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 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:

Tavistock Clinic: Polly Carmichael

This is some background to a talk given by a member of staff from the Gender Identity Services (GIDS) at the Tavistock. The talk is by Dr Polly Carmichael and provides insight into clinical/ethical issues for Gender Identity Services. I want to explore Dr Carmichael’s belief system and the alternative perspective of those of us who reject the Tavistock model. Dr Carmichael reflects on the tension between “affirmative” approaches to children with Gender Dysphoria and what she labels “reparative” or “conservative”. I will argue that parents resisting medical intervention are also “affirming”. You can listen to the talk yourself here

Proponents of an “affirmative” approach believe that a child can be “Born in the Wrong Body”. They will often use phrases like “assigned at birth” to describe how sex is determined. They argue the sex you are designated at birth may not match your “Gender Identity”. Therefore you may, in fact, have an opposite “Gender” to the sex which you were “assigned”. The theory of an innate Gender Identity mirrors established child development theory on the age a child realises they are a boy or girl. For advocates of Gender Identity Theory this is seen as a sign that we all have an innate sense of “gender” and become aware of it at around three years of age. Therefore if a child communicates some discomfort/distress, at being treated as a girl, or boy, they are deemed to be exhibiting a conflict between their sex and gender. As this is a feeling , relying on an internal sense of self, the child will, it is argued, know better than their parents which “gender” they are. This argument sets the stage for empowering children/teens to act without parental consent. Something lobbyists are openly arguing should take place. Those that subscribe to this belief often use language around bodily autonomy to push for positive affirmation of the child’s “gender”. This may take social forms; such as allowing a new name, style of dress or pronouns which match the preferred gender. This can also take the form of medical interventions such as Puberty Blockers followed by Cross-sex hormones.

Multi-Sensory approaches to Gender Identity.

When I first came across this paper I was, initially, alienated by the standard Ideologically approved language. I pushed past the “assigned at birth”, “gender identity” framing which is ubiquitous in this field, and it actually proved to be an interesting paper with some important observations. It lasted, I think, about six weeks before activists got the final paragraph removed. Here is that paragraph. 👇

He is proposing more research to, potentially, identify less risky and invasive treatments that could mitigate “Gender Dysphoria”. He also recommends caution, to the clinical community. Were activists appeased by the concession made by the journal? No. There followed a sustained campaign to get the paper retracted, which succeeded in April 2020. So why? What did the paper say that activists think needs to be suppressed?

The paper rejects the idea of “brain sex” which is the idea that a male can have a “female brain”. That is a theory based on the claim brain imaging showed transgender individuals have a “female brain”. Critics point to the impact of neuro-plasticity; where the neural pathways are forged as an adaptive response to the external environment. Others highlight that these studies fail to control for homosexuality or even exogenous female sex hormones (synthetic oestrogen). At best the jury is out on #LadyBrain theory.

The paper considers a number of hypotheses about the causes of Gender Dysphoria. It concludes that the multi-sensory theory best explains the variety of types of Gender Dysphoria; the different ages of onset and whether sufferers persist in, or desist from, identifying as the opposite sex.

The theory is that Gender Dysphoria, is a bodily dis-associative disorder, caused by dynamic activity in functional networks. He uses this theory to explore connections with high rates of anxiety and depression and some theories that persons with autism have an altered sense of their “body-ownership”. (There is an over-representation of autistic people with Gender Dysphoria. Autistic females are represented at eight times the rate of Autistic males. This is despite significantly lower numbers of diagnosed autistic girls). Crucially the authors argue that their theory does not rule out the additional role of psychosocial factors.

The paper makes comparison with other theories of Gender Dysphoria and this is what likely propelled activists to get it retracted. The social justice theory is that all of these children (and adults) are simply “Born in the Wrong Body”. They are deemed to be “correct” in feeling this way and it has become anathema to contradict this belief.

Another aspect of this paper which explains the ire it generated, is the data on how, in many young children with gender dysphoria, it resolves by itself. This data tends to be hotly contested, even though it is pretty much consistently the case that the vast majority, historically, desisted.

As I have posted before , on this blog, why are we medicalising children when the vast majority would desist, reconcile to biological sex and many would simply be gay? A reminder of an overview of the studies which generate these statistics Do trans kids stay Trans?

Note that desistance studies that post-date the administration of puberty blockers show a very different trajectory. It has been noted that these children invariably progress to cross-sex hormones. They appear to be locked into the trajectory to further medicalisation. As many of those that desisted , historically, turned out to be Gay Males and Lesbians that raises an unpleasant spectre of Gay Eugenics.

This paper also doesn’t cover the issue of “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” (ROGD) This is a new phenomenon which, I have argued before, doesn’t seem unconnected to a rise in teaching , in schools, of the idea of “Born in the Wrong Body”. We have seen a rise of 4500% in referrals to the UK main Gender Identity services and an inversion of the sex ratios. Until this last decade referrals were mainly male. Now females pre-dominate. Lisa Littman published a paper on ROGD and it also came under sustained attack, was withdrawn, further reviewed and re-published with only minor changes. You can read about this controversy here Lisa Littman: ROGD

However this is a rapidly changing situation and this paper attempts to address shortcomings in our knowledge base in a considered manner. It even uses the language of “Cisgender” and is careful not to refer to the activists least favourite theory of Autogynephilia. The conclusions it drew were fairly gentle and should have been uncontentious. What’s that you say? We need more research?

And for this the author has been hounded for months. The retracted paper, after the “offending” paragraph was removed, is here 👉. Paper

Therapeutic Interventions to resolve Gender Dysphoria

This article shows how a good therapist can identify underlying issues and attempt to resolve Gender Dysphoria without medicalised responses to bodily discomfort. The therapist is fluent in Gender Identity speak but does have the courage to honestly interrogate what “Gender” means to the clients they see. It is important to note that any therapist may, or perhaps will, feel compelled to speak in approved language to get published. Additionally our young people have imbibed the new lexicon so the therapist may need to speak in the approved language, to establish a dialogue with Gender Dysphoric youth.

The article: Psychoanalyst on Transitory Trans Identity Author Alessandra Lemmas

Psychoanalysis pays attention to unconscious motivations in the formation of “identity”. This is in marked contrast to Gender Identity proponents of a medicalised response. Lemmas talks of the need for “a posture of implicit scepticism” when dealing with claimed identities. This is in marked contrast to Gender Identity medical practitioners who prioritise a subjective sense of self and demand only “belief”. This is an excerpt from a response to an article in the British Medical Journal about how to treat Gender Dysphoria. The response is from Dr Helen Webberly, currently suspended from the General Medical Council, who is not alone in her stance: Helen Webberly .

The belief that people can, literally, be born in the wrong body underpins the lack of a therapeutic approach to young people presenting with Gender Identity Issues. Merely to suggest that this may be an incorrect, self-diagnosis, generates outrage that we are denying the “lived experience” of the transgender community. Yet we know, as Lemmas, and many others, point out most desist, reconcile to biological sex and many are simply gay. 👇

The author subscribes/pays lip service to the idea that sex is assigned at birth, rather than merely observed, as it is in 99% + cases. She subshumes both Lesbians and Gay men underneath the “transgender” umbrella. The statistics on post-operative satisfaction accept the narrative from within the Gender Identity community with no acknowledgment of the methodological flaws with the phenomenon of “loss to follow up”. {This is where a patient loses contact with the Gender Identity Service they are using. Detransitioners say they don’t return to the services which, they feel, actively harmed them, so this cohort disappear from the “follow up”}

The three case studies, in this article, cover many of the issues raised by parents dealing with our gender Dysphoric offspring. All claimed a transgender identity with no prior history sound puberty. We are told about the huge spike in referrals to the UK’s main Gender Identity Clinics and a wider social context emphasising choice and very much of a piece with the atomising of the individual in neoliberal, capitalist, societies.

The first case is illustrative of the complicity of transgender identity. More on “Anita” below. 👇. As you can see Anita claims multiple identities encompassing male, gay & female as well as “drag queen”. Already taking cross sex hormones but with no intention to progress to more surgical changes.

The dialogue seems to settle on the idea that gender identity can be fluid and an exploratory phase. Nevertheless Anita is already medicalising, We leave this case here, though I will just add that I have never seen a satisfactory explanation of what “living as a woman” means. It seems to depend on circular reasoning /a retreat to sex stereotypes.

Janes case is more complex and, arguably, requires a more robust interrogation since Jane seems to fully intend a full transition to “live as a man”. The sessions are challenging and, on more than one occasion, the analyst reports the anger triggered by the exploration of underlying issues. What emerges is a young girl whose parents have traditional gender roles in the household. Janes perception is that her mother is a “hostess” with little power, standing in the household. On being pressed much of Janes “Identity” seems built about rejecting all the signs associated with being a “girl” such as make-up and long hair. Here are some of Jane’s thoughts on what being a girl means to her:

Tellingly., Jane reveals that they did not feel they measured up to the expected level of attractiveness as a girl. Even more revealing is an expression of same sex attraction. Not as a lesbian but as a male attracted to females. Another common theme in detransitioners is the yearning for passing privilege as a male and how this, in retrospect, seemed to become more unattainable as they sought to identify as male.

Jane is also adopted and vehemently rejects any idea this relates to their gender identity issues, However it later emerges that the birth mother was from a culture which prized male children, in preference to girls. This prompts some self reflection and the realisation / admission that maybe this was bound up with the idea that her mother may have kept a male child.

Janes situation resolved itself without medical intervention. She is in a same sex relationship and has found a way to identify as a strong woman in her on line world after previously observing that she felt “insubstantial” and, significantly, failed to garner the same respect when she was coded female.

The third case study is Alex, who is a female who identified as male at 16. Alex was not interested in being dissuaded from hormones and surgery, as is common with our Gender Dysphoric youth. Alex’s parents affirmed the new identity and accepted their daughter as a son. Alex, however,still wished to access therapy, but still underwent a double mastectomy at age 19. Post surgery Alex was, initially “happy” but then became depressed and suicidal and revisited the sexual abuse that they had endured at age 10, and realised the link between the abuse and the desire to remove their breasts . Tellingly, the parents were not aware of the sexual abuse and it did made me reflect on their role as affirming parents and, if they had been aware of this history, would it have made them exercise more caution? I do NOT say this to judge those parents. Any one of us could have genuinely advocated for this stance in the belief, pushed relentlessly by our media and advocated by public bodies, that this is the right thing to do.

I am conflicted about the “woke” language. By espousing the idea that someone can born “in the wrong body” {which is the belief system underpinning transgender ideology} the danger is our Gender Confused children are getting mixed messages. On the one hand the implication is that they may be hard-wired with a conflict between sexed bodies and an opposite sex brain. At the same time it is clear that some of these cases are complicated by sexual orientation, history of sexual abuse and family dynamics. There remains no diagnostic test that can separate the influence of “neuroplasticity” from the notion of an opposite sex brain. In an ideal world we would start from the clear premise that there is no solid evidence that there is a biological basis for this incongruence between sexed bodies and a “gender identity”. That does NOT mean that Gender Dysphoria does not exist or that it cannot, in a minority of extreme cases, be extremely debilitating and, for adults, may lead to an inescapable desire for medical intervention.

Irrespective of these misgivings this is a good article and those of us dealing with Gender Dysphoric teens know how hard it is to navigate this terrain. Some solid therapeutic work seems to have built up sufficient trust to garner some solid insights from these young people. Of course I wish that self-awareness pre-dated significant surgery but for parents struggling with this, especially, I do recommend this piece.

Tag: Puberty Blockers

TAVISTOCK 4 : Michael Biggs

Like this:

TAVISTOCK PART THREE (B): Aiden Kelly

Tavistock: 1989-2018

Like this:

Tavistock. Part Two: Clinical Dilemmas: Polly Carmichael

Talk by Polly Carmichael.

Like this:

Tavistock Clinic: Polly Carmichael

Like this:

Multi-Sensory approaches to Gender Identity.

Like this:

Therapeutic Interventions to resolve Gender Dysphoria

Share this:

Like this:

Tavistock: 1989-2018

Share this:

Like this:

Talk by Polly Carmichael.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this: