Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglio 1

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.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

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

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

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

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

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.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

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

£10.00

Sex and Gender Identity.

An exploration based on this paper by Lucy Griffin, Kate Clyde, Richard Byng and Susan Bewley. You can read it in full here 👇

sex-gender-and-gender-identity-a-re-evaluation-of-the-evidence

This paper seeks to critically evaluate treatments for Gender Dysphoria and the field of transgender health. As they point out there has been a rapid rise in referrals to gender clinics over the last decade. After some lobbying the condition was no longer to be considered a mental health condition but despite this medical interventions are frequently sought.

For more on the changes to the the manual for diagnosis (DSM-5) see my post which covers the response from Dr Ann Lawrence; self described transsexual.

Diagnostic Criteria: Gender Dysphoria

The medical profession is littered with mistakes and many of them relate to the psychiatry profession, homosexuality and their involvement in Gay Conversion Therapy. I could also point out that the man who introduced Lobotomies was given a Nobel Prize before he was discredited. It behoves us well not to be arrogant about our contemporary medical practice. As I have long argued, what if we are actually practicing Gay Conversion Therapy in our rush to affirm the “transgender child”?

It is because of Alan Turing that I use the phrase “Turing Treatment” for what is happening to my own, gay, son. I had imagined Turing was a tortured soul who hid his sexuality. I recently read a biography that dispelled this notion. Apparently he would drop broad hints about his sexuality to screen out those who were not accepting. He was not fired after the court case for “gross obsenity” , the crime of being gay. His suicide seems likely to be related to the, court mandated, enforced, chemical castration. The same drugs, we gave Turing, are now doled out, by doctors, to gay teenagers, with no counselling.

The paper reminds us that although great advances have been made on the rights of homosexuals and bisexuals, in many countries, this is not the case across the globe. We now have former gay rights organisations expanding their remit to cover “Gender Identities” as illustrated by this diagram. This includes a whole range of identities which are now wider than the list below. Historically some of these identities would have been found on the fetish scene.

For the purposes of this piece we need to look at how the trans umbrella has expanded to cover gender incongruence. This is where there are legitimate concerns. I was a tree-climbing, den-making girl. This was not unusual in my working class circles, in the North of England. It was so ”normal” all my girlfriends were the same and we were not even labelled “tomboys”. We played with boys and were very competitive. I lost count of how many buildings I was the first person, of either sex, to jump off. I had very traditional parents, by the way, who didn’t bat an eyelid. So, how have we arrived at a place where I would be pathologised in 2021? Are we policing ”sex stereotypical” expectations more now than we were in the 1970’s? Are we inculcating a discomfort with biological sex by pathologising normal variations of behaviour in males /females?

How do we identify those who are deemed to be “failing” expectations for their sex and might be ascribed a ”transgender” identity? As stated above I met some of the criteria as a girl.

The paper covers statements by the Royal Society of Paediatric and Child health. (RCPCH) which conflate gay conversion therapy with any attempt to reconcile someone with their biological sex. They assume it is not the ideal outcome to avoid a lifetime of dependence on cross-sex hormones /surgical modifications to your body. In fact desistance, with no medical intervention, should be seen as the optimum outcome. Yet there are vociferous campaigns to remove /lessen gatekeeping for access to medical intervention. The paper points out that between 60-80% of children, who present with gender dysphoria, desist. They also cover the proliferation /explosion of gender identities in the last decade; including pangender, agender and non-binary.

The authors proceed to raise the lack of consensus around the exact nature of this condition. What if this is just a natural variation?

This paragraph packs a lot in. There are contested arguments about what causes gender identity incongruence. The “wrong” hormones in utero, wrongly ”sexed” brains or just an internal, and disprovable, claim one simply ”feels” like a woman/man which leads to a circular argument. What does a woman/man feel like?

It is both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. It posits the existence of a ”gendered soul”. This is a belief system. It may be a fervently, sincerely, held belief but when you ask society to participate in that belief system, to the extent of shaping laws based on it, we require a firmer foundation.

The idea we are not sexually dimorphic has spread like wildfire through academia to justify the concept of ”transgender”. In order to validate this category inconvenient facts must be cast aside to reshape reality. Here is the reality we must defend.

Most societies across the globe adopt a hierarchy based on sex, enforced by social rules enforcing expected behaviours for both sexes with varying degrees of coercion or cajoling. People expressing a severe discomfort with their biological sex are compared to the condition of bodily integrity disorder or apotemnophilia. The latest crop of recruits to gender clinic are a very different demographic to those we say ten or twenty years ago. Since 2009 there have been a 25 fold increase in referrals to the U.Ks main Gender Clinic, most strikingly in natal girls; illustrates in the graph below.

Here is some research on co-morbidities in the referrals to a Finnish Gender Clinic.

Note the high incidence among foster kids. I wrote about that phenomenon in a series on this blog. 13% of referrals to the U.K Gender Clinics are fostered or adopted. Eating disorders and a background of bullying also feature prominently in the stories of detransitioners.

Another common feature is how many are same sex attracted. Over 40% of natal males and nearly 70% of females. This graph is from the Tavistock clinic, in the U.K.

It seems warranted to question whether this is a new form of conversion therapy for those struggling with internalised homophobia. Is this a new catch-all diagnosis that is being applied to children/adolescents wrestling with other issues that are going untreated?

The paper continues to question the use of puberty halting drugs which are promoted as a ”pause” when in reality near 100% proceed to cross-sex hormones. Moreover long term follow up, where it exists, do not support the current pathway.

Warnings are given about the current belief that encouraging reconciliation with biological sex is a form of conversion therapy. This is dangerous and ignores the role of therapeutic approaches to resolve more complex issues underlying the identification as “transgender”. Some of these issues include homosexuality but also autism and lack of secure emotional attachment, in those from unstable family backgrounds.

The authors also touch on feminist concerns in promulgating the idea there is a right way to be a woman or man. We are in danger of reifying sex stereotypes rather than challenging them. We are also assuming a treatment pathway developed for adult men is appropriate for adolescent girls and female children. In conclusion, they warn that Psychiatry runs the risk of colluding with, or being silent about, an uncontrolled medical experiment.

We simply do not know how many will regret these medical interventions, some of which are irreversible.

I would recommend reading the entire paper for more on the use of suicide statistics in this area and the lack of accountability for a treatment pathway that may involve therapeutic professionals, endocrinologists, parents, surgeons and the patient themselves. Legal accountability may be difficult to determine but I know who I hold morally responsible for doing this to my son.

I am currently unwaged and do this full-time. If you are able to support my work here is my paypal. Please don’t donate if you are struggling. My content will always be free.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

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

£10.00

Kiera Bell: Judicial Review

This Judicial Review was brought by Keira Bell and a parent of an autistic girl, identified as Mrs A. Applications to “intervene” in the case were brought by Mermaids, Stonewall and Transgender Trend. Only the latter were accepted by the Judges. Mermaids and Stonewall were not added to the case because the evidence they presented was not accepted, as relevant, by the by court.

