This post is based on a 2019 paper which looks at referrals to the U.K. Gender Clinic, GIDS, based at the Tavistock. The focus is on Adopted & Looked After Children (LACs). The full paper is included below. You can also access it via the link below:
Data Source:
The paper is from 2019 but uses data covering Tavistock patients during 2009 to 2011. It is unclear why the data doesn’t extend beyond this date. It may be significant that the data was extracted from clinical notes and, possibly, the researchers were required to harvest it manually. There appears to be a paucity of data collection, within GIDs, on the vulnerable groups referred to their service. Lack of ready access to data is frequently used as a reason to justify lack of compliance with Freedom of Information Requests. The law allows an organisation to deny an FOI if there is deemed to be an excessive amount of hours required to extract the data. GIDs have used this exemption multiple times on their FOI log. If you are familiar with the Keira Bell case you will recall the Judges who expressed surprise multiple times that data was not readily available.
If you are not familiar with the Keira Bell case I cover it below:
Vulnerable Children & GIDS.
The researchers note the high rate of GIDS referrals from Looked after (LAC) and adopted children. They note that LACs make up 0.58% of the general population but 4.9% of GIDs referrals. Adopted children account for another 3.8% of referrals. The data, therefore, illustrates a significant over-representation of these groups in the GIDs patient population.
It is worth noting that children living with grandparents are counted in the category of children living with their biological family (YPBF). In my experience every child I know, who is living with grandparents, has some trauma in their background, often related to bereavement or alcohol/drug dependent parents. I would have preferred to see disaggregated data on this group of children. The children from disrupted family backgrounds are therefore under-estimated in the population defined by the researchers.
Below is a clip from the David Taylor report which raised concerns about GIDs back in 2005. The David Taylor report was eventually released 15 years later folllowing an information request. The GIDS service, at the Tavistock, resisted publication and they only capitulated when they lost an appeal to the Freedom of Information Commissioner. David Taylor also noted the GIDs referrals from vulnerable children with troubled backgrounds. Child abuse, multiple caregivers or otherwise deprived or injurious upbringings are more likely to present with Gender Identity Issues. This is not new information. (I have a copy of the Taylor report and intend to do a piece on it, shortly)
Adolescence is a time of profound identity exploration. This can be a difficult time even for adolescents within a stable family context. What Gender Identity Ideologues demand is that we affirm a “gender identity”, in children/teenagers as if it were a concrete, stable identity. They further argue that this represents an “authentic” self which nevertheless needs the administration of life altering medications/surgeries. At the same time we are told to bear the concept of “gender fluidity” in mind which instructs us to recognise that gender identity is subject to change.
Gender fluidity allows the ideology to account for the emergence of middle aged males who claim a female Gender Identity at a late stage. Many of these men are heterosexual fathers and often emerge from male dominated professions. There seems to be a preponderance of,ex-army, late transitioners which is an interesting phenomenon. Blanchard’s theory of autogynephilia seems to best describe these males. A midlife crisis, where Barry becomes Belinda, is a phenomenon with little in common with “transgender children“. However gender dysphoric children distract from the sexual motivations of adult males, validate their inner woman and serve as the equivalent of “beards” for AGP males.
I know! Sometimes I wish I did not know any of this stuff too.
Homosexuality
Another glaring omission from this data is the absence of any figures on how many are proto-gay kids. Coyly the researchers avoid the word “homosexual” and, instead talk about diverse sexual identities.
Co-morbidity in referrals to GIDS.
Another feature of children referred to Gender Identity Services is a higher than expected rate of autistic children. Children who had experienced bullying and were self-harming are also noted. Data from Finland shows extremely high rates of co-morbid psychiatric conditions. A whopping 68% were found to have had prior engagement with psychiatric services for reasons other then their Gender Dysphoria.
The research also looks at rates of referral to endocrinologists between the different groups. The Looked after group, who obtained a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria, had the highest rates. At the same time they had the lowest rates of meeting the threshold for a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria.
Parents of adopted children show the greatest reluctance to embark on medications and are described as exhibiting nervousness about how they would be perceived. The report authors’ perspective is that a lack of parental advocacy, for LAC/Adopted children is impeding treatment for Gender Dysphoria, for children not residing with their biological family.
Their preferred solution is to improve access to diagnosis/treatment by accelerating pre-treatment counselling. It is recommended that more frequent appointments may be necessary to ensure that LAC children are not disadvantaged. I share the concern about the lack of parental advocacy but from a diametrically opposed viewpoint. Parents have a key role in protecting their children from irreversible medical decisions they may come to regret. In Canada a father has recently been imprisoned after refusing to remain silent about the fact his teenage daughter has been put on testosterone and is on a path to double mastectomy. (I will cover that case in a later blog)
The GIDS based research illustrates a huge over-representation from children already identified as a vulnerable group. It is notable that the data in this paper is from 2009-11 and before the huge surge in referrals we have seen in recent years. Research in Finland produced an even higher figure (13%) for referrals in this group.
After I published my first piece I was sent a link to the Irish article, posted below, which raised similar issues re the profile of children referred to Gender Identity Services.
Irish Referrals for Gender Dysphoria
Transgender Equality Inquiry
The issue of looked after children has appeared in submissions to the Parliament’s Transgender Equality Inquiry. Susie Green, of the controversial charity Mermaids, issued a typically hyperbolic statement:
Bernadette Wren, of the Tavistock, issued a more moderate statement but implies that Looked After Children may not find their way to GIDs services and that Social Workers need to be confident in making sure they know what these children are entitled to…
Its time we started looking more critically about the idea of an innate gender identity and why this belief system has gained so much traction in (very)recent history. Children in care/ adopted children are among the most vulnerable in our society. There is little doubt in my mind that we are witnessing social engineering and the unintended (?) consequence is negatively impacting vulnerable children/teens. Foster children and those adopted are another group that needs safeguarding.
Once again we are seeing of issues of vulnerability in the children/teenagers harvested by Gender Identity Ideology.
Any donations welcome. Please don’t do so unless you can afford. I do this full-time and it enables me to pay for software, books and to recycle any monies to relevant causes.
4 thoughts on “Gender Dysphoria: Looked after Children. Part 3. U.K. GIDS”