Sonia Appleby case

Sonia Appleby is the safeguarding lead for the Trust that houses the Tavistock, or Gender Identity Development Service (GIDs). Sonia bravely took her employer to an Employment Tribunal ; which she won. You can read the full judgment below.

Ms_S_Appleby__vs___Tavistock_and_Portman_NHS_Foundation_Trust

The full judgment contains many of the red flags that, no doubt, form part of the background to the closure of the Tavistock (G.I.Ds).

Sonia Appleby was the safeguarding lead for the NHS Trust which, until recently, housed the Gender Identity Service. Sonia’s case centred on the six issues she raised under the whistleblower policy and whether she suffered detriment as a result. She won her case and was awarded £20,000 in compensation.

In order to determine the case many staff were interviewed and some were cross examined.

Matt Bristow was not cross examined but his witness statement, on behalf of Sonia Appleby is on the public record. 👇 This encapsulates his concerns. Gay Conversion Therapy, in a nutshell.

Sonia was in the middle of an internal dispute between staff at the Tavistock about the best way to treat their referrals. Some staff believed in an innate “gender identity” where the children know best and it’s the clinician’s role to affirm their “authentic self”. This is an ideologically predicated perspective. Others were concerned about the other potential influences on the child’s internal belief system. Autism, same sex attraction, backgrounds of abuse or other trauma were present in a lot of the children. Some clinician were worried about the role of social media and the explosion of “trans” in the media fuelling a social contagion. Appleby was in the eye of the storm attempting to enforce child safeguarding in the midst of this, highly charged, environment.

The service had seen a steep rise in referrals, from mainly male it had switched to 76% female, waiting lists were long and the first court case, questioning the use of “affirmation” only had already been heard. This was the case of Keira Bell, a case I cover here:

Kiera Bell: Judicial Review

It was not just internal strife that bedevilled the service. The issue had become highly politicised with women’s groups springing up to contest the attacks on female only spaces by trans activists. Controversial lobby group, Mermaids, was garnering a lot of media attention and the promotion of “transgender” children was peddled across the U.K media. Accusations of “transphobia” were rife.

Sonia Appleby had experience as a social worker and a psychoanalytical psychotherapist and was named lead for safeguarding children for the Trust. By June 2016 she was raising the alarm at the rise in referrals and the increasing workloads. She also noted deficiencies in record keeping. Staff were also raising concerns about the role of a private practitioner who had entered the fray.

Dr Webberley has been suspended from practice for a number of years, her husband, who worked alongside her, was actually removed from the medical register this year. G.I.Ds staff were beginning to see children who had not only socially “transitioned” but had already accessed puberty blocking drugs from private practitioners such as Webberley.

Dr Carmichael’s response to this requested meeting is described as “interesting” in that she expressed concern that she “was unsure the agenda here”. She claimed she was simply wondering what the agenda was for the meeting. The tribunal was not convinced by this explanation”.

This was Sonia Appleby’s first protected disclosure. Mermaids, Rogue Medics and tensions within the team.

The second list of concerns is even more damning. Again Dr Webberley features; as does the number of gay kids presenting as “transgender”; parental encouragement of their child’s identity; and Dr Carmichael’s unwillingness to listen all feature.

There emerged some confusion about who was taking these issues forwarded and during a flurry of emails Appleby became aware that Dr Carmichael resented her being approached by her own staff. At this point a Garry Richardom is brought on board to play a role in safeguarding internal to G.I.Ds. This relationship gets off to a rocky start because he objects to her use of Jimmy Savile as a warning to the service.

Sonia explains this was something she routinely did to embed safeguarding in the service by using the example of Jimmy Savile who is the most high profile example of the NHS failing to spot /act upon a major safeguarding risk.

By 2018 a group of ten staff raised concerns with Dr David Bell. The claimant also raised another list of concerns raised by a staff member. Again the issue of homophobic parents raises its ugly head and a lack of understanding of the effects of puberty blockers.

She then conducted an audit of safeguarding referrals and noted that the rate of referrals was very low at G.I.Ds compared to other areas of the Trust. Appleby felt relations with Dr Carmichael were strained she was cast as someone asking “awkward questions”. At the same time Dr David Bell began interviewing staff and preparing his own report documenting concerns. This report was damning and would be leaked to the press. Once again homophobia is identified as an issue as well as the “excessively affirmative” attitude of staff who were seen as unable to withstand pressure to medically intervene.

Dr Carmichael’s response appears defensive.

At this point the claimant needed to establish a working relationship with a Dr Sinha who joined the service. This got off to a rocky start as he was briefed that she did not like to be managed and worked too independently, he reported that he found her argumentative but was unable to provide examples, to the tribunal, of incidents that led to this conclusion. There follows some exchanges that illustrate that Sonia Appleby was regarded with suspicion even when collecting data which was required for her job.

There followed a fifth protected disclosure based on the exit interview of Dr Matt Bristow. By this time Sonia Appleby is regarded with suspicion across the service and evidence is brought to the tribunal that staff were being discouraged from bringing safeguarding concerns to Sonia. Email trails who that staff were complaining about her “insubordination” and Dr Sinha embarks on disciplinary proceedings resulting in a letter being placed on her file. The tribunal found the way this was handled to be unfair to the claimant. Dr Sinha was found to be hostile and “punitive”.

Sonia was labelled as “not on side” by Dr Carmichael and evidence is presented illustrating that Sonia was safeguarding issues were not being referred, to her, by staff.

The tribunal concluded that there was a message being communicated that Appleby was hostile to the service and being cut out of issues in relation to her role as child safeguarding lead.

The tribunal found that the claimant had suffered detriment and an award of £20,000 was made. The picture that emerges is of a service riven with tension and suspicion where raising safeguarding concerns was viewed as a hostile act. The recurrent theme is one of homophobia which echoes my own experience. Our gay youth are poorly served/actively harmed by this service, in my view. The removal of the service from the Tavistock was long overdue.

You can support my work here. All contributions gratefully received.

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.

£10.00

Bernadette Wren:Tavistock 3

Featured

Part 3 on this talk by Wren.

You can see earlier parts of this series on this page:

Bernadette Wren

We rejoin Wren explaining about the rising referral rates to GIDs and the witch from predominantly male referrals to 75% female. Wren repeats the statement, made earlier, about the poor research base for the treatments for which she makes referrrals.

At this point Wren tells us that adults who have undergone these treatments do have a degree of continuing mental health issues, based on studies (which she does not name), but with small amounts of regret. For children and adolescents she references a Dutch study (again no specific reference provided) which followed a small group of “treated” referrals who were all doing well. She does, however, concede that this group tended to be very well functioning and arrive at the clinics at an older age. It is worth noting that the Tavistock were ideally placed to have conducted their own research. The childhood and adolescent branch of the tavistock was set up in 1989. They began administering puberty blockers in 2011. This talk was in 2019.

The next slide shows the diversity of the Tavistock’s clientele.

Evolutionary Biology

Finally we get to the question of evolutionary biology. Wren begins by pointing out that evolutionary biologists assume that humans are motivated by the aim of reproducing and leaving partial copies of ourselves on this earth; we are assumed to have an imperative to pass on our genes. She then breaks off and makes an interesting comment.

She continues by focussing on research re homosexuality which, she is careful to point out, she is not conflating with gender atypical presentations. She then says “Obviously, like Gender Dysphoria we assume like homosexuality has existed throughout history and in all known cultures” . I would say that is a highly contested statement, the latter yes, but “Gender Dysphoria” is a relatively new concept which has pathologised people who do not conform to expectations for their sex, many of them homosexual.

Wren continues by acknowledging that homosexuals are a statistically small section of society but then swiftly moves on to argue that sexuality can be fluid, particularly in females. (Is this how she is able to ignore the targeting of Lesbians who do not wish to entertain “male lesbians” as partners?).

Wren expresses caution about looking for a biological explanation, for both homosexuality and gender identity, because it risks being oppressive. If we seek explanations we could also seek the means to “cure” or “suppress” these experiences. This is where lumping homosexuality in with “gender minorities” is deeply unhelpful. The former does not need a lifetime’s dependence on cross sex hormones or risky surgeries.

Theories of adaptive advantage to homosexuality, she continues, are that they may confer advantages to relatives who do reproduce. Gay Uncles and Lesbian Aunts helping with child rearing, I assume she is referring to.

Next she turns to considering whether there is a biological basis for “gender identity”. Her hypothesis is that an explanation will not be located in a single gene but will be multi-factorial. She then switches to point out a third of their referrals have features of autism so, I assume she is making the link to autism as an inherited trait.

Heritability of “Gender Identity”.

Most of the evidence comes from twin studies. One such was by Holderman et al, in 2018. They looked at eleven studies. She breaks off to add a not of caution that these studies run the risk of conflating gender non-conforming behaviour with a transgender identity. [You don’t say! Exactly what we think has been happening at the Tavistock!]. Despite expressing reservations about the methodology, such as using sex stereotypes to determine whether a child displayed “opposite sex behaviours”, she repeats the conclusion that gender identity shows a pattern of heritability around 28% to 40% for identical twins, half that for non-identical twins.

Next she explores the work of Melissa Hines who looked at girls with disorders/differences of sexual development. They tended to show toy preferences aligned with “boy” choices but she concludes this was because they were less responsive to social cues directing them to “girl” toys.

Brain Structures

There is research looking at whether “transgender” individuals have brain structure more aligned to the opposite sex, with which they identify, or their natal sex. The criticism of these studies, that I have encountered ranges from small sample sizes ; failure to control for homosexuality; failure to consider the impact of opposite sex hormones and failure to account for neuro-plasticity. Wren concludes that the picture is uncertain.

Wren concludes that the explanations are likely to be multi-factorial, possibly a genetic predisposition, an interaction between social and biological factors and the role of culture; whether an individual lives in a society that encourages or suppresses atypical “gender identities”.

Wren also points out that if a biological maker were identified that may limit treatment for those who do not have that marker. That’s quite the statement. What it means is that Wren is happy for people to be medicalised even if it is discovered that they do not have the condition! She justifies this by reference to bodily autonomy and Human Rights.

Reproduction

There are a lot of “ifs” in this next statement. I guess when you have presided over the sterilisation of children you believe what you need to so you can sleep at night.

In the next bit Wren postulates that gender non-conformity in “cis-gendered” people may be an attractive feature signalling genetic superiority and this somehow leads to the idea that we may replicate gender diversity for some sort of evolutionary advantage. This, to me, feels like clutching at straws.

Cultural Evolution

Leaving evolutionary biology, Wren moves on to cultural evolution. This is the idea that these things can be “culturally transmitted” which, to me, seems dangerously close to the idea it is a social contagious.

She further reflects on how this might impact, in particular, adolescents for whom “there may be complex social forces shaping the formation of an atypical gender identity”.these social forces, she continues may be: 👇

In other words all the features of a typical adolescence that few people escape.

By jove she’s close to getting it!

But, not quite. She speculates on the interconnected ness of this generation and the speed of the transmission of ideas and how our youth are “a generation who are , almost routinely, asking themselves if they might be “trans” or differently gendered to explain their feelings their bodily alienation and discomfort and they are resistant to cultural norms for male and female behaviour and heteronormative sexuality”

Because of the above some people, she concludes, will feel they are “a better fit for another gender or indeed to attempt to be a different sex” . So, not to challenge societal norms at all, just take drugs and surgeries to better fit with the sexist stereotypes associated with the societally enforced, norms of behaviour you are putatively rebelling against!

Her conclusion.

Is it me or does she look haunted as she finishes with this statement?

Questions

There are questions about autism and how an inability to read social cues might lead to feeling of gender dysphoria. Wren answers this with reference to how their autism and their emerging gender identity may play a role. I don’t know the intention of the questioner but, to me, the concern is that autistic girls, and boys, may latch onto “Gender Dysphoria” as a more palatable explanation for not fitting in.

Another man asks a question which relates to cultural issues giving rise to “Gender Dysphoria” . This question very nearly hits the mark.

Wren thinks it is a very good question about “whether there are aspects of our culture that are amplifying gender dysphoria” and furthermore, in respect of the dramatic increase in numbers “as a service we are really on the backfoot in relation to these numbers” . She admits there are issues around the question of the high number of females referred to the Tavistock. She conceded that the pathways to the clinic may be very different for “people born into female bodies” ! Of course there are!

The next question centres on future directions for research. Wren can’t resist a side swipe at the Daily Mail who, she says, would have you believe the “trans lobby is very powerful” . Research, she answers, is very much focussed on the brain as preferred by “trans” people who see it as a route to validation. She talks about a focus on the suffering of those with “gender dysphoria” and whether the problem is an individual problem or societies for a lack of acceptance. (It does not seem to occur to her that if we tolerated behaviours that don’t match sexist expectation, for your sex, we could work to transform society instead of putting children/adolescents on a path requiring drugs and surgeries). She herself does not have a preferred area of research but does state that the Tavistock have just obtained a very large grant to track the people that have been through their service, for long term follow up for ten, twenty or thirty years. (Which is interesting because the Tavistock have previously claimed that is too difficult because people have changed their NHS numbers). Here was her answer.

The final question asked if a biological, or other cause is found and a treatment to resolve Gender Dysphoria (absent drugs and surgeries, I assume he means) would it be ethical to take this route? Wren answers with stories of people who reconciled to their sex after having been, initially, certain about their gender identity. She is careful to say they would not practice “Conversion Therapy” but if the young person was willing they would work, therapeutically with that person. This sounds as if a young person was so certain and would not co-operate then they would not get the chance to reconcile their sex /sexuality.

My conclusion.

Looks like we have our answer about which way the service is heading.

If you are able to support my work you can do so here. All gifts gratefully received.

D35496A1-6A40-413E-9A06-28E4F8EB3D8C

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and all its harms so we never forget.

£10.00

Bernadette Wren: Tavistock 2

Featured

Part two on this talk by Wren to a room full of evolutionary biologists.

You can read part 1, here, which covers the first fifteen minutes. A link to the YouTube is included.

Bernadette Wren:Tavistock

We return to Wren discussing the variety of ways societies have accommodated, mainly men, who do not conform to cultural expectations, for their sex. Many of these accommodations look, to me, as, potentially, benign ways to accommodate men who wish to have sex with men. The Hjira, who Wren references, though, may have a darker underbelly in that young boys may be groomed into these roles to provide a sexual outlet for older, married men who wish to have sex with boys. Likewise gay men may be left with little choice. This may be the only way for homosexuals to survive in India. See this account here. 👇 (Homosexuality was only legalised, by India, in 2018)

Hijra

Wren continues with this statement about “cisgender” people.

I am going to assume she means that people who identify with their birth sex can also be resistant to sex stereotypes, which of course is true. There have been people, I would argue the vast majority, who depart from sexist expectations for their sex. Despite Wren’s obsession with “de-pathologising” she has played a role in problematising behaviour at odds from cultural expectations for your sex. This has specific implications for gay people who can display “gender non-conformity” at an early, pre-sexual age. This deviation is not, however, confined to homosexuals, there are many, straight women, who have dominant personalities and there are “theatrical” straight males. The situation we have arrived it is one where the only “real” women are deemed to be the ones who conform to sexist “gender roles”. If this keeps up the vast majority of women will need to exit our sex class for not “womanning” correctly.

After a wander through other cultures, Wren returns to the U.K. context to explain that Western nations are catching up with the issue of “third genders”. [I sense she is building up to explaining the meteoric referrals to the Tavistock with her “look there are an estimated one million Hjiara people”. ]

On referrals to the Tavistock, Wren advises that many young people arrive with total conviction about their pathway. They feel it is an “un shiftable” part of their self ; some of those people went on to detransition.

Authentic Self

Some clinicians also share this believe system 👇. Those of with children who are part of the gender church will recognise the phrase “true self” or “authentic self”. Both recurrent phrases from the true believers. [The evidence for a biological under-pinning to “gender identity” is very poor, by the way ]

Gender Fluid

Wren is careful not to exclude anyone from the trans umbrella so she quickly adds this 👇to encompass the part-time larpers. She also avoids saying “healthy body” by using the term “non anomalous” for the bodies she sends to be cut up.

Non-Binary people

Non-Binary people claim to be neither male nor female but this does not preclude them from going under the surgeon’s knife. Wren advises that they want more “tailored” surgeries. To get an idea of the more extreme manifestation of “tailored” surgeries you can have a look at what is in offer in the United States. Nullification is the removal of all genitalia like a Ken Doll. Men can also opt to have a “neo-vagina” but retain their penis. Non-binary females can have a double mastectomy.

Referral Rates to the Tavistock, Children’s Service

All that scene setting was to prepare the audience for the following slides.

Unlike the earlier slides, Wren does not appear to want to linger on this one. As you can see there has been a dramatic increase in girls.

This is as good a point as any to break off, even though I have only made it to the 20 minute mark. Part 3 to follow. Now the Law suits are rolling in, I want to provide detailed coverage of the belief system underpinning practice at the Tavistock.

Article in The Times.

You can support my work here: Don’t prioritise me above legal cases. I get by but donations help me to keep going. Irrespective my work will remain open access.

D35496A1-6A40-413E-9A06-28E4F8EB3D8C

Investigating the Gender Industrial Complex, Gender Identity Ideology and the impact on women’s and Gay rights.

£10.00

Bernadette Wren:Tavistock

Featured

Can evolution explain Gender Diversity? (Part 1)

This post reviews a presentation by Bernadette Wren, while at the Tavistock, to a group of evolutionary biologists. You can find the link here:

Can Evolution explain Gender Diversity?

Wren opens by explaining this is a highly contested field, she is habitually nervous when speaking on this topic but she is confident the people in the room are too scholarly for there to be any uncivil discourse. She explains that she, herself, is curious about the topic and does not take a particular stand.

Here she comments on the issue of uncertainty in the practice of “gender medicine” ; emphasising the lack of a firm foundation for the management of “gender variance”.

She expresses the hope that an evolutionary perspective could reduce stigma for those who are “transgender” and perhaps this will lower the temperature in the public debate. On the referrals to the Tavistock she has this to say: 👇

The Tavistock, she advises, see people who are questioning the assignation of their “gender” and “gender roles” insofar as “they embody a set of expectations about how someone will live and how they will feel about being in the body”. Wren talks about their intense distress about their sexed body and suggests, in the past, this may have been a hidden distress. She argues that these feeling are not new but what is new are the numbers and the certainty with which they present, accompanied by demands for urgent medical intervention and pushy parents who she calls “assertively supportive”.

She described the Tavistock approach as “broadly affirmative”. They take the distress seriously and don’t assume a “psycho-pathological” causality, however, she claims, they do bear in mind if the onset of distress is linked to any trauma. She adds a caveat that they do not lose sight of an “unconflicted trans and gender diverse experience”. This is quite telling. Previous clinical practice would have maintained that anyone feeling as if they are “born in the wrong body” requires serious exploration of the underlying causes. Now we make a default assumption this is a natural development, a variation, unless evidence is presented to the contrary. This has major implications for how patients present themselves, perhaps downplaying psychological issues to swiftly access medical treatment? It also has consequences for how Gender Clinics respond to this condition and, it is my, firmly held, view that this is why we are seeing an explosion in the numbers of detransitioners. Here 👇 Wren still sees their service as “gatekeeping” medical intervention.

This is a list of names involved in a Tavistock working group looking at the, potential, role of evolutionary biology in “gender variance”. I have not encountered these names before so, I am merely including this slide for archival purposes and in case their names recur.

Next Wren shares some Gender New Speak and makes it clear she does so without apology. Check out the definition of SEX!

Next, Wren puts up a slide with estimates of the prevalence of people diagnosed with this condition. The slide is less interesting than what she says while it was on screen. I will include it for completeness. Surprise, Surprise, once you start talking about and publishing on “transsexuals” the prevalence increases.

Wren now cites the work of an evolutionary biologist “herself a transwoman” to muddy the waters about sex/gender, so let’s take a little detour to learn about the biologist whose insights she shares. 👇

Joan/Jonathan Roughgarden

While the above slide is on screen, Wren treats us to the above named 👆 scientist who has spent time cataloguing the lack of sexual dimorphism in the animal kingdom. Joan was Jonathon up until the age of 51. You can find a Ted Talk of his on YouTube. Here’s a statement he made in that talk.