You can read the full judgement here.

Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment

Since 2011 the Gender Identity Service , in the U.K., commonly called GIDs or The Tavistock, has been prescribing puberty lockers to children as young as 10. This was originally agreed, by the Health Regulation Authority (HRA) as a research project. The first ethics approval panel rejected the project so the Tavistock submitted to a different Ethics approval panel, who did accept it. There is a complex back story to how this experiment was launched. You can read more about this on an earlier blog:

Michael Biggs: 👇

TAVISTOCK 4 : Michael Biggs

In this court case one of the patients from the Tavistock challenges the treatment she was given. Crucially the court considers the impact of the treatment, in both the short and long term, the evidence base for this treatment and whether these young patients can give informed consent.

One of the key issues is the lack of evidence supporting this controversial treatment. Nine years on and, by the time of this court case, the findings of this research study had still not been published! Below the Director of GIDs argued that they were about to publish the research which was too late for the Court case. Why would you not prioritise this research paper to ensure the court case had the evidence? Surely you would have expedited it if you were so certain it would support your case?

More than once the judge expresses surprise at the lack of data provided by GIDS.

Furthermore the Court, below, highlighted the dramatic rate of increase in referrals to GIDs and the change in the demographic. The lack of curiosity about this change is astounding.

It had not, however, entirely escaped the notice of GIDs. Here is Bernadette Wren, ex head of psychology at the Tavistock , speaking on this issue to the Women’s and Equalities Committee, on Transgender Equality. A social revolution that many have fought for! I wonder how many realised it would result in our young Lesbians medicalising themselves to the point of sterility? Or our gay sons retreating into faux-straight, medicalised closets? Some revolution!

The court also noted the proportion of autistic kids who are seduced by Gender Identity Ideology. This is why Mrs A is also part of this court case, her daughter is autistic. Once again the court expresses surprise at the lack of data available, from the Tavistock.

But the literature is available at the high number of referrals from neuro atypical children. It is so well known that Autistic charities have commented on its prevalence.

Once again we see the unexpected prevalence of autistic females. 👆 Indeed it is such a well known feature that Gender Identity Ideologues like Jo Elsson-Kennedy had this to say in a, now deleted, interview. This clip is taken from a transcript of the podcast by the controversial clinic (Gender GP) run by suspended General Practitioner Helen Webberley:

Here 👆 Olssen-Kennedy makes the extraordinary claim that symptoms of autism disappear when the Gender Dysphoria is treated.

In the full judicial transcript document the court elaborates the way Gender Dysphoria is diagnosed. I won’t reproduce here but it is a list based on how a young person deviates from sex stereotypes. I fit much of that criteria myself. How much more pronounced will Gender non-conformity be in a proto-Gay kid who may otherwise grow up as a Butch Lesbian or Femme Gay male?

These are the side effects of the treatment, Fertility and, for males, stunted genitalia high will impact on sexual function. Remember we are asking 10 year olds to sign up to this.

The Tavistock did have service users who spoke well of the Tavistock and their treatment. However these were the judges observations on the witnesses. It is extraordinary that GIDs thought their witnesses would strengthen their case.

On the contrary a neuroscientist called into question the ability of even teenagers to consent to these treatments and highlighted the lack of impulse control which is evident before brain maturation. Notably many commentators locate brain maturation at age 25 but certainly it has not been completed by age 18! In the United Kingdom double mastectomies are available from age 17 and sexual reassignment surgery from age 18. What makes this even more alarming is that children not allowed to experience puberty may be arrested in the development of cognitive development and lag behind their peers in respect of brain maturation.

Another plank of the case was the court’s rejection of the idea that puberty blockers provide a pause for young children to be relieved from the development of sexual characteristic and time to resolve their Gender Dysphoria. The court highlights the almost inevitability of puberty blockers to be followed by cross-sex hormones. Therefore consent for one needs to encompass the cross sex hormones.

The full document deals with the issues of Gillick competence with reference to many other legal judgements. Many lobby groups have tried to argue this legal case throws into question rights to contraception or abortion and to smear Gender Critical arguments on this basis. This is smoke and mirrors. It is rare to find any gender critical feminists who are against the right to control fertility. We do, however, oppose the eradication of fertility in minors. This is quite a different argument.

It is worth reminding people that these children will be dependent on pharmaceutical companies for the remainder of their lives. Does #BigPharma have a vested interest in creating life long patients? Are we monetising the confusion of children, and teenagers, who have been inculcated with Gender Dysphoria by the Gender Industrial complex?

The Tavistock have won the right to appeal against the initial judgment. Mermaids and Stonewall have, once again, not been granted the right to intervene in the case. However the Endocrinology society, in the United States have been allowed to intervene as has Brook, who you may remember as a Pregnancy Advisory Service. They are now expanding their remit and cover issues around “Gender”.

You can read about Brook’s belief about “Gender” : Here

These clips should give you a clue about the stance taken by Brook. Accessed on 16th February 2021.

As you can see they have not quite got around to updating their guidance on #PubertyBlockers. Here they describe it as merely a suspension which can be resumed if the person changes their mind. As noted above near 100% progress to Cross-Sex Hormones.

And, of course, they signpost these troubled teens to GIDs.

This incoherent ideology has captured, seemingly, all the charities operating in the U.K. Brook would appear to be another one willing to squander its legacy in the alter of Gender Identity Ideology.

If you are able to support my work you can do so below.

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/STILLtish

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth.

£5.00

Tavistock 5: Marcus Evans

This is one of a series of blogs on The Tavistock, the UK’s Main Gender Identity Service. Based at the Tavistock NHS Trust, in London, it is often abbreviated as simply GIDs. Marcus is an ex-employee of the Tavistock and an important voice in this debate. You can find him on twitter Here The paper is an excellent reference point. Open access and with comprehensive references to all sources. Great reading list for the curious.

Link to the paper here

Given the history of silencing research in this field here is the download Freedom to think- the need for thorough assessment and treatment of gender dysphoric children | BJPsych Bulletin | Cambridge Core

If you have read any of my earlier pieces you will already know there’s been an unprecedented rise in referrals to GIDs /Tavistock. There has also been a change in the sex of the referrals. The proportions have completely inverted, from 75% male to 75% female. In addition there is an increase in teenage onset cases. This has been termed: Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, and is a recent phenomenon. The changing nature of the referral population, numerically, by sex and teenage onset should have raised serious questions about treatment protocols. Yet in 2011 the Tavistock actually accelerated the pace of earlier medicalisation.

Affirmation Only.

The predominant treatment is to “affirm”. This means it is now unacceptable to question your own / any child. This, despite the fact that we know, left alone, most would desist from a trans-identity.

