trans to socialise and so their guard was down. Both women were physically and verbally assaulted by trans women, because they'd rejected their advances and refused to have sex with them and so were "transphobic". The wishes, preferences and choices of the women were negated by those of the biological males. Testosterone rules.

growstuff
Of course, some people with gender dysphoria develop mental illnesses as a result of the bullying they experience and feeling of not belonging and/or other reasons and that all needs unpicking before any medical intervention.
And therein lies the problem. The Tavistock operated positive affirmation, whereby any child who presented with gender confusion or distress was affirmed as transgender very quickly, and progressed on to a chemical pathway. There wasn't extensive examination of co-morbidities, nothing was unpicked. Gender dysphoria is seen in girls with autism at a hugely increased rate over the incidence in girls without autism. No questions were asked as to why this would be.

However, I truly believe that there are some people who are born in the wrong body and don't identify with the sex they're assigned at birth.
Sex is observed at birth, indeed can be observed in utero, midwives do not randomly 'assign' anything. Use of the word 'assign' is promulgated to shore up this idea that someone made a mistake over the sex.

growstuff

I guess the problem I have is that the whole issue seems to have become so polarised and politicised. I have no reason to doubt that the Tavistock failed some of its patients clinically, but I hope that its closure doesn't weaponise those who seem to believe that transitioning is always wrong.

Unfortunately, that is the case, and in this case, the mainstream media - especially the red-tops - has eschewed rational debate in favour of polarising sensationalism which has fed into the political machine, with one party trying to sharpen its culturally libertarian credentials, and the other denouncing them - both in order to appeal to their gallery of supporters.

Having read some of the comments from the readership of what I have no hesitation in calling the 'gutter' press, GN - by comparison - is a beacon of probity, rationality and civilised debate!

BTW - I've not seen Germanshepherdsmum on these boards for quite a while. I hope she's OK and just taking a holiday, or a break...

Oh that's true Dickens. I havent seen her for a while.

Unfortunately, that is the case, and in this case, the mainstream media - especially the red-tops - has eschewed rational debate in favour of polarising sensationalism which has fed into the political machine, with one party trying to sharpen its culturally libertarian credentials, and the other denouncing them - both in order to appeal to their gallery of supporters.
That may be true in some cases (IME the sections of the press which are more vocal here are not the usual suspects); but at the same time a lot of people on both sides are simply expressing their opinion. I can only speak for myself here, but whereas I have strong views on this, I am not appealing to a gallery of supporters, and nor am I denouncing anyone. I am just a member of the public with a point of view.

I do support transpeople - just not TRAs who want to dominate women, and it is they who are trying to shift the law to their agenda, which is why I speak against them. I may get tetchy when people accuse me of a phobia I don't have, or who tell me what I think, and that may mean that I come across as reasonable or rational only by comparison with the gutter press (talk about damning with faint praise ?), but that's not because of any agenda, hidden or otherwise.

growstuff as you are not interested in gender identity and find the subject boring, why have you chosen to try to say that those of us who are concerned about it are getting it wrong?
It's quite an awkward way for you to ask for information. However, I hope you think about the information you are getting here and also look elsewhere if you really want to discuss this sensibly.

Doodledog

I may get tetchy when people accuse me of a phobia I don't have, or who tell me what I think, and that may mean that I come across as reasonable or rational only by comparison with the gutter press (talk about damning with faint praise ?), but that's not because of any agenda, hidden or otherwise.

Actually, I do think the debate on this issue here on GN is quite civilised, in spite of differing opinions.

People are arguing from their perspective, but supporting their argument with reasoning - regardless of whether I or anyone else thinks it's flawed.

As far as I can see, no one's stated their POV and ended with silly comments like, "end of" or "simples"... which is rife on Facebook.

I think you 'come across' as reasonable and rational regardless of any 'comparisons' ...

Thank you for reminding me about Claire Graham, Galaxy.

Here's a link to an interview with her where she explains -

"Assigned sex is really a term for IGM, intersex genital mutilation. In the past, and sadly still in many places today, if a child was born with genitalia that didn’t look typically male or female (what we call ambiguous genitalia), doctors would perform surgery to make the genitals appear “normal”. Due to the limitations of surgery, doctors developed a theory: “It’s easier to build a pole than dig a hole”. This meant children with ambiguous genitalia would have a surgically created penis and be assigned male, even if they were female. In these cases, we use the term “assigned sex”. It’s important that we have unique language to describe that experience."

womansplaceuk.org/2019/10/21/biological-sex-is-not-a-spectrum-there-are-only-two-sexes-in-humans-with-claire-graham/

Yes it is closing. Having one service for the whole country was never going to be accessible to everyone and the huge pressure on overworked staff was leading to mistakes which just aren't acceptable.