Roughgarden takes us on a whistle stop tour of diversity in the animal kingdom including, of course, the clownfish. He has also written a book, Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender and Sexuality in nature and people. Below are a selection of quotes:

Roughgarden acknowledges we are divided into biological males/females based on whether we make large or small gametes.

He accepts the universality of the biological distinction but throws in a reference to claim a difference between sex and gender.

To insist on the salience of biological sex is a mistake called “essentialism”.

Instead we can choose who counts as a male or a female; how convenient for Joan/Jonathon.

He then adds some TRAlinist revisionism by re-classifying Joan of Arc as a “transgender man”; claiming we had a wealth of transvestite saints in the middle ages and that eunuchs were early transgender people.

Finally, before we leave Roughgarden to his musings, here are his thoughts on how to deal with “transphobia”; eerily reminiscent of calls to Lesbians to seek help to get over their hang ups about Lady Penis.

Intersex: Via Fausto-Sterling

Of course no discussion about biological sex would be complete without weaponising people with disorders/differences in development (DSDs). There are many conditions which lead to atypical chromosomal development, funnily enough these conditions occur in either males or females. They carry with them differing levels of severity in terms of the medical consequences. Fausto-Sterling famously claimed there were 5 sexes and “intersex” conditions were as common as red hair.

Worth a detour to share some of Fausto-Sterling’s thoughts. 😳.

Cultural Genitals to Lady Penis in women’s sport. 😳

Was Anne just having a laugh? (Worth including this just because of the tone of this public admonishment 😂).

All of which leads Wren to make this observation, which demonstrates that societies have handled the identification of the sexes reasonably well, even prior to karyotype tests.

I will leave part one on this talk, at this point. What you need to take away from this is that Wren and her fellow travellers really do think the world would be a better place if we stopped recognising biological sex. In their fantasy world this would eradicate sexism and make the world a better place.

To believe this you have to disregard facts like sex selective abortion *still* happens (even in the United Kingdom), at least 98% of sex offenders are male which is one reason WHY women fought for single sex spaces. Even after multiple surgeries men are still recognisable, as men. The fantasy of “passing” males means blocking male puberty and, as we know, this means the eradication of the ability to orgasm.

In the U.K, have had the vote for less than a 100 years *1, we still don’t have equal representation in parliament and, unless one party comes out for Women’s, sex based, rights, unequivocally, our votes will be rendered meaningless.

. (*1 women were granted the vote in 1918 but it was not extended to all women, over 21, until 1928).

You can support my work here, should you feel so inclined. Rumours to the contrary, women fighting this are not awash money. Unlike the organisations receiving the billions funnelled into spreading Gender Identity Ideology, by “Charitable” Foundations.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology, the impact (negative) on women’s sex based rights and gay rights, not forgetting the, Mengele adjacent, medicine practiced at the Tavistock.

£10.00

Treatment & Assessment: Tavistock

Featured

A look at this paper by Gary Butler, Natasha De Graaf, Bernadette Wren and Polly Carmichael, from March 2018.

Paper below.

Assessment & Treatment for GD

I have said many times that once you believe in an innate “Gender Identity” the pathway to normalising bodily modification becomes easier. What is astonishing, to me, is the fundamental mischaracterisation of those of us who are loosely identified as “gender critical”; as if we are the ones who cannot tolerate diversity of personal expression. Let us unpack this introduction to the paper. 👇

Children and adolescents are presenting, in ever increasing numbers, with “Gender Dysphoria” which manifests as a rejection of “conventional gender expectations”. There has long been a feminist project to reject sexist stereotypes, my feminism has never argued, if you don’t conform to those expectations, you should modify your body so it is more “congruent”. It astonishes me that some of the same women railing against “beach body” propaganda 👇 can see the regressive nature of “gendered expectations” ,in this campaign, but not in the idea the way you feel about yourself necessitates, not just a diet and a spray tan, but serious, life-altering, drugs and surgeries.

It would seem to be a reasonable line of enquiry to wonder whether these excessive pressures on teenage girls, in the age of the “selfie”, might have contributed to rise in females presenting at gender clinics? This is the scale of the increase. 👇. Notice that the paper adopts the captured language of the gender industrial complex by referring these girls as “birth assigned females” .

What did one of the paper’s authors, Bernadette Wren, Tavistock employee, have to say about this phenomenon? Here she is speaking to the Women’s and Equalities Committee. (Source Hansard). 👇

The cutting edge of a revolution.

Notice here Wren reveals the influence of trans lobby group Gendered Intelligence. She is not a neutral observer, this is what she is calls a “revolution many of us have really fought for”. Yet, what we have witnessed is a new form of bodily hatred, in the female sex, and we have responded by taking the cutting edge of the scalpel to young girls’ breasts.

In another admission Wren says her service has never turned anyone down for physical intervention.

Wren also ponders on whether we may find we have embarked on a path that is very “unwise”. Yep, you can say that again!

The Paper also recognises the pressure within the service to embark on medical treatments. This looks like an admission that there examples of this within G.I.Ds.

Elsewhere Wren acknowledges the influence of the internet and a growing tolerance of bodily modification, as a factor driving referrals.

This 👇 exposes a fundamental contradiction (one of many) within Gender Identity Ideology. If we were really more tolerant of “diverse gender expression” surely we would not be encouraging hormones and surgeries so your body confirms to stereotypical expectations?

Apart from the over-representation of females there is a startling percentage of autistic kids at gender clinics. This is so noticeable many people argue there is some connection between the condition, being neuro diverse, and “gender dysphoria”.

A more plausible explanation, to me, is that many of the ways we express ourselves as women, or men, are not innate but depend on our ability to pick up social cues. I am not a proponent of “blank state”, but we do learn, culturally determined, expectations, for our sex. Since this is something more difficult, for people with autism, the resultant feeling of incongruence could be predicted. Add in a typical propensity for black and white thinking and it’s the perfect storm for autistic people. I should add that I am no expert but I have an autistic nephew and have found it so instructive to see how he navigates the world.

That Stonewall tweet.

Another issue that lays bear this ideology is illustrated by the age range of referrals to the Tavistock. The youngest referral, to the Tavistock I have found, is age three.

Recently Stonewall sent out this tweet, which caused a lot of controversy. I believe the term is they were ratio’d

This sparked a lot of backlash but it’s not an unusual belief in the gender ideologue sector. Here’s what this paper says about the age of presentation of “gender incongruence” . It simply never occurred to me to judge my two boys, when aged two, according to gender conformity in their play.

Here the authors lend credence to “nonbinary”, “gender fluid” and “gender neutral”. I cannot take anyone seriously who buys into this nonsense. Sadly our political elite openly spouts this ridiculous ideology, even in parliament, and some seem to think it’s a solid foundation on which to make public policy and enact legislation. How these people can express a belief in the fluidity of “gender” while performing irreversible, medical, interventions in kids as young as ten is beyond my ken.

The people doing this to our kids don’t know what they are doing. How are these two statements, in this paper, compatible? You simply cannot claim something is physically reversible and that the effect of locking puberty is “largely unknown”. 👇

Another admission in this excerpt 👇 and they really do suggest the answer may be to start kids younger?

The paper spends some time discussing the issue of capacity to consent, informed consent and Gillick competence. They then outline scenarios where a child is not able to consent and this must be given by a parent /guardian. So, what if the parent doesn’t agree? Sadly, we know the answer to this from the experience of parents in Australia, the U.S and Canada; the State will remove the child from your care!

They proceed to recognise that the effect of blocking puberty, in the male sex, stunts genitalia and may compromise the ability (it does) to perform “traditional” surgery to construct a “neo-vagina” . I am going to go out on a limb here and say they should have thought about this before they started blocking puberty! It’s also a lie that they can create a clitoris in males. Sadly, our boys really believe this and if I sound merely angry I am failing to convey my white hot rage at these charlatans!

Not only is it not possible to make a clitoris out of penoscrotal skin it is becoming clear that these boys will not have the capacity to orgasm. I make no apology for including this quote, from Marci Bowers, again. Bowers should know they had the surgery as an adult man and have made a living performing these surgeries, including his most famous patient, Jazz Jennings.

They also know that the vast majority of these kids, if left alone, would desist and many would simply be homosexual.

Something tells me these excuses for a failure to do long term follow up are because they know what is down the road and are terrified to find out that they were indeed “unwise”. Remind me again who campaigned to change NHS numbers?

No conflict of interest?

I want to say a word about how journals accept it when these authors blithely claim they have no conflict of interest. Not only are they ideologically blinkered, their professional reputation, and salaries, rely on the Gender Industrial Complex. Additionally, now the law suits are coming, they have to pretend they didn’t know all of this, even though it’s increasingly apparent.

Our children have been lied to!

Scholars with a background in medicine/medical ethics will do a more expert job tackling this paper, I am neither. I am not a neutral observer, as long term readers will know. All I can see is the harm to my own one and I while I have to refrain from expressing this, in so many settings, I cannot repress the knowledge. Like too many parents I have a ringside seat to the self-harm my own GP is colluding with…

You can support my work here, only if you have surplus income and don’t prioritise me over any legal cases trying to bring this ideology crashing down.

Researching the catastrophic impact of the Gender Industrial Complex on children as well as the pernicious influence of Gender Identity Ideology on women’s and gay rights.

£10.00

Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglie 3

Featured

Part three: Questions and Answers

This is the final part on Domenico Di Ceglie, the man who set up the children and youth service at the U.K’s main gender clinic. You can read parts 1 & 2 here. These posts are part of my series on the Tavistock.

Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglio

Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglio 2

This piece will focus on the question and answer session, following his talk which I covered in parts 1 & 2. The Q & A starts 48 minutes in:

Questions and Answers

Di Ceglie ends his talk with a reference to robots which struck me as quite an odd final comment and appeared to have little connection to what had gone before:

Then I remembered he also said this in part one and I wonder if he is envisaging his work as going beyond what it means to be human?

The question and answer section is quite revealing but it is a shame that, through time constraints, or perhaps deliberately, the audience will not have had time to register some of the more damning, and contradictory, slides which I covered in part two. In particular this one which sets out the risks of the treatments dished out at gender clinics.

Still there were some important questions at the end.

Two came from Bob Withers, a Jungian therapist, who I immediately recognised. Bob has done excellent work in this field. I did a series on Bob’s work: 👇

Bob Withers: Series.

His first question :

You may recall that Di Ceglie stated that no biological underpinning to explain the ”transgender” experience has been found and, believe me, they have been looking. There is a deep desire to find a ”Born this way” narrative to explain why some people experience “Gender Dysphoria” and to present the steep rise in referrals to clinics as a natural phenomenon. There is, as yet, no research that has convinced me. The studies that I have seen tend to cover small sample sizes, fail to control for homosexuality and even include men on synthetic cross hormones. I do not think we will find a common explanation that covers teenage girls, baby gays and heterosexual males who like masturbating in their wife’s knickers!

Di Ceglie valiantly tries, in a somewhat rambling reply. He concedes that no single biological cause has been found, as yet, and that the causes are multi-factorial, but include biology. He also claims that some people have a more rigid mindset (Does he mean autistic people?) and are unable to be fluid in their thinking and these people need to be helped by physical intervention. He also is careful to allow for the variety of choices re physical interventions because ”some people may choose one intervention and not another”. A sort of pick and mix of cosmetic surgeries for your ideal gender ”presentation”.. Humans as ”meat lego” is the phrase that comes to mind, as coined by Mary Harrington. This also reminds me of the man who took the NHS to court, multiple times, because he wanted fake breasts but he still retained a penis. I wrote about him below.

The Elephant in the room.

If you build Gender clinics they will come.

Di Ceglie further elaaborates on this theme by focussing on the patients as ”service users” and how the Tavistock needs to have a range of options to respond to the different needs, which I would call ”desires”. Remember in the opening to his talk he said this.

After Di Ceglie’s ,rather rambling, answer Bob’s rejoinder is much more down to earth.

Di Ceglie’s response:

He then repeats the uncertainty about knowing the final outcome for a specific child and here I must remind you, once again, that we are giving children, as young as ten, irreversible medications based on these theories.

In his next sentence he confirms what I suspected was his belief system. Some of these children have a fixity in their belief systems and features of autism. We already know autistic kids are over-represented at Gender Clinics. Di Ceglie exhibits no concern that they are harming a vulnerable group, instead he links the biological cause, for autistism, suggests a biological underpinning for Gender Dysphoria. He is not explicit about this but it was the inference I took from his response and is common belief among Gender Identity Ideologues.

The next question from another audience member is about the interaction between same sex orientation and a transgender identity.

Di Ceglie gives the stock answer we can get from any Trans activist on twitter. He sees sexual orientation and gender identity as two distinct things and to justify his stance he points out that some of their male subjects go on to have ”Lesbian” relationships. Nobody objects to this redefinition of the word Lesbian. He further points out that ”people assigned female at birth may go on to live in a homosexual relationship with another man”.

Final question, on camera, is from a Canadian woman, from Toronto, who advises that the Canadian Gender Clinic removed Ken Zucker because he was practicing reparative therapy, a form of Conversion Therapy, in her view. She explains that he was teaching kids how not to be ”trans”. She claims this was done in a coercive and controlling way and generating depression and anxiety in the children at the clinic.

Di Ceglie does not defend Ken Zucker but just talks about the complexity of the work and here the session breaks and no further questions are on camera.

I will leave the final word to Marci Bowers, a male who identifies as “transgender” and also performs the operations called ”sexual reassignment surgery”.

I hope this has provided some insight into the kind of thinking at work at the Tavistock. If you can support my work you can do so here. I do now have a limited income but I do still need assistance to keep the show on the road. You can donate to my paypal or my

https://ko-fi.com/stilltish

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on women’s rights and the impact on gay rights.

£10.00

Or https://ko-fi.com/stilltish

Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglio 2

Featured

Domenico Di Ceglio set up the childhood and adolescent services at the Gender Identity Development Service (G.I.Ds) at the Tavistock. This is part two on a talk he gave at a conference on “Transgender” issues. You can find the rest of my series, on the Tavistock, below.

Tavistock 

You can watch the talk on YouTube, below. 👇

Domenico Di Ceglie

Part one is here

Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglio

This is the title of that talk. Transgender , Gender and Psychoanalysis, with this subtitle.

In part one Di Ceglie covers his motivation for setting up the children and adolescent service at G.I.Ds; the astronomic growth of referrals and the tensions between staff who wished to provide only therapeutic support, to children, and those who advocated for the administration of puberty blockers. As suggested by the title he uses metaphors to convey his role in managing these tensions. A psychoanalyst might suggest that this allows him to distance himself from the choices he made during his tenure.

We pick up at around the 30 minute mark. Di Ceglie is using the myth of Scylla and Charibdys, from Ulysses, to convey his position at the Tavistock. Both Scylla and Charibdys pose a risk to Ullyses and his sailors but only Charbdys can sink the ship. Ullysses, therefore, steers close to Scylla even though he knows she will snatch some of his sailors and crush them with her grip, before swallowing them. Di Ceglie clearly feels the service is under threat so he needs to balance these risks and sacrifices will have to be made.

Di Ceglie then reflects that it was the more valiant of Ulysses’ sailors who fell victim to Scylla and offers an explanation with reference to G.I.Ds staff calling them ”crusaders,” , which is very revealing.

He explains that the Tavistock tries to steer a middle way neither neglecting the mind nor the body. He claims that they work to break the cycle of secrecy and shame involved in an atypical gender identity. He further argues that the foster uncertainty about the outcomes for any child. I don’t see how this is compatible with this statement: If we are allowing a social transition and puberty blockers there is near certainty (98%) of progression to cross sex hormones. They will be sterile and, as we saw in part one, they will have near zero chance of any orgasmic capacity.

He is also keen to dispel any suggestion that they practice ”reparative” therapy i.e that they seek to reconcile the child with their sex/sexuality. I imagine this is motivated by the wish to avoid the fate of the Canadian Gender Clinic which he mentions more than once during the talk. (Ken Zucker’s clinic was accused of practicing conversion therapy on gender confused kids and his clinic shut down. He won a legal case but was not restored to his post)

He does share a case study of a natal male who adopted a female identity, following the death of his grandmother. After giving him some help to articulate his grief he reconciled to his sex and desisted.

He further claims that clinics who are rigid in their approach to these children run the risk of embedding the cross gender identity even further. He may be correct in this but, again, it does not square with the medical treatments. He does, thankfully, recognise an 80% desistance rate if allowed to go through a natural puberty; shame he does not include how many end up good old-fashioned homosexuals.

Clearly the clinic are making judgements that some children are unlikely to change their minds. This clip suggests early onset gender dysphoria is believed to be more intractable.

He next speculates that gender dysphoria is more intractable with those with paranoid schizophrenic tendencies and even those who have been subject to traumatic events in childhood. This is starting to echo the criteria used to dish out lobotomies or Electric Shock treatment.

Empathising versus Systematising.

This looks at the work of Simon Baron-Cohen who conducted research into children with atypical ”gender ” development and seems to be driven by defining certain behaviours more ”male” / “female” and, presumably, looking for evidence of “true trans“. Unsurprisingly females scored higher on empathy and men on systems. Between a likely biological predisposition and female socialisation women’s scores are , to me, unremarkable. What did surprise me was the scores for trans-identifying males. While they did score lower on “systemising”, than the control of males who were not identifying as ”transgender”, they also had lower scores for empathy. Curiously although Di Ceglie talks of the value of further research into identifying potential desisters this does not appear to have been a research area of interest to the staff at the Tavistock.

Di Ceglie claims it is possible to identify good candidates for early intervention. Not on e does he refer to detransitioners but they may not have been as significant a phenomenon when this conference took place. The YouTube video was uploaded two years ago but it may have pre-dated the Kiera Bell case. It would be interesting to know if he is paying attention to the rising rates of regret.

At the end of the conference Di Ceglie rushes through his final slides so I had to slow down the speed to take screen grabs. He has two slides on the benefits of early transition quoting research papers from 2006 i.e before the current surge in transgender kids /youth. He also claims that puberty blockers are ”considered to be fully reversible“ on one slide but look at the next slide, it directly contradicts this statement.

What are the risks?

It is unclear what the long term impact is on bone development, height, sex organ development it may affect brain development, and it may even lock in the Gender Dysphoria.

Those are some big risks!

Now we have a growing number of detransitioners the chickens may be comimg home to roost. Currently there are 35,000 members on the reddit detrans forum. It is growing at an alarming rate.

In part three I will cover the question and answer session.

You can support my work here. Every donation helps because we are up against billionaires funding this ideology, globally. Contrary to the propaganda I am not funded by Evangelical Christians, the Far Right or Viktor Orban. I rely on donations to cover my costs but do not donate if you are on a limited income.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on our gay /autistic youth, kids in care as well as the sex based rights of women and adult homosexuals, especially Lesbians.

£10.00

Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglio 1

Featured

Domenico Di Ceglio set up the childhood and adolescent services at the Gender Identity Development Service (G.I.Ds) at the Tavistock. You can find the rest of my series, on the Tavistock, below.

Tavistock 

To provide some background to a piece on the David Taylor report, into G.I.Ds, I did some research into the man who set up the children’s service. Domenico Di Ceglie can be seen on this YouTube of a conference contribution he made. 👇

Domenico Di Ceglie

This is the title of that talk. Transgender , Gender and Psychoanalysis, with this subtitle.

First he provides his motivation for setting up the service, he admits it was a new area for him until he encountered a teenage girl, who had attempted suicide three times and believed she should have been male. According to Di Ceglie she went on to identify as Ian and was suicidal no more. It was this patient, who wished her parents could have seen someone when she was five, that prompted the setting up of the service. Not everyone accepted this idea without question and someone raised the law of unintended consequences. In the retelling Di Ceglie seemed to think this an amusing moment. (I wonder if he is still laughing as we see more and more post ”transition” regret.)

This reminded me of a conversation I had with an adult male, who self-describes as a ”transsexual”; he observed that the Tavistock provided a solution that created the phenomenon. Or to use a phrase from the business world used in the Kevin Costner film, Field of Dreams:

”If you build it they will come”.

He then uses two Freud quotes and proceeds to talk about the impact of the ”uncertainty principle” in this field. This principle is actually derived from physics but it has acquired a more general use in terms of the difficulty in predicting human behaviour, or their development trajectories. I am sure there are some sound arguments for accepting this ability to tolerate ambiguity, in a therapeutic setting, but it does rather the beg the question about subjecting children as young as 10 on irreversible, medicalised, pathways. We used to accept the certainty we would grow up to be Adult Human Females or Males, needless to say this is still true.

He then introduces Pablo Neruda, the poet, from the Film, The Postman, explaining metaphors to a Greek Postman. Again, it is a perfectly charming clip, but this seems strangely whimsical when you are actually discussing serious medical interventions, in children.

John Money and Robert Stoller

Next we learn about two pioneers working in this field. John Money, for those of you who are unaware, was a pioneer in this field. He is infamous for intervening in the life of a child who had suffered a medical accident which removed his penis. David Rheimer was a twin which provided the perfect experiment in bringing him up as a, putative, girl. As, it turns out the two boys afforded access to children for Money who was subsequently outed as a paedophile. Both boys committed suicide. There is no explicit acknowledgement of the allegations against Money, only a reference to him being a ”controversial figure at the end of his life”.
Both Stoller and Money sensed the revolutionary impact of the concept of a “Gender Identity” or ”Role” which is at odds with your physical embodiment. Stoller puts it clearest here: 👇 The replacing of a subjective, sense of self, a ”gendered soul”; irrespective of your sexed body.

Money, talking in 1992, prophesied the societal revolution we are witnessing in 2022, with a reorganisation of society which is disregarding sex based rights. The obscured word at the end of this quote is ”principles”

Di Ceglie acknowledges that the ascendance of this idea has had huge, societal ramifications but, of course, there is no space to address the disproportionate impact on the female sex. He also seems quite excited about this social revolution comparing it to Copernicus who discovered that the earth rotated around the son and not the other way around. I should add that Copernicus made a discovery of fact he did not invent an unprovable theory of innate gender identity.

Brain sex #LadyBrain

In this section Di Ceglie concedes that attempts to prove a biological basis for ”gender identity’ have foundered.

At the same time he makes this astonishing claim which needs to be highlighted. He does not think we will ever have incontrovertible evidence because this is “beyond human”. The problem is we are not dealing with post-human society he is dealing with human beings. This statement looks like a nod to ”transhumanism”.

In this next section he covers the steep rise in referrals to G.I.Ds between 1989 to 2015. Most of you will be familiar with the fact we have had a 4000% increase in female patients; a complete inversion of the sex ratio as well as a dramatic lowering of the age profile. Same sex attracted youth are over-represented and not singled out for specific mention, neither is the prevalence of referrals of teenage girls with no concomitant rise of referrals of middle aged women. Surely if this was a product of more social acceptance we would see a surge in late transitioning females? Thankfully, whilst Di Ceglie shows little curiosity about this phenomenon we do have the words of his colleague, Bernadette Wren.

Cutting edge of a social revolution

Unfortunately, for us, you are literally cutting into the bodies of our children as part of this ”revolution”. Teenage girls with extreme body hatred is not new phenomenon as Wren knows very well.

Di Ceglie also uses a number of metaphors to explore his feelings about operating on the edge in terms of the Tavistock’s practices. If I were a psychoanalyst I might suggest that using metaphors, rather than grounded language conceals what he is actually enabling, perhaps even from himself. In plainer language he explains there is a fear of both action and inaction in relation to these children . There are pressures from within and without the clinic to begin prescribing puberty blockers, to children as young as 11. Some within the service wanted to limit their role to therapy, while others were keen to prescribe puberty blockers, early, in what was known as the Dutch protocol. As we now know, the latter group prevailed. Di Ceglie explores this debate by reference to Greek myths rather than saying, in plain language, the cost benefit analysis means we will sometimes treat the ”wrong” children. The correct number of children to be medicalised, for me, is zero. No child should be sterilised and have zero capacity to orgasm. You may be skeptical of this claim so I will share the words of Marci Bowers. Bowers is a surgeon and also a “trans” identified male. He performed surgery on Jazz Jennings. These children are being robbed of their sexual pleasure.

Autism

Later he will acknowledge the high number of autistic referrals and reference a theory that links this to atypical levels of testosterone in utero leading to ”masculine” brain type. My own theory, while I don’t wholly dismiss some, sex specific, biological imprint on male and female brains, is that *some* autistic girls are not as efficient at absorbing female socialisation. Conversely, I have also seen female socialisation as an explanation for why *some* autistic girls become adept at ”masking” /mimicking their peers so are often diagnosed late in life. (I will come back to Autism in a the next piece because it is a complex area. )

I will cover the rest of this YouTube in a further blog because there was more on autism and one person pushed him on the issue of high rates of referrals with same sexual orientation. I will leave you with Bob’s excellent question.

Questions

Bob Withers.

Bob asked an excellent question which goes to the heart of the matter. I have done a series on Bob’s work. (Link below).

Bob Withers: Series.

Now we have a growing number of detransitioners the chickens may be comimg home to roost. Currently there are 35,000 members on the reddit detrans forum. It is growing at an alarming rate.

You can support my work here. Every donation helps because we are up against billionaires funding this ideology, globally. Contrary to the propaganda I am not funded by Evangelical Christians, the Far Right or Viktor Orban. I rely on donations to cover my costs but do not donate if you are on a limited income.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on our gay /autistic youth, kids in care as well as the sex based rights of women and adult homosexuals, especially Lesbians.

£10.00

Tavistock: Taylor Report

Featured

This is a report raising concerns about the Tavistock from way back in 2005. The report was released following a Freedom of Information request in 2020. Concerns are still being raised, approaching 25 years later. This is part of a series on the Tavistock. You can find the rest on this page:

Tavistock Series

Taylor Report: Link below

FOI_20-21117_2005_David_Taylor_Report

The report is intended for an internal audience so the language may be somewhat impenetrable, for the lay person. What it tells us is that, as far back as 2005, there were disagreements within the clinical team. This conflict had major implications for the treatment of children referred to the Tavistock. Since the clinic began referring children for Puberty Blockers, in 2011, it seems those who believed some children would not respond to therapeutic interventions, won the day.

To provide some background I did some research into the man who set up the children’s service. Domenico Di Ceglie can be seen on this YouTube talk.

Domenico Di Cegile

Domenico Di Ceglie

This is something he stated in this presentation. He seemed to think this was an amusing movement. I wonder if he is still laughing.

It would be worthwhile covering this presentation in a separate blog but these were the key things that stood out for me. Di Ceglie concedes there is no confirmation that the condition has a biological origin; he repeats the argument that puberty blockers are reversible (they are not); he acknowledges the high rates of autism in referrals but but not the high rates of referrals with same sex attraction. It is left to an audience member to ask him about this and his answer mirrors that of trans activists by his response that some males can be ”Lesbians”. As this is a childhood and adolescent service no mention is made of autogynephilia but this is a mistake since average age of first porn exposure is 9 years old; we may be seeing sexual fetishes at an earlier age.