Practitioners are expected to support the child’s self-identification and not to explore or question it. Affirmation is a nice, positive sounding word and it has become the mainstream treatment protocol. The affirmative approach, as explained below, sets these children on a path to irreversible medical interventions. In the UK this can happen for children as young as 10 years old.

The political ideology under-pinning this approach is a belief that children can ,literally, be Born in the Wrong Body (sex) for their Gender Identity. Gender is an internal sense of self so only the child can determine the truth of their condition. This makes the child the ultimate arbiter of their authentic self. Parents are expected to affirm their child’s Gender Identity based on their child’s self-assessment.

Memorandum of Understanding/Conversion Therapy

This article, however, makes it clear that there are dissenting voices, and organisations, who are not wholeheartedly on board with Affirmation as the right pathway or at least not as the only one. Many organisations have signed a Memorandum of Understanding which treats questioning of Gender Identity as akin to Gay Conversion Therapy. However the Royal College of Psychiatrists declined to sign the MOU when the definition was expanded in 2015. 👇

The government are currently consulting on a new bill to ban Conversion Therapy. Whether, or not, it uses the expanded definition will be crucial for the rights of children labelled “Transgender”. Most people will look no further than Gay Rights and assume that, of course, it should be outlawed. However, for all the reasons I have covered in previous blogs, affirming a Gender Identity in young children/teenagers may literally be Gay Conversion Therapy. The Woke Gay Conversion Therapy?

A growing number of parents are expressing concern about the treatment of their children with Gender Dysphoria. 30% are estimated to be on the autistic spectrum and with other co-morbidities. Many are simply gay males and Lesbians. The parent’s, referred to here 👈actually managed to get a letter published in the Guardian. They also raised concerns about on-line grooming of their children into the tenets of Transgender Identity. In the UK there are now two groups of Parents who are questioning the current approach to their Gender Dysphoric children. Bayswater Support Group: Twitter here and Our Duty here. (Both groups have other on-line forums and real life meet ups for parents to reach out for support).

Professionals are also becoming more vocal in questioning the medical approaches. Carl Heneghan pulls no punches in this reference to Puberty Blockers.

I can’t stress this point enough. Once your child starts down this path they rarely go back and they will be dependent on cross-sex hormones for life to maintain this “identity”. Tragically some of the women, and men, who have de-transitioned are still dependent on synthetic hormones, for their own sex, because they had ovaries/testes removed.

👈Here are two more organisations calling out the dearth of evidence based research, under-pinning the treatment of these children/teenagers. The House of Lords seems to have more dissenters and Lord Winston has written/spoken on this topic, from his own experience, in dealing with consequent fertility issues.

A high rate of complications and loss of fertility. A reminder that the hippocratic oath requires Physicians to Do No Harm. The existence of an unelected chamber has always been a source of concern, for me, but elected politicians seem, almost universally, cowed into submission. It seems we do need some people ,not bound to the electorate/ lobby groups, to voice these uncomfortable truths. The House of Commons remain is largely silent on this issue. Silence is complicity. A salutary lesson.

Here Bernadette Wren, of GIDs makes a startling, and actually quite frightening, admission: given that the GIDs protocol remains Affirmative. 👇. Must we wait an entire generation to discover we have been unwise?

Professor Donal Shea is another dissenting voice.

The NHS is based on the WPATH standards of care. Professor Shea & Dr Paul Moran regard them as harmful and clinically unsafe. Let that sink in.

De-Transitioners/Regret

The Tavistock experiment has been running for nearly 10 years. We are starting to see a new wave of people with regret but, here is some detail about regret from the 1980’s. I rarely see Trans Activists/Trans Allies demanding evidence based research, or long term follow-up studies. I would suggest this is where there is a role for activists. Demand better research and long term follow up studies.

The more vocal trans-activists seem mostly preoccupied with rapid access to treatment and the removal of safeguards which they call “gatekeeping”. That alone should set off alarm bells for clinicians. I cannot imagine anything worse than finding you had taken a healthy body, and destroyed sexual function, only for your patient to regret it. 👇

Watching Jazz Jennings , a 16 year old male, ask if an orgasm was like a sneeze here should have been a wake up call for the cheerleading parents. In Sweden there is a male who has obtaining permission to end his own life, after regretting surgery and realising he was simply a Gay Male. A Belgian Female was also euthanised after regretting their surgery. here

Informed Consent?

Disturbingly here is a claim that discussion of post surgery sexual function was actually a taboo subject at the Tavistock. Especially with the younger cohort who, let me remind you, are making these decisions as young as 10.

Why is this area of treatment operating outside the realms of normal practice?

Anyone who doubts that this is happening can listen to Tavistock practitioners openly discussing the question of children and fertility in my earlier pieces. Parents have direct experience of the cavalier disregard for the long term consequences in our children. They express a fervent wish to change “gender” but these kids/teens have absolutely no concept of the long term implications. They have an entirely superficial understanding about what thy are signing up to. Sadly, it appears, so do some clinicians.

Anger, regret, and impact on women.

Even if someone is expected to benefit from transition some counselling around the reality of the inescapability of your sex would seem to be in order. Yes there may be people who regret this decision and direct their anger inwards. At the same time there seem to be people fiercely committed to their “transition” but utterly unrealistic about sex based reality. This group seem to direct their anger outwards, at their target sex. I am talking of the male transitioners. It is disturbing, watching the violent, even rape, rhetoric, hurled at women on social media (& in real life). Even more terrifying is that our politicians seem to be wilfully blind to this phenomenon. What if you are not just admitting any males into female spaces but a particularly dangerous section who hate and envy women?

Adolescence.

More people should be saying this. I have seen youtubers, now de-transitioned, who genuinely didn’t know that nearly every woman has a terrible time with the onset of puberty and emerging womanhood. How soon this knowledge is lost when young girls are cut off from the wisdom of older women?

Yet instead of working to, therapeutically, resolve this “splitting” we are shutting this down. Only medical pathways are seen as appropriate. Clinicians are branded transphobic for a therapeutic approach.

Parents are alienated from their children who are groomed to see any obstacle in their path as an act of hatred/bigotry. 👇

De-transitioners are now speaking out about their time in the Trans community. They confirm parental reports about our alienation. They also expose the tactics used to game the system and overcome gate-keeping , by learning a script.

Even if children don’t desist counselling can teach them about the wider societal implications of rejecting your biological sex. It is an inescapable fact that a female will still need cervical cancer screening, and a male prostate cancer checks. Yet activists push for the eradication of any sex markers and even new NHS Identity numbers. This de-couple pre-and post transition medical history. This is evidence of an ideological belief / psychological compulsion which is undermining safe practice.

So why is there such utter and total capitulation to an incoherent ideology?

The answer is fear! Not an unrealistic paranoid reaction but a rational response to the consequences of speaking out. Ken Zucker and James Caspian are two high profile victims of the silencing. Urge caution, or wish to study the phenomenon of regret, and you will find powerful forces ranged against you.

Heaven forfend if you wish to research Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria.

I have written about the silencing of Michael Bailey over his book: The Man Who Would be Queen, which also covers Lisa Littman here. Another paper, which posited an alternative hypothesis to Born in the Wrong Body, was also completely pulled after activists put pressure on the journal. I cover this here

It is a chilling atmosphere in which to try to serve these children and young adults.

The closing down of debate and discussion about this surge in Transgender Identities is creating a dogmatic adherence to Affirmation/Medicalisation which is already wreaking great harm on our youth and some adults.

Having revealed that there are dissenting voices and organisations, despite efforts to shut them down, Marcus makes a final recommendation. A truly independent service able to withstand the pressure from lobby Groups. Less rigidity in treatment protocols. A new regulator with appropriate oversight.

This needs to be addressed quickly because there won’t be enough alibis to go round.

TAVISTOCK 4 : Michael Biggs

Michael has been indomitable in his research into the use of puberty blockers on, ever younger, children. Michael is an Oxford University academic who researches social movements and ordinary people, driven to extraordinary actions. He also researches self-harm as a form of social protest. An interesting background. As you will see from his paper he was told by some woke students to Educate Himself. So he did! Here’s what he uncovered.

As always I am happy for you to bypass my commentary and access the paper directly here. Either way I recommend reading the full paper.

PDF attached in case his work is taken down: Biggs_ExperimentPubertyBlockers

The pressure, on the Tavistock, Gender Identity Service (GIDs) to introduce earlier intervention is well documented. For neophytes you can can see the tensions, between Tavistock staff & Lobbyists, in this oral evidence to the Transgender Equality Inquiry. here. With contributions from Susie Green, of Mermaids, and Bernadette Wren, of the Tavistock.

The aim of Trans Activists was to get “The Dutch Protocol” embedded in Tavistock practice. This protocol advocated earlier intervention, seen as the key to a more passing Trans Community. Blocking puberty was one way to do this, since it halted the process of masculinisation/feminisation. Publicly Blockers were touted as merely allowing a delay to explore gender identity issues. Based on research this would seem to be pure Public Relations.

The paper goes into some detail on the activists involved in the campaign to institute this changed treatment protocol. One of the familiar names is Stephen Whittle. Whittle is a transman and has played a key role in instituting Transgender Ideology. The best way to pass as a man, it would appear, is to be to behave like the most regressive mysogynist and attack women’s rights. Below are some other key figures together with groups which provided funding. ( I did a double take at the Servite Sisters! My Uncle was a Servite Brother; which is a Catholic order. Sure enough, it’s a Charity run by Catholic Nuns. Why would Catholic nuns fund blocking puberty?)

Norman Spack was involved in the treatment of Susie Green’s child. Susie is now the head of Mermaids, the leading UK charity advocating for medicalising children. Parents with children, who have been through this process, are evangelical in their zeal to extend this to other children. I suspect the motivation is to reassure themselves they did the right thing. The over-investment of older Trans activists, for early transition, looks like retrospective wish fulfilment.

As stated above the argument for puberty blockers had mainly been promulgated as a “pause” providing a, temporary, halt to the development of sexual characteristics. So what happened in the Dutch study? We know that the Tavistock were aware of this study but they didn’t include this fact in their bid for funding and ethical approval. No adolescent withdrew from puberty suppression and all started cross-sex hormone treatment, the first step of actual gender reassignment (de Vries, Steensma, Doreleijers, et al., 2010) Source.

Biggs paper highlights the discrepancies in the statements from GIDS clinicians on Puberty Blockers as a pause. He even highlights near contemporaneous, and contradictory, statements on the topic. See Polly Carmichael, from the Children’s BBC programme, I am Leo, juxtaposed with a statement she gave to the Guardian at around the same time. “We just don’t have the evidence…”

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Ultimately Polly Carmichael got her wish. The Gender Identity Development Service eventually received ethical approval to administer Puberty Blockers to children. A first attempt was rejected but, undeterred, the application was made again. This time the Tavistock chose to submit the application to a different ethical approval body. It was then approved. The initial study was based on participants from 12 years old. However the evidence suggests the actual age of commencement can be as young as 10. [See Michael’s paper for how he deduced this. Also Dr Aiden Kelly admitting this in my earlier piece TAVISTOCK PART THREE (A)]

The paper illustrates how Tavistock accounts of the actual number of subjects involved have varied. The figure of 44 does not remain constant . This matters because one of the failings in much of the research, in this field, is a failure to follow up patients long term. Biggs traces the various numbers used in the public reporting on the study. Damningly, despite being the custodian of the research project, the Tavistock does not appear to be keeping adequate records on the experimental subjects or taking the opportunity to rectify the dearth of long term follow-up studies. A missed opportunity or a deliberate attempt at obfuscation? Dr Carmichael admits that they lose contact with subjects once referred, at age 18 to the adult services. She also admits that they have not tracked those given hormone blockers in a single database! Thus the medium and long term consequences are not being tracked. Despite this look at the growth in numbers being given this treatment and the reduction in the age at commencement. Moreover changes to names and NHS numbers also make it difficult to track those on the receiving end of this experiment. ⇓⇓⇓. All set out in the clips below.

Also note that almost all cases led to cross-sex hormones. Just as in the Dutch Study. Therefore this was not a pause and, 9 years on, the Clinicians involved must know this. Interestingly only in May 2020 did the NHS change its own guidance to stop referring to Puberty Blockers as “fully reversible”.

Biggs has some significant criticisms of the project. Only one of which is the failure to meet any reasonable threshold for informed consent by not revealing the seemingly, inevitable progression to Cross Sex hormones. He also highlights the risks of the use of the drub triptorelin, whose negative outcomes have either been ignored or supressed.

There is more information, in the public domain, about the treatment of dangerous sex offenders, than there is of children put on the same drug. Let that sink in.

Below are a couple of quotes. You can read the full study here Triptorelin.

You can read a detailed list here of : Side Effects

More details of the impact on male children include a stunting of genitalia and negative impact on sexual function. Given that any surgeries to create a “neo-vagina” rely on sufficient penile tissue, for the most common techniques, this is another serious concern.

Other damning evidence suggests a negative impact on fertility and even sexual function.

Even from the limited evidence that GIDS has shared, mainly in Abstract Form from presentations at conferences, Biggs argues that negative outcomes have been omitted or downplayed. Some of these relate to bone density, which should be increasing during puberty. Others relate to reported psycho-social functioning and even suicidal thoughts.

In the light of the concerns raised by the scant evidence in the public domain why has their been no detailed report over 9 years since the project commenced? Biggs raises some serious questions about how a “research project” , instituted in 2011, has been allowed to progress to 2020 without publishing a full evaluation.

Increasing media coverage and the beginnings of political scrutiny may finally be about to shine a spotlight on this experimental treatment. Currently there is an ex-patient, Keira Bell, in the process of taking the Tavistock to Judicial Review over the medical intervention she received. The Safeguarding Lead is to take the Tavistock to court after being informed that safeguarding information was being deliberately withheld from her. Another former member of staff , Susan Evans, commenced legal action over the treatment of children. The Cass Review will look at Puberty Blockers on behalf of NICE. Liz Truss has signalled a change of direction over the treatment of under 18’s.

More politicians are also waking up to this issue.

An Ex- Labour peer, and Doctor of Medicine, Lord Moonie, has been raising issues on the medicalisation of kids and the impact on women’s spaces for well over a year. (Banned from twitter & resigned from Labour over this issue.) Latterly a Conservative MP , Jackie Doyle-Price has begun to speak up. Baroness Nicholson another Conservative Peer has been a tour de force in raising issues about the creeping influence of Gender Identity Ideology. Another Medically trained peer, Lord Lucas raised a question in the House of Lords in May 2019.

At the time of that question we were told the data would be available in the next 12 months. We have heard that before. However Lord Lucas is on the case and assured me he intends to follow this up.

Michael acknowledges the support he had in putting this document together which I include here:

I will leave you with the original patient who triggered the establishment of The Dutch Protocol in the early 1990’s.

Patient B has been followed all the way up to age 35. One would assume that the outcome would have been positive and indeed patient B is highlighted as a success. Indeed they say they do not regret their transition. This does not look like a good outcome to me and I fear we will have many more before someone, finally, halts this experiment. Allow me to also make the observation that if were talking about a biological male there is no way an absence of a healthy sex life would be regarded as positive.

TAVISTOCK PART THREE (B): Aiden Kelly

Tavistock: 1989-2018

This is based on this youtube presentation by a member of staff at Tavistock in March 2018. You can watch this: here.

Here’s a transcript of the talk TAvistock part 3

I have covered the physical interventions we are visiting on children/youth, who present with Gender Dysphoria, here TAVISTOCK PART THREE (A)

I now want to examine what this talk tells us about how we diagnose these children and include a few quotes that didn’t make into part A. .

We are basing this diagnosis on the belief that, somehow, Gender Identity exists independently of biology and is sometimes in conflict with our biological sex.

⇐This slide shows that Dr Kelly recognises biological sex, sexual orientation and sexual identity exist. He also identifies, separately, Gender Roles, Gender Expression and Gender Identity.

Biological Sex is the easy one. Despite efforts to destabilise the definition of sex we are a sexually dimorphic species. Differences/Disorders of Sexual development (also referred to as intersex) don’t disrupt the “binary” of sex. Here are two people qualified to comment on the issue of sexual dimorphism. Claire’s comment, below, is a good one to keep handy as her article, published in the journal Nature, is often wheeled out to claim the opposite of what she meant. It is actually a fascinating Article

Dr Kelly defines our Biological sex as our anatomy and says it is an important part of our sexuality and sexual identity. I am not sure how sexual attraction is only partially reliant on biology, except that this matters in Transgender Ideology. Additionally, what does “sexual identity” mean here? It maybe to accommodate people who identify as the opposite sex (not just gender). Alternatively it is, perhaps, to include people who identify as a particular sexual orientation regardless of their sexed body. That is to be inclusive of self-described “male lesbians”, or female’s who identify as “gay men”.

Gender Identity is here described as a “personal and individual thing” which is not necessarily fixed. Yet another reason why it is not a good idea to base legal concepts on something undefinable and shifting. If Gender Identity relies on a personal, subjective feeling how is it sensible to codify it into Law?

Gender Expression. This seems to mean how you “perform” your gender and how you signal which gender you identify with/as.

Here Dr Kelly, an obvious biological male, talks about his identity as a man. We learn how this might be signalled by the way he dresses, manners, his hands and even the way he crosses his legs. This is all complicated by the notion of metrosexual males who may even cross their legs in a feminine way but still identify as male. Confused? Don’t worry. It is, apparently, complicated and kind of hard to think about. God help those of us with #LadyBrains.

Then there are Gender Roles.

Here he recognises these rely on gender stereotypes. Am I a woman because I pick up the dustpan and brush? Don’t be silly. That’s just a gender stereotype. We want to deconstruct those don’t we? And here we come to a startling admission. “The last thing we want to do is to have a young person changing their body to fit in with… societal rules”. Dr Kelly would love to take Gender out of this issue altogether. But, guess what, we have to deal with reality. I assume he means gender stereotypes are deeply entrenched and changing society is too hard. So what does he propose? We need to “carve out a space” for someone to express their gender, in ways that society will accept. Are we really carving up the bodies of young people because that is easier than transgressing expected norms of behaviour for fe/males? I am old enough to remember when Gender Non-Conforming behaviour was widespread. What happened? I give you Annie Lennox and Boy George. I could supply loads more examples.

Next we are introduced to the Gender Unicorn. (See Header). A slide that Dr Kelly uses to introduce concepts central to his work. Sex is, unsurprisingly, described as “assigned at birth”. People with DSDs are othered as a third sex. Sexual orientation is undermined by the inclusion of romantic/emotional attraction. We are using this tool in primary schools! So, is it entirely unsurprising we are seeing rising rates of Gender Dysphoria in girls, and boys? Who amongst us performs our sex stereotypical expectations 100% accurately?

It gets even more confusing when we examine how young children think about gender. We are provided with this slide which shows how children are socialised into expectations of what makes a boy or girl.

This kind of thinking, in a two year old, is quite cute. It is less so when espoused by our political, media and medical elite. I like my politicians to engage with issues as adults not toddlers.

There is not much to disagree with in the next slide except to wish the Dr would join the dots. Emerging sexuality and associated feelings of shame. (Surely worse for those who realise they are same sex attracted in a heteronormative culture). Anyone paying attention would see that the rigidity of the “gender binary” and the impact of parental or societal expectations has significantly worsened in the last twenty years.

Is the new rigidity of Gender Stereotypes a new Backlash against Women’s rights? As women encroach on male professions is this a new way to put women back in their box? Is the Public Femininity display a way to dispel the ball-breaking bitch trope? Are we displaying hyper femininity to signal we are no threat to men? This could be labelled compliance, or subversion, either way omething seems to be going on.

Moving on to the understanding of gender in 8 year olds. Dr Kelly makes an astute observation about the meaning of gender for young children compared to 38 year olds. Note that we are following one set of diagnostic criteria for both groups. Children pick up social cues which reflect the society in which they live. Adults, mainly males, also absorb expectations from adult depictions of female roles. Some of this in contexts (porn) that, you would hope, your eight year old has not encountered. See this interview with Andrea Chu who is remarkably honest about their pathway. You can read up on Chu’s thoughts on the role of sissy porn and the concept of the female as passive: here

Our kids are navigating such difficult territory. I was one of 8 children. Six of us girls. All the horrific statistics about sexual violence against women and children were played out on our bodies. I was a dungaree wearing, tree- climbing, jumper off buildings. We ran free and I was not unusual. Sure we had pretty dresses, for specific occasions, but overwhelmingly we lived in “playing out clothes”. These were the norm and we would nowadays, describe them as gender neutral. I was brought up in a pretty traditional household. Working class father. Manual occupation. Definitely seen as the breadwinner. Even in that context it was absolutely the norm for we girls to do this. Nowadays this would put us at risk of referral to the Gender Identity Industrial Complex!

Fast forward to puberty. As Dr Kelly recognises this is a hugely challenging time for young people. It’s a turbulent time for even the most well adjusted teen.

What happens if you throw in some complicated family dynamics? Below Dr Kelly outlines some scenarios. There are multiple everyday reasons why girls struggle during puberty. Growing up in a society with record violence against women, endemic woman hating porn, hyper-sexualised expectations for young women. No wonder girls are identifying out of their sex. For young boys, who don’t want to be associated with toxic masculine socialisation, who are gay and on the “femme” side the flip side of this equation comes into play. Throw in some domestic turbulence and you get some extreme rejections of what it means to be female /male in this society.

And lets not forget homophobia. Some parents would prefer a faux-straight child to a male child who they might think the behaviour, described below, signals their son may be a proto-gay male.

Dr Kelly goes on to talk about how people can hold toxic views about gender. People can also have quite toxic views rooted in homophobia.👇

I find myself bewildered that the Gender Identity Specialists didn’t anticipate this. The law of unintended consequences. Spend all your time banging on about undermining heteronormative culture and guess what? You did a great job of establishing a new, pernicious, way of establishing it. All your campaigning around “disrupting binary thinking about gender” and what did it achieve? We have actually established a way to make sex stereotypes “flesh” ; by carving up the bodies of boys and girls who don’t conform.

I wonder how many people, who have dedicated their lives to the furthering of this social revolution, have dark nights of the soul? They should.

TAVISTOCK PART THREE (A): Aiden Kelly

Tavistock: 1989-2018

This article is base on this youtube presentation, by a member of staff at Tavistock, from March 2018. You can watch: here.

Here’s a transcript of the talk TAvistock part 3

The speaker is Dr Aiden Kelly, a Clinical Psychologist, who works at the Gender Identity Service (Tavistock). He practices at the London base but spends time working with services in Ireland. The service is for under 18’s only, it does not cover any surgeries. I am going to focus here on what he says about the medical interventions. [I will do another piece on what he shares about the diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria].

In the overview of the service, he is keen to emphasise that the service is not “outcome specific”. The role of the Tavistock, we are told, is to explore Gender Identity confusion and not merely affirm a cross-sex /transgender identity. This talk is from 2018, is this is still an accurate description of the service?

He shares some quite dramatic information on the rise in clients. He explains that referrals in 1989 numbered three, by 2010 rates were doubling annually and, by 2016/17, they hit 2000. At the same time the sex ratio of referrals had completely inverted to comprise predominantly females. 75% female whereas only a decade earlier the service would have catered to 75% males. Aiden is puzzled by this growth and appeals to his audience for help: ⇓

Over the same period there has also been a significant rise in male referrals, who are sometimes forgotten, however the shift to females is very pronounced. The surge in numbers and the changing sex ratios, should have given the service pause for thought. Were the existing treatment protocols fit for purpose for a new demographic? The obvious angle would be to look at this through the lens of “sex”. Does this not occur to the speaker because he sees through the prism of “Gender Identity”? By framing sex as something “assigned at birth”, and treating it as a post-modernist, pick and mix are we enticing refugees from femininity with an, illusory, escape route?

One response to the growing numbers is to increase staff/services able to deal with rising referral rates. However, it was not the only possible response. Here an ex member of staff , and Tavistock whistle-blower, suggested an alternative: Halt the service until you figure out what’s going on . ⇓

The above clip is from this article in The Times. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/it-feels-like-conversion-therapy-for-gay-children-say-clinicians-pvsckdvq2

In reality the response was service expansion. Furthermore the people disseminating the training, for new providers, are drawn from the existing pool of specialists. This pool of early adopters tend to be deeply committed to the idea we all possess an innate gender identity and sometimes this is at odds with our biological sex. Here is how Dr Aiden sees his role. De-mystifying what he does, over-coming the fears of new practitioners and dispelling the notion this is some sort of magical or crazy process.

The jury is in out on whether what we are doing to young people comes under the heading crazy.

Here is a slide Aiden shares on the interventions that GIDS provides, for kids presenting with Gender Dysphoria. He is keen to emphasise that it is not all about physical interventions, although it does include them. The approach he describes sound’s eminently reasonable. It moves from reversible to irreversible. The first stage is Puberty Blockers. As of March 2018 these were still being described as a “pause”. This has been a contested statement for years. I have blogged about this in earlier posts. Here: Puberty Blockers. Part One & here Puberty Blockers: Part Two

Additionally, on the day I write this, a segment on Radio 4 has finally covered the revised NHS guidance which no longer calls puberty blockers “reversible”. (Link here though it will only be available for 30 Days) Radio 4 link re Puberty Blockers

Here is a transcript of the Radio 4 segment done by a twitter user (handle included and permissions sought) Transcript. Radio 4 30th June

Summary: They are not just a pause, not fully reversible and are largely experimental, for kids with Gender Dysphoria. (They also have their critics when used for Precocious Puberty, though this is established medical practice). In this talk Dr Day claims they are fully reversible and only pause puberty. This would now appear to be recognised as false. Note also that, as of March 2018, the Tavistock protocol is that children be allowed to go through a partial puberty, as he explicitly says in this second clip This is important for young people to get an idea, not just of their Gender, but also their Sexuality. Below, Dr Aiden, expands on this important issue. He concedes a few important points. The lack of research. The experimental nature of the treatment. The fact that many of them won’t persist in a wish to change sex. Here Dr Day uses an estimate of a 50/50 split between those who would persist and desisters. I have done many blogs looking at rates of desistance and, whilst the research is contested, a figure of 80% would seem to have more validity than a split of 50/50.

In this clip we are conceding that puberty is pivotal. The clinicians work with the family to identify the right approach but then put the responsibility on the parents! Why? Because the don’t have the evidence to know which kids would have been among the desisted community. Let that sink in. The clinicians are not sure so they are making it the responsibility of the parents. They also fear that these kids may come back to them in 10 or 15 years time. Dr Kelly uses an example a returner who says they did the right thing, but its clear the fear is regret from those subject to early interventions. This extract illustrates the clinic have a very nice get out clause. It was you/your family that agreed to this. [I see many de-transitioners accepting a personal burden of regret. I look forward to the day when they externalise this anger and direct it at the people who perpetrated this medical malpractice]

Here are a few startling admissions. In theory the blocker could be available as young as 10! The current , public, protocol published by the Tavistock has an age limit set at age 12.

Here he demonstrates awareness of how ill-informed young clients are on the impact of puberty blockers. The impetuosity of youth should not be discounted. In fact there are many side effects to the blocker and here is a surprisingly honest account. Mood difficulties may be worsened. It also suppresses sexual interest. Here he seems to be avoiding explicity stating that sex drive will go. ⇓I would never agree to any treatment that I thought would imperil my child’s sexuality. I fear many affirming parents are not in full posession of the facts and are terrified by the spectre of suicide. They should not be Suicide in the Trans Community

The next stage in treatment is Cross Sex Hormones.

These are not fully reversible treatments and we are giving them to 16 year olds. Reminder: It is illegal to tattoo anyone under the age of 18 under UK Law. We all know people who regret their tattoos, even those done well above the age of 18.

Below are another two clips highlighting that, even if you meet the criteria for Gender Dysphoria, you may find a way to accept your biological sex. (Though he doesn’t use this phrasing)

So we need to know that any diagnosis is based on incontrovertible evidence but we know that this is not the case. Here we see one tool which is described as a useful way to think about “Gender”. Yes! Its the Gender Unicorn. I will do another post on the Diagnostic criteria but for this blog its enough to post this clip.

This slide completely undermines Sexual Orientation by conflating it with attraction to Gender. It insults people with Disorders/Differences of Sexual Development /Intersex by calling them an “other” sex. People with DSDs are not a third sex. Humans are sexually dimorphic. Just a few things wrong with something promoted as a useful, diagnostic, tool.

So, which groups are we medicalising? People with autistic traits account for a whopping 30% along with people suffering depression, self-harm, and bullied youth. Many of the people the clinic sees are already wrestling with a myriad of issues, as is well documented.

I am somewhat surprised to see there is no data shared here about the proportion who are same sex attracted. We know this was a considerable part of the demographic from earlier research. He does note the prominence of bullying, but its a shame he doesn’t single out homophobia. We know gay youth are more exposed to negative social interactions which can lead to Gender Dysphoria.

Below is another clear statement made that cross-sex hormones are definitely not fully reversible.

From my observation, and parental report, it does seem Testosterone operates quickly, and dramatically, on females. Who, lest we forget now who comprise 75% of referrals.

The changing age, and sex, of the referrals is a huge concern.

The parents concerned about behaviour, inconsistent with sex stereotypes, do seem to figure prominently in public proclamations about Transgender Children. To his credit Dr Kelly rejects pathologizing this sort of behaviour in children as young as five.

He does face a new kind of parent as he goes onto explain. A whopping 90% are being socially transitioned by the time they come to the service. He is very clear about this. It is a social experiment, they are worried and they don’t know what impact this will have on their pathway. The speed of the change has clearly taken the clinic by surprise. The societal embrace of the “Transgender Child” has swept our society at breakneck speed. Only a decade ago some of the practices we are seeing today would have been unthinkable.

This clinician positions the clinic as resisting the dominant affirmative narrative and resultant parental pressure. He claims that the clinic to maintain a middle course. I would suggest the “try” in that sentence speaks volumes.

He leaves us with some Take Away thoughts.

To answer the final question posed above. My position on gender non-conforming children is they are fine as they are. They may be proto-gay children/ adolescents. They may be heterosexual females who are rejecting limiting sex stereotypes imposed upon them. They may be autistic females (and males) looking for an explanation about why they struggle to accurately perform, socially mandated, gender roles.

The answer to all of this is that gender roles are not wholly “natural”. They are often performative. We have had Butch Lesbians and Femme Gay males forever. Why are we making this so problematic? Why are we willing to medicalise gender non-conformity? Where are so many, prominent, Gay Rights organisations going along with this?

Tavistock. Part Two: Clinical Dilemmas: Polly Carmichael

Talk by Polly Carmichael.

Part Two on the tension between different approaches for dealing with “Gender Dysphoria”. Hopefully part one provided some background for any neophytes. Tavistock Clinic: Part One.

Dr Carmichaels speech is : here The summary is taken from a transcription provided by Mumsnet volunteers; for which I am very grateful.

The talk took place in the following context:

4500% rise in the number of referrals, to the Tavistock, over a decade.
Rise in females (reversing sex ratio in less than a decade)
Tavistock pilot to place younger children on puberty blockers.

This change in protocol followed work done by Dutch Gender Identity Services. As you will see, from my earlier blog, the Tavistock were under some pressure to revise their treatment protocols to allow earlier medical interventions.

The evidence from introducing puberty blockers, at an earlier age, has resulted in children invariably progressing to cross sex hormones and entrenched on a medical pathway. The pro-medicalisation Lobby argue this is because they are 100% accurate in identifying those children who would persist. The alternative perspective is that the act of blocking puberty somehow locks in the Gender Incongruence. If this is correct we are medicalising those who would have desisted and, historically, many of those would simply be gay. I cover this here The Woke Gay Conversion Therapy?

There are many people working in this field who have raised this as a concern:

We don’t know whether these children would have desisted and reconciled to biological sex. The pro-interventionists have another perspective. They argue this is evidence the screening is working and it may be unfair to the children not put on this clinical pathway! This is also the argument used against setting up a control group. From the perspective of the Tavistock it would be unethical to leave a cohort untreated if they meet the diagnostic criteria for intractable Gender Dysphoria. I do wonder if anyone has thought to include parents, who oppose medical intervention, to see what the long term outcome is for our children?

Another startling admission is that we simply don’t know what the long term implications are on developing brains. 👇This is a clear admission this is an experimental treatment. Have politicians,and parents, been persuaded to take this risk because activists claim our children are at a high risk of suicide? Have activists managed this by leveraging questionable data on likely suicide? (I blogged about this here Suicide in the Trans Community)

This paragraph is important because there are still documents out there calling this intervention a “pause”. Indeed here is Polly herself from the CBBC children’s programme “Becoming Leo”.

Many people working in this field have postulated that going through a natural puberty resolves gender incongruence in the majority of cases. Dr Carmichael is clearly aware of this research and emphasises that the treatment, at Tanner Stage 2, means that these children will at least have had a partial puberty.

She concedes the paucity of long term data on outcomes. She also anticipates concerns about competing mental health diagnoses. In this way the “Gender Dysphoria”, it is implied, has to be treated to resolve these other difficulties. This neatly avoids any suggestion mental health issues underpin the “Gender Dysphoria”, or desire to find a label/treatment.

The framing of this discussion is entirely reliant on whether you believe in an “innate gender”. If you do believe a child can be born in the wrong body it necessitates treatment. If you believe gender is a social construct then societal sex stereotypes are the problem. These seem to be irreconcilable belief systems. Worth having a look at how Mermaid’s diagnostic criteria works. Would anyone not meet the diagnosis threshold given this criteria?

Dr Carmichael , below, frankly admits that the evidence has yet to catch up with practice. She further acknowledges there is no consensus and there is concern about the long term health impact. The only way this treatment can even approach an ethical justification is if you are confident that:

a) Gender Identity is innate

b) The Tavistock have a reliable system for targeting irreversible treatments only on children who would, in any case, have persisted.

c) You believe data that suggests there is a suicide epidemic in trans-identified youth. {This makes intervention a life saver & justifies pharmaceutical interventions}.

So what has effected this change? Political Interest and Lobbying. Let us not forget the role of the Women & Equalities Committee. Since it morphed, from a Women’s committee, it has been successfully colonised. In its original incarnation it focussed on women’s issues. As predicted, women’s concerns have been pushed to one side with a wider focus on “Equalities”.

The quote below👇 touches on the real change in the landscape surrounding “Transgender” children. Dr Carmichael acknowledges that some children are being socially transitioned at pre-school age. This is also a reference to the growing condemnation of “watchful waiting” , now badged as a practice akin to #GayConversionTherapy. The memorandum of understanding (MOU) she references commits to a ban on therapeutic work to resolve Gender Incongruence. BACP (British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy) & the BPS (British Psychological Society) have signed up to a ban on Gender Identity “conversion”. The Royal College of GPs has also signed this MOU.

The fact most desisters are predicted to be gay seems to have escaped their notice. Counselling, to reconcile to biological sex, is now officially condemned by these, erstwhile, esteemed professional bodies. As of May 2020 there are is a further move to outlaw any therapy to address “Gender Dysphoria” by, once again, conflating it with Gay Conversion Therapy. See here ⇒ Gender Identity Conversion Therapy

There’s a huge amount to unpack here. 👇

Dr Carmichael is not happy the Tavistock are being accused of not being sufficiently affirmative. She does appear to be trying to raise awareness of the changing nature of the child referrals. Her interpretation of the parents, mentioned above. does not accord with my own perspective. Socially transitioning a three year old and then attempting to report a young child for the Hate Crime of misgendering another child! Is this the behaviour of parents who are simply being protective! If I was relaying this story, verbally, my incredulity would be at such a high pitch only dogs would be able to hear me!

In the section below there are a lot of erms as Dr Carmichael hesitates over the admission the treatment compromises fertility . She is anxious about this, but not for the reasons you might expect. She is concerned about young people who defer medicalisation to try to salvage their reproductive health. The reason for this is they may not “pass” ,if they delay long enough to have a chance at parenthood. This is not an uncommon viewpoint. One practitioner in this field praises the children who are kind enough to see themselves as future child adopters.

Sacrificing fertility is quite a significant thing to ask children to consent to and yet her concern is one of “presentation”. Polly is aware this is indicative of that great sin of “binary thinking”. {Its almost as if she knows, on some level, there are only two sexes!} No doubt Polly would consider me a “biological essentialist” but, like many women (and men), I was in my thirties before I desired children. I would not have made a mature decision, to place my fertility at risk, at age 12.

And that last sentence! Actually wondering how the Tavistock can support children to feel comfortable enough to live with their bodies! Klaxon Klaxon Klaxon!! This is what parents would like to know! Shouldn’t the first line of treatment be body-positive? In less than a decade we seem to have normalised a bodily dis-associative disorder and completely over-turned decades of work, especially for the female body.

Another thing that is hard to keep up with is the removal of any reference to mental health issues. The diagnostic criteria for Gender Dysphoria has now officially been re-classified to remove suggestions it is a Mental Health issue. I sense Dr Carmichael really wants to find a way to talk about co-morbidities here. However activists have successfully rebadged Gender Dysphoria as a naturally occurring variation and references to mental health are removed from the official diagnostic manual.

How many of these children/teens placed on an irreversible pathway may have benefited from some good therapeutic exploration of their motivations? Therapeutic Interventions to resolve Gender Dysphoria

This is a good summary of what the impact of this Conversion versus Affirmation model does to practitioners in this field. I diverge on many points with Dr Carmichael but she is right that we are favouring medical solutions to resolve psychological issues. The lack of psychological support has also been raised by Tavistock staff who have now left and are whistleblowing.

To balance the pressure for medical intervention we need a diversity of voices. These should include detransitioners, It should include parents of children struggling with this “condition”. It should include people who understand the concept of an iatrogenic “illness”. It should include people who have expressed concern about what we are doing to young people. We need a countervailing voice to Lobby groups like Mermaids, Stonewall and Gendered Intelligence.

The above is not a bad summary.

We need more empirical data, less opinion.
We need to look at contextual factors. (School teaching on Gender Identity, for one)
I disagree about taking a lead from young people. Detransitioners have taught us that.

We need to urgently take measures to make certain we are not medicalising children who could have lived a life without hormone dependency and surgical interventions.

The problem with this service is that it seems to be driven by people who see this as a social justice cause, They are excited at disruptive thinking, eroding or destroying social norms. I will leave you with this quote from Bernadette Wren, who also works at the Tavistock. This is from the Transgender Equality Inquiry in 2015. I sense that Dr Wren should have been more careful. Sometimes a social revolution doesn’t take the form you, naively, imagine it will:

Category: Tavistock Series

Tavistock: Domenico Di Ceglio 1

Like this:

Tavistock: Taylor Report

Taylor Report: Link below

Like this:

Parents of ”trans” kids. Part 4

Like this:

Sex and Gender Identity.

Like this:

Kiera Bell: Judicial Review

Like this:

Tavistock 5: Marcus Evans

Affirmation Only.

Memorandum of Understanding/Conversion Therapy

De-Transitioners/Regret

Informed Consent?

Anger, regret, and impact on women.

Adolescence.

Like this:

TAVISTOCK 4 : Michael Biggs

Like this:

TAVISTOCK PART THREE (B): Aiden Kelly

Tavistock: 1989-2018

Like this:

TAVISTOCK PART THREE (A): Aiden Kelly

Tavistock: 1989-2018

Like this:

Tavistock. Part Two: Clinical Dilemmas: Polly Carmichael

Talk by Polly Carmichael.

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Taylor Report: Link below

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Affirmation Only.

Memorandum of Understanding/Conversion Therapy

De-Transitioners/Regret

Informed Consent?

Anger, regret, and impact on women.

Adolescence.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Tavistock: 1989-2018

Share this:

Like this:

Tavistock: 1989-2018

Share this:

Like this:

Talk by Polly Carmichael.

Share this:

Like this: