This is not okay: "Young people are encouraged to ruminate deeply on feelings of bodily discomfort, while some of the questions hint at the tantalising possibility that medical solutions may be available to transform those body parts that they dislike."
Add a social media culture to encourage dislike for body parts, even naming those parts with derogatory names and then celebrating their removal and getting applauded for that. Social media influencers then gives derogatory names to non-affirming parents and others who wish to honor the natural body and preserve natural function. Then those influencers encourage kids to discard their parents/relatives as well as healthy body parts that they were encouraged to ruminate deeply about and focus on all the "perceived" flaws and failings of the parents. And all this discarding of vital parts and parents is then considered "progressive".
Many have lost their way. Puberty is natural, and parents are vital to a healthy future of our children. Thank you for writing this article.
Experimenting on young human beings, knowing that they will be harmed—as has already been proven—and that they are not in a genuine position to provide informed consent, due to the long-term implications of these interventions, is a serious breach of medical and scientific ethics.
Instead of subjecting another 226 adolescents to irreversible chemical interventions with proven harm, it is essential to FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE APPROXIMATELY 2,000 YOUNG PEOPLE WITH GENDER ISSUES WHO RECEIVED PUBERTY BLOCKERS FROM THE DISCREDITED NHS TAVISTOCK CLINIC.
Along with other issues brought up here, 2 other things also disturb me.
One is that there is no true control group, just kids whose puberty is blocked at the start of the study and those blocked a year later. The ICD-11 definition of Gender incongruence is essentially like DSM-5's gender dysphoria, but it considered to be an aspect of sexual health, not a mental condition. (More normalizing the abnormal while pathologizing normal puberty.)
The other is the clear, inherent bias evidenced by the study written in activist language. For example, sex isn't registered at birth. It is the body's reproductive structure. You register your car, not your sex. Any use of the word cisgender, gender identity, etc., is evidence of irretrievable built-in , activist-driven bias.
And I don’t suppose the trial protocol mentions that puberty blockade will actively prevent the natural desistance that puberty itself permits - or at least used to permit before purveyors of “gender affirming care” came along and persuaded children that they needed this “care” to be their “authentic selves”.
Carrie: If we wish to help gender distressed young people, we must get to the root of why they feel compelled to take such a radical risk with their health, not collude with them in seeking out dangerous puberty-blocking drugs.
Amen to that. Apropos of which, you might have some interest in an article by transwoman Dawn Ennis in an old Forbes article and my comments thereon:
What's quite clear is that Dawn taking evidence of atypical personality and behavioural traits -- gender non-conformance -- as evidence of actually being of the other sex.
This is not okay: "Young people are encouraged to ruminate deeply on feelings of bodily discomfort, while some of the questions hint at the tantalising possibility that medical solutions may be available to transform those body parts that they dislike."
Add a social media culture to encourage dislike for body parts, even naming those parts with derogatory names and then celebrating their removal and getting applauded for that. Social media influencers then gives derogatory names to non-affirming parents and others who wish to honor the natural body and preserve natural function. Then those influencers encourage kids to discard their parents/relatives as well as healthy body parts that they were encouraged to ruminate deeply about and focus on all the "perceived" flaws and failings of the parents. And all this discarding of vital parts and parents is then considered "progressive".
Many have lost their way. Puberty is natural, and parents are vital to a healthy future of our children. Thank you for writing this article.
Exactly.
Experimenting on young human beings, knowing that they will be harmed—as has already been proven—and that they are not in a genuine position to provide informed consent, due to the long-term implications of these interventions, is a serious breach of medical and scientific ethics.
Instead of subjecting another 226 adolescents to irreversible chemical interventions with proven harm, it is essential to FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE APPROXIMATELY 2,000 YOUNG PEOPLE WITH GENDER ISSUES WHO RECEIVED PUBERTY BLOCKERS FROM THE DISCREDITED NHS TAVISTOCK CLINIC.
Along with other issues brought up here, 2 other things also disturb me.
One is that there is no true control group, just kids whose puberty is blocked at the start of the study and those blocked a year later. The ICD-11 definition of Gender incongruence is essentially like DSM-5's gender dysphoria, but it considered to be an aspect of sexual health, not a mental condition. (More normalizing the abnormal while pathologizing normal puberty.)
The other is the clear, inherent bias evidenced by the study written in activist language. For example, sex isn't registered at birth. It is the body's reproductive structure. You register your car, not your sex. Any use of the word cisgender, gender identity, etc., is evidence of irretrievable built-in , activist-driven bias.
These kids deserve better.
And I don’t suppose the trial protocol mentions that puberty blockade will actively prevent the natural desistance that puberty itself permits - or at least used to permit before purveyors of “gender affirming care” came along and persuaded children that they needed this “care” to be their “authentic selves”.
Eduardo Cabrera explains the issue here: https://cabrerae.substack.com/p/trans-identity-fixed-or-transient
"because they are distressed about their sexed bodies."
Feel distressed **right now.** How many of the parents understand this is not a stable diagnosis in general??
Kids might not comprehend.
ICYMI, a recent Independent article on the topic:
"Kemi Badenoch calls on Wes Streeting to stop puberty blocker trial";
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wes-streeting-kemi-badenoch-health-secretary-nhs-conservative-b2872166.html
Carrie: If we wish to help gender distressed young people, we must get to the root of why they feel compelled to take such a radical risk with their health, not collude with them in seeking out dangerous puberty-blocking drugs.
Amen to that. Apropos of which, you might have some interest in an article by transwoman Dawn Ennis in an old Forbes article and my comments thereon:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/genspect-feminism-and-the-transcult
What's quite clear is that Dawn taking evidence of atypical personality and behavioural traits -- gender non-conformance -- as evidence of actually being of the other sex.