Bob Withers.

Bob asked an excellent question which goes to the heart of the matter.

From this presentation it is clear that De Ceglie believes his service provides a ”third way” somewhere which is part affirmative and partially exploratory. He is keen to dispel any accusations of “Conversion Therapy” and it is clear the organisation was coming under a great deal of pressure from the referrals, their parents and Trans Lobby groups. At one point he uses a Frankenstein reference and I wonder if, deep down, he knows he created a monster?

Back to David Taylor

Taylor’s report makes it clear there were real tensions at the Tavistock. In part these were due to external pressures, from Trans Lobby groups, who were pushing for earlier interventions. There were also internal schisms between staff, at least one of whom is a trans-identified male. Other staff, who are amongst those who would leave the Tavistock, were gay and felt that same sex attracted youth were at risk of, unnecessary, medical intervention; ”Transing The Gay Away”. The kernel of the issue is summed up by this quote:

The professional differences of opinion were between those who sought to address gender dysphoria by exploring “psychic reality” versus those who sought to validate the wished for identity. Even in 2005 it seems it would be seen as inflammmatory to say ”biological reality”. Taylor outlines three approaches practices by different clinicians.

Psychological model

See’s the development of Gender Dysphoria as multi-factorial and considers issues such as same sex attraction, unstable identity, due to a disrupted childhood, perhaps including bereavement. Therapeutic approaches are prioritised and biological reality is affirmed.

Psychsocial Model.

Gender Identity is a preference for a particular social role and therapeutic approaches are more geared to facilitate ”gender transition”.

Genetic or neuro-genetic model.

In this model there is a belief that the origins of Gender Dysphoria has a biological cause. As we have seen there is no strong evidence for this but lots of theories. The proponents of this model tend towards what Taylor calls ”therapeutic pessimism”. For these clinicians any attempt to reconcile a patient to their sex is akin to conversion therapy.

You can see why the conflict arose. Gay members of staff thinking they are presiding over Gay Conversion therapy and trans identified staff thinking this is Trans Conversion Therapy.

Patient / Parental Pressure.

The rise of the Mermaids (Activist) parent who wants early intervention is already a factir as early as 2005.👇

Puberty Blockers

The formal launch of the experiment of giving puberty blockers did not commence until 2011 but it was this demand that was clearly exacerbating tensions. At this time clinicians were still describing them as facilitating a “delay” but, in fact, at least 98% progress to cross sex hormones and an irreversible path to sterility.

The report makes it clear that there was a dearth of research in this area: 👇

What actually happened was that the Tavistock began to treat children as young as 10 with puberty blockers. This was under the guise of a research project which was refused ethical approval at the first attempt. This was clearly to appease the “therapeutic pessimists” from the genetic /neuro-genetic camp.

Michael Biggs did excellent analysis of this, purported, research project. I covered it here:

TAVISTOCK 4 : Michael Biggs

Now we have a growing number of detransitioners the chickens may be comimg home to roost. Currently there are 35,000 members on the reddit detrans forum. It is growing at an alarming rate. I have done a few pieces on detransitioners. Link below.

Detransition: Series Summary

You can support my work here. Every donation helps because we are up against billionaires funding this ideology, globally. Contrary to the propaganda I am not funded by Evangelical Christians, the Far Right or Viktor Orban.

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and it’s impact on our gay /autistic youth, kids in care as well as the sex based rights of women and adult homosexuals, especially Lesbians.

£10.00

Parents of ”trans” kids. Part 4

Featured

Getting a referral to GIDs.

In this post I cover the parent’s thoughts on referrals to Gender Clinics. What is striking is the various ways children can be referred to the national, NHS, Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) also referred to as the Tavistock.

You can access the rest of the series here, if you want to go through them in order: 👇

Parents of ”trans kids”: Series 2

I am particularly concerned at the presence of “educational professionals” on this list. I am not, however, surprised because so many of the Transgender Guidance packs also imply, or state, that teachers can be involved in referrals. This is not appropriate.

Some of the parents found the referral process quite easy but some encountered difficulties which are, variously, ascribed to ignorance, or prejudice on the part of the health professionals or other agency. Most were referred by the mental health services for children and adolescents (CAMHS). Many of the children were not originally referred to CAMHS because of gender identity issues, meaning they had pre-existing mental health issues.

Here Lesley explains that she felt her child’s issue was gender identity and why she instigated the referral to GIDs. Her daughter was struggling with self-harm and suicide ideation. Another parent had the idea suggested by the psychiatrist who was of the view ”the gender stuff was a big issue“. 👇

Parents were often very proactive in ensuring their child had a referral. Here the persistence paid off and, after a few questions and a bit of paperwork they achieved the desired outcome; referral to GIDs.

Not all parents had such a prompt referral and some were redirected to their own GP. Ali also complains that CAMHS then abandoned them after they were referred to GIDs, thus cutting off mental health support and, presumably, reducing the numbers on CAMHS books. I concur with Ali that a shortage of funds may have driven that decision.

Unfortunately this left a vaccuum and Ali’s child sought on-line support. Ali does not elaborate about the sources, or nature, of that on-line support.

Mermaids

Here is Georgina, who you may remember made a doctor’s appointment the very next day her daughter “came out”, she tells us how she immediately joined a support group on line. There she learned to get Mermaids involved in the event of any lack of GP Compliance. Note that description a ”non-compliant” GP.

She needn’t have worried the GP was co-operative. He did not query anything but he did caution her to tell the father, of the child he was referring to a gender clinic. Georgina had made a tick list of all the things she needed to do and telling the father “was the last person on this…list” . Even then the father was painted as a potential obstacle not an interested party.

Another parent reported that their GP said he had not encountered the issue before and asked them to come back when he had done some research. He soon got back in touch and acquiesced to the referral.

Lisa reported a less positive reception from her GP who insisted, quite rightly, on referring them to mental health services. She felt her GP was dismissive and didn’t listen to her.

However, Lisa did not take no for an answer and persevered. She provides a bit more information, below. She considered the GP ”uneducated” but because they ”knew their rights” he was coerced into making the referral. 😳

Another parent was similarly dismissive of the GP’s knowledge so she sought also sought advice from, controversial, lobby group, Mermaids. Clearly he would have preferred it to be taken to a panel for a decision.

This parent was also quite scathing about what she saw as a lack of knowledge from an experienced, and senior, GP. Personally, I wonder if he knows rather too much?

Another parent was prepared to go on the offensive to make sure she obtained the necessary referral. Once again Mermaids were called upon to get involved. Turns out GiDS are accepting referrals from a trans lobby group!

How times have changed?

This is going to be quite a lengthy series to give you some insight into the world of parents of ”trans kids”. How did we allow it to get so our of hand?

All my content is free but I have no income and rely on donations. You can support my work here.

Exposing the Gender Industrial Complex. The biggest medical scandal of this century. Any donations gratefully received.

£10.00