Skip to content

This is going to cause ructions

In full:

There has been a welcome shift in the way NHS England says it will provide care for children with gender dysphoria. In recent months, it has moved away from the ideologically driven “affirmative” model that views gender dysphoria in children purely as a sign of a fixed trans identity.

It is instead adopting a more evidence-based approach – as laid out in the review by the distinguished paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass – that starts from the understanding that children’s feelings of gender incongruence are often transient and fluid, and can be associated with autism, childhood trauma, children grappling with their own developing same-sex attraction, and intense discomfort about puberty.

Accordingly, the NHS now says social transition – treating a child as though they are of the opposite sex – should only be considered in cases where there is significant clinical distress or impairment in social functioning. Puberty-blocking drugs – the entry point of a medical pathway that can lead to cross-sex hormones and sex change surgery – will only be prescribed as part of a clinical trial, given fears about potential long-term impacts for bone and brain development, fertility and sexual functioning; and concerns they make permanent gender dysphoria that would otherwise naturally resolve itself. The “watchful waiting” approach counsels that children should be allowed to experiment with identity with neither endorsement nor criticism from adults and access talking therapy that includes exploration of the reasons for their gender distress.

There are a number of serious challenges for the NHS in rolling out a new approach; the underfunding of child mental health services and some clinicians’ continuing ideological affinity to the affirmative model. Another is that campaigners are seeking to make the provision of exploratory therapy effectively impossible by ensnaring it in an ill-defined criminal ban on trans “conversion therapy”. The ban has been linked to parallel proposals to ban gay conversion therapy; yet the fluidity of gender dysphoria makes it a completely different phenomenon to sexual orientation in young people.

No one has been able to precisely define what “trans conversion therapy” is; when the government consulted on a ban, the Equality and Human Rights Commission criticised it for failing on this count. But advocates for a ban clearly envisage it including therapy to explore the causes of a child’s gender distress and help them feel more comfortable in their body as an alternative to medicalisation. One proposal even suggests that a clinician not prescribing puberty blockers could be criminally proscribed by a ban.

There is a question of what problem an impossble-to-define ban is trying to fix: a government-commissioned study found no evidence that trans conversion therapy happens in the UK beyond a methodologically flawed self-report survey. An independent review for the NHS highlighted many mental health professionals are already reluctant to treat children with gender distress because of pressure to adopt the affirmative approach.

The chilling effects of criminalising exploratory conversations between a therapist and a young person that could be perceived as denying their identity will only make the holistic therapy recognised as critical by the Cass review even harder to access. Campaigners will have no qualms about misrepresenting unclear law to tell clinicians, therapists and parents they may be committing a criminal offence and subject to “conversion therapy protection orders” unless they immediately affirm a child as trans. Redefining exploratory therapy as something that sounds as terrible as “conversion therapy” to turn it into a criminal offence is a blunt campaigning tactic, one that any government concerned for the welfare of children with gender dysphoria must resist.

The Guardian US is packed with the drug and slice ’em immediately crowd. The Guardian UK has enough of them to make the newsroom horribly split. And The Observer is now being a bit milquetoast but is at lesat on the right side of the divide. And, of course, that’s three different parts of the same organisation.

Fun times, eh?

12 thoughts on “This is going to cause ructions”

  1. Puberty-blocking drugs – the entry point of a medical pathway that can lead to cross-sex hormones and sex change surgery – will only be prescribed as part of a clinical trial, given fears about potential long-term impacts for bone and brain development, fertility and sexual functioning;

    So they need to do a study to determine if pumping adolescents full of powerful drugs to interfere with the body’s natural development may have an impact on the body?

    And people wonder why I don’t trust doctors…
    To most of us in the real world, with more than two brain cells to rub together, that is filed under bleedin’ obvious.

  2. Is there a correlation between the modern insistance that pre-teens should have a sexual identity and adolescents being insecure and terrified of their oncoming hormones. Anybody asking a 12-year-old “have you got a boyfriend yet?” should be banged up for noncing. And have you *SEEN* the adverts on CITV recently?

  3. It is instead adopting a more evidence-based approach

    There is no evidence that human beings can be born into the “wrong” sex, or change sex.

    There is no evidence that mutilating the insane restores sanity.

    There is no evidence “trans kids” exist at all, but there is a lot of evidence to show that online grooming, social contagion, and Munchhausen Syndrome by Proxy do exist.

    There is a lot of evidence to show that rich perverts are funding Big Tranny, for malicious reasons.

    There is a lot of evidence to show that our Conservative MPs are either disgusting perverts or disgusting cowards.

  4. Jgh – And have you *SEEN* the adverts on CITV recently?

    My children have never been allowed to watch British television, so I haven’t seen them either.

    I assume it’s something vile. If you let me know what it is, I’ll include it to my rant at the TV Licensing wankers the next time they stop by to get their fair share of abuse.

  5. Oh, much better Boganboy..

    Rules regarding experimenting on kids are very strict… For obvious reasons..

    It’d stop the Witchdoctors from pretending gender conversion is “normal treatment”.
    Which is why you can expect severely twisted panties over this one from the Usual Subjects.
    It’d block any and all of their attempts to make this stuff seem “normal”, and would require them to show their real faces when it comes to passing laws that Make It So.

    At the same time it wouldn’t cut the 1:10.000 poor bastards who have real body/gender dysphoria off from treatment or support.
    It’d simply mean that most of them wouldn’t qualify as Experimental Subject ( for various reasons) , but will have a solid casus, and a general idea what to expect when they eventually turn 18 and still want to go through all that trouble.
    But then it’d be the choice of a presumably well-informed legal adult. Which is as it should be.

  6. ’…adopting a more evidence-based approach…’

    Let’s see the media adopt the same approach then, and stop referring to trans women as ‘she’ or ‘her’.

  7. Weird to think that chopping off some kid’s balls or tits isn’t conversion therapy. Well, it’s not therapy, I think. And if it doesn’t really convert, seeing as how the chromosomes aren’t converted, it’s not conversion either. So go right ahead…

  8. There are a number of serious challenges for the NHS in rolling out a new approach; the underfunding of child mental health services and some clinicians’ continuing ideological affinity to the affirmative model.

    “We really, really wanted to not cut the tits and bollocks off children, but the Evil Tory Cutz™ have prevented us from not cutting bits off kids.”

    AC

  9. It’ll cause ructions in the Guardian offices, yes. But because the UK office is in charge, the Americans will have to toe the line. Some of them will accept it (they’re journalists after all, paid to write anything); but some will be quietly updating their CVs and will eventually quit, moving on to work somewhere more aligned with their views.

    I wonder if there’s a similar divide in the Daily Mail’s UK and US divisions. Certainly feels that way whenever I mistakenly stumble across one of their US articles.

  10. Apparently refusing to pay for treatment you don’t agree with is considered child abuse or at least that’s the not so veiled threats. It’s like dealing with organised crime expect they are not so polite and friendly and are less trustworthy

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *