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: 👇
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.
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.
This post is based on a 2019 paper which looks at referrals to the U.K. Gender Clinic, GIDS, based at the Tavistock. The focus is on Adopted & Looked After Children (LACs). The full paper is included below. You can also access it via the link below:
The paper is from 2019 but uses data covering Tavistock patients during 2009 to 2011. It is unclear why the data doesn’t extend beyond this date. It may be significant that the data was extracted from clinical notes and, possibly, the researchers were required to harvest it manually. There appears to be a paucity of data collection, within GIDs, on the vulnerable groups referred to their service. Lack of ready access to data is frequently used as a reason to justify lack of compliance with Freedom of Information Requests. The law allows an organisation to deny an FOI if there is deemed to be an excessive amount of hours required to extract the data. GIDs have used this exemption multiple times on their FOI log. If you are familiar with the Keira Bell case you will recall the Judges who expressed surprise multiple times that data was not readily available.
If you are not familiar with the Keira Bell case I cover it below:
The researchers note the high rate of GIDS referrals from Looked after (LAC) and adoptedchildren. They note that LACs make up 0.58% of the general population but 4.9% of GIDs referrals. Adopted children account for another 3.8% of referrals. The data, therefore, illustrates a significant over-representation of these groups in the GIDs patient population.
It is worth noting that children living with grandparents are counted in the category of children living with their biological family (YPBF). In my experience every child I know, who is living with grandparents, has some trauma in their background, often related to bereavement or alcohol/drug dependent parents. I would have preferred to see disaggregated data on this group of children. The children from disrupted family backgrounds are therefore under-estimated in the population defined by the researchers.
Below is a clip from the David Taylor report which raised concerns about GIDs back in 2005. The David Taylor report was eventually released 15 years later folllowing an information request. The GIDS service, at the Tavistock, resisted publication and they only capitulated when they lost an appeal to the Freedom of Information Commissioner. David Taylor also noted the GIDs referrals from vulnerable children with troubled backgrounds. Child abuse, multiple caregivers or otherwise deprived or injurious upbringings are more likely to present with Gender Identity Issues. This is not new information. (I have a copy of the Taylor report and intend to do a piece on it, shortly)
Adolescence is a time of profound identity exploration. This can be a difficult time even for adolescents within a stable family context. What Gender Identity Ideologues demand is that we affirm a “gender identity”, in children/teenagers as if it were a concrete, stable identity. They further argue that this represents an “authentic” self which nevertheless needs the administration of life altering medications/surgeries. At the same time we are told to bear the concept of “gender fluidity” in mind which instructs us to recognise that gender identity is subject to change.
Gender fluidity allows the ideology to account for the emergence of middle aged males who claim a female Gender Identity at a late stage. Many of these men are heterosexual fathers and often emerge from male dominated professions. There seems to be a preponderance of,ex-army, late transitioners which is an interesting phenomenon. Blanchard’s theory of autogynephilia seems to best describe these males. A midlife crisis, where Barry becomes Belinda, is a phenomenon with little in common with “transgender children“. However gender dysphoric children distract from the sexual motivations of adult males, validate their inner woman and serve as the equivalent of “beards” for AGP males.
I know! Sometimes I wish I did not know any of this stuff too.
Another glaring omission from this data is the absence of any figures on how many are proto-gay kids. Coyly the researchers avoid the word “homosexual” and, instead talk about diverse sexual identities.
Co-morbidity in referrals to GIDS.
Another feature of children referred to Gender Identity Services is a higher than expected rate of autistic children. Children who had experienced bullying and were self-harming are also noted. Data from Finland shows extremely high rates of co-morbid psychiatric conditions. A whopping 68% were found to have had prior engagement with psychiatric services for reasons other then their Gender Dysphoria.
The research also looks at rates of referral to endocrinologists between the different groups. The Looked after group, who obtained a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria, had the highest rates. At the same time they had the lowest rates of meeting the threshold for a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria.
Parents of adopted children show the greatest reluctance to embark on medications and are described as exhibiting nervousness about how they would be perceived. The report authors’ perspective is that a lack of parental advocacy, for LAC/Adopted children is impeding treatment for Gender Dysphoria, for children not residing with their biological family.
Their preferred solution is to improve access to diagnosis/treatment by accelerating pre-treatment counselling. It is recommended that more frequent appointments may be necessary to ensure that LAC children are not disadvantaged. I share the concern about the lack of parental advocacy but from a diametrically opposed viewpoint. Parents have a key role in protecting their children from irreversible medical decisions they may come to regret. In Canada a father has recently been imprisoned after refusing to remain silent about the fact his teenage daughter has been put on testosterone and is on a path to double mastectomy. (I will cover that case in a later blog)
The GIDS based research illustrates a huge over-representation from children already identified as a vulnerable group. It is notable that the data in this paper is from 2009-11 and before the huge surge in referrals we have seen in recent years. Research in Finland produced an even higher figure (13%) for referrals in this group.
After I published my first piece I was sent a link to the Irish article, posted below, which raised similar issues re the profile of children referred to Gender Identity Services.
The issue of looked after children has appeared in submissions to the Parliament’s Transgender Equality Inquiry. Susie Green, of the controversial charity Mermaids, issued a typically hyperbolic statement:
Bernadette Wren, of the Tavistock, issued a more moderate statement but implies that Looked After Children may not find their way to GIDs services and that Social Workers need to be confident in making sure they know what these children are entitled to…
Its time we started looking more critically about the idea of an innate gender identity and why this belief system has gained so much traction in (very)recent history. Children in care/ adopted children are among the most vulnerable in our society. There is little doubt in my mind that we are witnessing social engineering and the unintended (?) consequence is negatively impacting vulnerable children/teens. Foster children and those adopted are another group that needs safeguarding.
Once again we are seeing of issues of vulnerability in the children/teenagers harvested by Gender Identity Ideology.
Any donations welcome. Please don’t do so unless you can afford. I do this full-time and it enables me to pay for software, books and to recycle any monies to relevant causes.
The first alarm bells rung for me when this court case was heard. Lancashire County Council tried to withdraw the case but the foster parents involved insisted it went ahead. The parents argued a public airing was the only way to to remove any slur on their reputation. I am grateful for their stance because it has allowed us to see the arguments played out in public.
Here is a link to the source for the legal judgement and a PDF copy.
It’s a complex judgement involving multiple interested parties; hence the number of legal representatives. The concerns centre on two of the children, one biological and one fostered, though wider issues were raised about the other 3 foster children in the family. The case raises concerns in respect of medical diagnoses, hospital visits and the role of the parents. I will, however, only focus on the issue of Gender Dysphoria. The extract below gives a flavour of the concerns raised:
Notwithstanding the judgement, which found in the parents favour, some witnesses expressed concern about the precipitate nature of the social transition of the two male children. Identified only as H & R, one is a biological child and another a foster child. So, they not biologically related. Already, by age 7, R is socially transitioned and has had a formal name change. H was socially transitioned at age 4. The parents are confident this is a permanent state of affairs. 👇
Furthermore, the court case reveals, the couple had an earlier foster placement who also had “GenderIdentity” issues. The case notes that a number of the foster children had development or health issues. In the interests of balance it is important to remember these children had been removed from parental homes and suffered neglect / abuse prior to their arrival in this family setting.
One of the concerns was raised by an anonymous party who is described as a member of the extended family. The Local Authority received this referral which expressed concern about three members of the same family, presenting with Gender Dysphoria. Only two of the children remain in the care of this family and it is not clear whether the previous child had been treated, medically or otherwise, for their genderIdentity issues.
It is also noted that contact had been made with the Tavistock (the U.Ks main Gender Identity Development Service) who had, in turn, referred them to Mermaids for additional support. Below are details of another case which sheds further light on the role of the judiciary in these complex cases.
The case of J (A Minor)
Mermaids is a UK charity who campaign on the issue of “transkids” and provide networking /support for parents and their children. It is worth noting that Mermaids also appeared in an earlier judgement, which they hotly contested. There were a number of similiarity in that case and the Judge, in that case made a series of criticisms about the parent, the Local Authority and the social workers involved in the case. In that case the mother lost custody of her male child. I include a transcript and some excerpts from that case below.
The Times made a number of points and one of them was based on a facebook post made by Mermaids. In the post they expressed outrage the judge was alleged to have ordered the parents to cease engagement with the charity. Below are two excerpts from the Ipso ruling. Not the clean bill of health they may have been hoping for…😳
Back to the Lancashire case.
The court heard from a previous report, echoing that of Lisa North, who described the parents (CP & TP) as “highly manipulative people” and expressed concern that the Gender Identity issues were the result of the parent’s behaviour and part of a pattern of seeking medical diagnoses.
Ms Sayer, quoted below assigns more benign motivations to CP’s attitude to the Gender Dysphoria diagnosis. Nevertheless she expresses concern about how they could revert to their “assigned gender” after being socially transitioned.
The court next heard from an expert in the field of Gender Dysphoria. Dr Pasterski is one of a handful of experts who appear regularly in these court cases. One of the difficulties for the judicial system is a reliance on people who work in this field and, by definition, believe that Gender Identity is innate.
Dr Pasterski is familiar to me as she made an appearance in an earlier court case. This case was of a thrice married man, with seven children, and a conviction for obtaining explosives with intent to endanger life, who nevertheless manages to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate. (Remember this case when people argue how difficult it is to get legal recognition. In this case a single judge overturned the decision of the Gender Recognition Panel)
Here is an excerpt, from the judicial transcript in the Ms Jay case, in which the Gender Recognition Panel cast doubt on the reliability of Dr Pasterski’s evidence.
Dr Pasterski is introduced, in the Lancashire case, with an emphasis on her 23 years of experience as a chartered psychologist and a gender identity specialist. I imagine the judge placed great weight on her testimony. Here Dr Pasterski rubbishes well established data on the number of children who desist from a trans-identity. She does this using the argument that anyone who desists from a trans identity was wrongly diagnosed. De-transitioners commonly face this argument. Despite having an actual diagnosis of “Gender Dysphoria”, from the Tavistock, it is frequently argued Keira Bell was not really “transgender”. The same people insist any diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria is so reliable it can be used to justify early intervention. Both these things cannot be true. Dr Pasterski also dismisses the idea of extensive co-morbidities in this demographic. I wish the Judge had asked for evidence of this because it contradicts all the research I have undertaken. (Something I will cover later in this series, specifically in relation to Foster Children).
During the case we also learn the family fostered a child from June 2004 to 2007 and this child also had “gender identitiy issues”. We don’t discover if this child had persisted, or where they are now, or whether they left simply due to reaching age of majority.
Dr Pasterski refrains from commenting on the third child but dismisses concerns about the likelihood of their being two (which as we know was really three) children with a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria, in one family. Pasterski emphasises that the condition has a basis in neurological or biological functioning and claims she has seen multiple cases in one family. This is a claim which could have done with more interrogation. Firstly the evidence for a neurological or biological basis for an innate Gender Identity is by no means settled science. (There are numerous articles debunking this claim which I cover elsewhere on this blog but the common element seems to be the concept of neuroplasticity.) Secondly it seems important to note that these three children were not biologically related all they have in common is the environment in which they are being brought up.
So, what prompted the School to make a referral to Children’s Services? There were concerns of fabricated and induced illness in respect of four children in the care of CP and TP and a reported concern about a casual reference to “here’s another one for the Tavistock” by TP.
In the final analysis the judgement determined that the children should remain in the care of these foster parents. A successful defence was mounted in relation to the hospital visits. These, it was argued, could be attributed to hyper vigilance, especially because at least one child had pre-existing conditions. The other incidents were designated as not more than a normal rates of accidents. Gender Identity experts dismissed concerns about why there would be two ( in reality there were three) foster placements who developed Gender Identity Issues.
This court case has been covered many times before, hence I have not, previously, included it on my blog. I cover it now because it will form part one of a series on “Looked After Children”. I will be looking at research based on GIDs data. I will also look at British Columbia (Canada). I will also cover published guidance given to foster carers. Since I indicated I would be covering this, my in-box is filling up with useful research and first hand accounts. I am being sent replies indicating this is a problem in Brazil, Australia and the United States and that it is a particular issue in indigenous communities.
My content remains open and free but if you can support me it would be appreciated. Please only do so if you can afford and don’t choose me over legal cases if funds are in short supply when divvying up the #WomanTax.
Researching Gender Identity Ideology and its impact on Women and our Gay Youth. Support is always appreciated (I have no income) but I would be equally happy if you contributed to a relevant legal case, a crowdfunder for Lesbian and Gay News or Safe Schools Alliance
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.
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:
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 BernadetteWren, 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 GenderDysphoria 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.