It will be replaced by several hubs across the UK with more funding and more staff.

Much better but I hope not too big a gap before service's resume fully

Vintagenonna

One of the most difficult aspects of all this (thinking about Prof. Bell's comments) is the fear some therapists had that some young people had been rehearsed or coached by adults into what to say in order to speed up the process of accessing hormone disrupting therapy.

If your child has waited 4 years to be seen at a gender clinic I doubt if much coaching would be needed. The adults caring for the child might have affirmed and accepted their desire to change gender. What else could you do? Have a permanent battle with your child?
It's far more likely anyway that the child has been on line and had help from their peers about what to ask for and how to get it. It's what teenagers do.

VioletSky and Glorianny what about children such as Rainbow and Jackie Green and Kai Shappley and Jazz Jennings?
Children who have been coached throughout their childhoods to believe that they are something called 'trans' and that means they must pretend to be the opposite sex.

A similar story was told in the TV drama 'Butterfly', which was hailed as a landmark in trans acceptance so, I'd assume, a reasonably typical 'trans child' scenario.
Max, in the drama, clearly had a homophobic father and very confused family and friends.
Like the other boys I've mentioned, Max concluded he must really be a girl.

Those children, and many others, should simply have been allowed to enjoy what they liked, while not denying their real sex.

Teenagers online?
Maybe that has something to do with the 4,000 % rise in girls being referred to the Tavistock.
Maybe they are stunned by online porn, boys' attitudes based on online porn, and general sexism in popular culture and wider society.
Whether consciously, or not, perhaps girls just want out of that.

The answer should not always be medication and surgery, as we are hearing from detransitioners.

Has anyone noticed that the word/words man/men have not been removed from all NHS literature whereas. The word/words woman/women have.

Yes.

FarNorth

I'm not sure why you are asking me?

I've already said that we need a better standard of care and hopefully now that will be achieved

I'm not a doctor so I can't give a professional opinion

In my view, 'better standard of care' means much more exploratory counseling with young people.
To supporters of trans ideology, it means much quicker access to hormones and surgery for anyone who believes they are trans.

FarNorth

In my view, 'better standard of care' means much more exploratory counseling with young people.
To supporters of trans ideology, it means much quicker access to hormones and surgery for anyone who believes they are trans.

To supporters of trans ideology?

What does that mean?

Are you placing me within that box?

I've always said that people should be getting a good standard of care and counselling and that there should be no irreversible measures taken until that was fully achieved.

I have also said the waiting lists are far too long...

The new hubs will aim to achieve these things and I'm glad

I don't know what a trans ideology is or whether you are suggesting that all trans people and their allies belong to it?

I'm not placing anyone in a box.
It's hard to know, tho, how determined any ally is to have "acceptance without exception" as Stonewall's slogan has it.

I've always said that people should be getting a good standard of care and counselling and that there should be no irreversible measures taken until that was fully achieved.

I have also said the waiting lists are far too long...

I agree with you on those things.

Good piece by Kemi Badenoch and yes I know she’s a Conservative.

twitter.com/hjoycegender/status/1553441683622199297?s=12

I do think it is time that people stopped regarding the closing of the Tavistock as some sort of end to the problem. The GICs that will take on the treatment of children will still be dealing with the same problems. A huge increase in the number of children needing help, long waiting lists and a lack of adequate provision. How staff will manage remains to be seen but it is undoubtedly true that the same pressures on them will remain. Perhaps if Kemi Badenoch wanted to really help she should ask for more funding for the service.

That's a very good piece about the workings of Whitehall - and terrifying to see how near the brink of complete lunacy we were (although Scotland still is).

Glorianny I agree with you on the funding though it depends to what purpose it is put.

I don't see Tavistock's closure as an end to the problem but it is an end to a service that was failing children and young people.
I very much hope the new provision will do better.

Yes, let’s hope there is adequate funds allocated to the two new clinics. If all NHS services stopped paying for “training, etc” from Stonewall, Mermaids and who knows how many similar organisations, that money could be used for employing extra staff perhaps.

From a quick skim read earlier today I 'think' that anyone passing through the clinics from now on will be followed, their outcomes assessed etc. How shameful that no ongoing records or data was kept of children who were started on the transition process, what their outcomes were, how many had problems, detransitioned etc You could almost think the ideology was the be all and end all .......