It is incomprehensible that medical professionals can believe in, condone and choreograph this dreadful process. All the more so given that much of the rest of the world has seen the light:
• The English NHS has recently prohibited the use of puberty blockers in persons under 18 years and is in the midst of an independent review of gender identity services following a statement that there is “scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision-making”
• The Danish Medical Association, confirmed that there has been a marked shift in the country’s approach to caring for youth with gender dysphoria. Most youth referred to the centralized gender clinic no longer get a prescription for puberty blockers, hormones or surgery—instead they receive therapeutic counselling and support.
• Sweden, known as a pioneer in LGBTQ rights, started restricting gender-affirming hormone therapy for minors - allowing it only in very rare cases.
• The Finnish Health Authority deviated from WPATH's "Standards of Care" by issuing new guidelines stating that psychotherapy, rather than puberty blockers & cross-sex hormones, should be the first-line treatment for gender-dysphoric youth..
• The National Academy of Medicine in France has cautioned medical practitioners to the fact that hormonal and surgical treatments carry health risks and have permanent effects, and that it is not possible to distinguish a durable trans identity from a passing phase of an adolescent's development.
• Lithuania does not permit gender reassignment surgery.
Nick Cater’s article in The Australian newspaper, March18th, contained this reflection: “ cultural bias, the projection of a counsellor’s values and beliefs on their clients, is a common pitfall among psychiatrists. So too is confirmation bias, as unconscious preference to interpret information in a way that confirms preexisting hypotheses and discounts evidence to the contrary “
His article was specifically about the machinations within the “ climate wars “but could just as easily fit within a discussion of the machinations within the “ culture wars”, where we find gender ideology.
Such cultural and confirmation bias will find fertile ground when there is ample empathy available, which , in turn, facilitates the reluctance to tolerate challenge , and not encourage an alternative response of repudiation of a consensus view of a controversial or contested subject. To succeed in a challenge of a claimed consensus view held by a subset of social activists within our profession regarding the place of medical ( hormonal) intervention in minors diagnosed with GD, requires a repudiation of feelings over facts. Sex is not “ assigned at birth “, but determined at conception, and revealed at birth.
Many of us have been struggling with understanding just how this aberration has happened. Here’s a suggestion: perhaps the indisputable evidence for there being a disproportionately increased level of empathy amongst the fairer sex, compared to us mere males, who might be more prepared to challenge, say a consensus view, and even be at times be capable of adopting a combative approach, might explain much?
You might see where I am going with this, when I suggest we look at the gender demographics within the ranks of our profession who have achieved control of the treatment protocols in children’s gender clinics. The dominant feminization of this subset of the medical ( and, importantly of course, the ideological instigator source of clinical psychology) workforce might go some way towards an understanding of how such a powerful position has been obtained and maintained.
Hannah Barnes in her book on post Tavistock could not have made the case ,for identifying empathetic consensus as the main culprit, any clearer.
To be sure, my suggestion will be anathema to the social activists ( of both/all) genders , but Biology, to me, rears it’s head and continues to make change difficult, but the longer the beast remains unchallenged , the stronger it gets.
It is absolutely astounding how ideologically captured so many government health agencies are on this issue -- to the point that they jettison completely their reliance on evidence based medicine. Thank goodness for level-headed, knowledgeable, and courageous people who have persisted in digging into the research (or lack thereof) and asking questions.
Excellent reporting as always, Bernard Lane. Thank you!
It is incomprehensible that medical professionals can believe in, condone and choreograph this dreadful process. All the more so given that much of the rest of the world has seen the light:
• The English NHS has recently prohibited the use of puberty blockers in persons under 18 years and is in the midst of an independent review of gender identity services following a statement that there is “scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision-making”
• The Danish Medical Association, confirmed that there has been a marked shift in the country’s approach to caring for youth with gender dysphoria. Most youth referred to the centralized gender clinic no longer get a prescription for puberty blockers, hormones or surgery—instead they receive therapeutic counselling and support.
• Sweden, known as a pioneer in LGBTQ rights, started restricting gender-affirming hormone therapy for minors - allowing it only in very rare cases.
• The Finnish Health Authority deviated from WPATH's "Standards of Care" by issuing new guidelines stating that psychotherapy, rather than puberty blockers & cross-sex hormones, should be the first-line treatment for gender-dysphoric youth..
• The National Academy of Medicine in France has cautioned medical practitioners to the fact that hormonal and surgical treatments carry health risks and have permanent effects, and that it is not possible to distinguish a durable trans identity from a passing phase of an adolescent's development.
• Lithuania does not permit gender reassignment surgery.
Nick Cater’s article in The Australian newspaper, March18th, contained this reflection: “ cultural bias, the projection of a counsellor’s values and beliefs on their clients, is a common pitfall among psychiatrists. So too is confirmation bias, as unconscious preference to interpret information in a way that confirms preexisting hypotheses and discounts evidence to the contrary “
His article was specifically about the machinations within the “ climate wars “but could just as easily fit within a discussion of the machinations within the “ culture wars”, where we find gender ideology.
Such cultural and confirmation bias will find fertile ground when there is ample empathy available, which , in turn, facilitates the reluctance to tolerate challenge , and not encourage an alternative response of repudiation of a consensus view of a controversial or contested subject. To succeed in a challenge of a claimed consensus view held by a subset of social activists within our profession regarding the place of medical ( hormonal) intervention in minors diagnosed with GD, requires a repudiation of feelings over facts. Sex is not “ assigned at birth “, but determined at conception, and revealed at birth.
Many of us have been struggling with understanding just how this aberration has happened. Here’s a suggestion: perhaps the indisputable evidence for there being a disproportionately increased level of empathy amongst the fairer sex, compared to us mere males, who might be more prepared to challenge, say a consensus view, and even be at times be capable of adopting a combative approach, might explain much?
You might see where I am going with this, when I suggest we look at the gender demographics within the ranks of our profession who have achieved control of the treatment protocols in children’s gender clinics. The dominant feminization of this subset of the medical ( and, importantly of course, the ideological instigator source of clinical psychology) workforce might go some way towards an understanding of how such a powerful position has been obtained and maintained.
Hannah Barnes in her book on post Tavistock could not have made the case ,for identifying empathetic consensus as the main culprit, any clearer.
To be sure, my suggestion will be anathema to the social activists ( of both/all) genders , but Biology, to me, rears it’s head and continues to make change difficult, but the longer the beast remains unchallenged , the stronger it gets.
It is absolutely astounding how ideologically captured so many government health agencies are on this issue -- to the point that they jettison completely their reliance on evidence based medicine. Thank goodness for level-headed, knowledgeable, and courageous people who have persisted in digging into the research (or lack thereof) and asking questions.