President of Humanists UK refuses to step up.

They don’t want the tsuris.

Neale Hanvey MP on Ruth Hunt:

Ruth Hunt’s claim that she was “absolutely someone who has always been working in the middle ground, trying to build consensus” is most egregious insult imaginable.

@stonewalluk attacked anyone occupying a position beyond their pious queer theory doctrine. Any LGB person who raised so much as a ‘heretical’ whisper was targeted and demonised. The agenda they have been pushing has seen emboldened extremist positions find their way on to the floor of the House of Commons where straight women tell gay men to get back in the closet. That’s what you achieved Ruth Hunt, but it’s never going to happen. Now we stand with @AllianceLGB.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Often contending with other difficulties.

You’d think they’d make sure there actually was such a thing as a “gender identity” before offering to “develop” it, “treat” it, or follow its dictates with regard to the bodies it allegedly inhabits. Why do some people claim to have such an identity, while others do not? Why are most people’s identities “aligned” with their sex, while others are not? What causes this supposed “misalignment”? How is the identity’s presence and nature determined, apart from patient self-diagnosis? How do you screen out people who don’t require your services, and/or those who will not benefit from them? Surely clinicians dealing with this phenomenon would want fundamental questions like this answered before taking any steps, drastic or otherwise, that involve any kind of medical intervention, hormonal, pharmaceutical, or surgical.

Quite apart from practical considerations like those outlined above, what about questions around the origin and evolution of “gender identities”? This is specifically about gender, not sex, so clown fish are not what we’re asking about. We’ve been told that such identities have nothing to do with gametes, so let’s take them at their word, and rule them out from the start. What is your evidence of gender identity outside of the genus Homo? What other species exhibit such an entity, and how does one tell? What adaptive advantages might it confer? These and a host of other interesting questions would make the concept of “gender identity” a potentially fruitful field of study, if such a thing actually existed. But the “knowledge” which its adherents claim to possess smacks more of fan fiction, literary criticism, or theology than anything real or tangible. Belief and obedience are held in higher esteem than curiosity and critical thinking. Like astrology’s unquestioningly confident acceptance of the existence and import of the supposedly contending influence and power of inherently meaningless alignments of planets against the backdrop of completely incidental “constellations” (ascribed to them by ancients who had no idea at all that “planets” were worlds like the Earth, and that “stars” were distant Suns like our own), gender ideology takes the existence and primacy of “gender identities” as foundational and axiomatic, an unreasoned, unjustified, and unquestioned faith position, rather than the end result of hard work and research to confirm an hypothesis.

I’ve never understood the power of this ridiculous ideology. I’ve never understood why so many formerly intelligent people rushed to sign up to it and demonize their friends who said no.

Neither do I. Not only its power to attract and maintain followers (given the manifest lunacy and contradictions it accepts with a straight face), but also the power and influence it has managed to acquire and wield. This unprecedented level of unaccountable, behind the scenes machinations have allowed it to enact huge parts of its agenda without review or oversight, as well given it the ability to shield itself from criticism, as well as recruit others to isolate, circumvent, and punish anyone it judges to be a critics or opponents. It might pass itself off as scientific, but with regards to power, it certainly behaves much more like religion, from the time when religion had more leverage than it does now. That supposed sceptics, secularists, humanists, progressives, and scientists, all of whom seem to know better in other areas, can fall prey to this unevidenced patchwork of bullshit continues to astound and dismay. For a field in which there’s no there there, genderism has a disturbingly large population of supporters, and an unfortunately well-equipped and active standing army.

Dreaming the impossible dream again:

Euphoria actress Hunter Schafer has said she no longer wants to play transgender roles. The 25-year-old transgender star shot to fame playing a trans character, Jules Vaughn, in HBO’s hit teen drama.

So he’s an actor and a he, and the BBC is lying to its readers in the usual way by calling him “she.”

Anyway. Trans actor Hunter doesn’t want to play trans characters any more. Ok; there are other jobs. Have a nice life, Hunter.

But Schafer said she felt she could go further as an actress by “not making it the centrepiece to what I’m doing”. She said: “I worked so hard to get to where I am, past these really hard points in my transition, and now I just want to be a girl and finally move on.”

He “just” wants to get jobs playing a woman when there are thousands upon thousands of actual women who want those jobs. The movie business is there to make money, not to validate guys like Hunter. He just wants to be a girl but he’s not a girl, so he wants the impossible. He just wants to “move on” from being trans, but the only place to move on to, for him, is being a man.

Speaking to GQ magazine, Schafer said being known simply as a “trans actress” was “ultimately demeaning to me and what I want to do”. She continued: “I’ve been offered tons of trans roles, and I just don’t want to do it. I don’t want to talk about it.

Well tough shit, kid. You can’t have it both ways. If you find it “demeaning” to be known as a trans actress, you could always stop being a trans actress. Tragic reality: more people want to be famous rich movie stars than actually are famous rich movie starts. Lots more.

In other news…

This is exactly the escalation in the simmering conflict between Iran, its proxies and Israel that everyone feared: a direct attack by one nation against another.

For nearly two weeks Iran’s security establishment has been mulling its response to the 1 April airstrike on its consulate in Damascus, widely assumed to be the work of Israel, that killed several top Iranian commanders. Clearly, a decision was reached that such a major escalation – an attack that flattened a diplomatic building and therefore sovereign Iranian territory – called for an escalatory response.

Israel has several layers of air defences and it has vowed to respond to any attack on its soil and it will. The risk now is that this tit-for-tat continues to escalate into a full-blown regional war, something most governments in the region have been trying hard to avoid ever since the Hamas-led attack on Israel on 7 October.

And that the regional war continues to escalate into a global war and before long there is nothing left of Planet Earth.

Ruth Hunt’s “Who, me?? Never!!” is not going down very well.

Hannah Barnes in The New Statesman:

[Hannah Barnes is associate editor of the New Statesman and author of “Time to Think: The Inside Story of the Collapse of the Tavistock’s Gender Service for Children” (Swift)]

The report confirms that the majority of children referred to Gids had complex needs, and alongside their gender-related distress were often contending with other difficulties: anxiety, depression, eating disorder and autism were all over-represented when compared with what you would see in the general children’s population.

It also vindicates what so many former Gids staff have been saying for years: that there was no consistency in its clinical approach; that some assessments – prior to referral for puberty blockers – could be just one or two sessions long; that there was wide variation between clinicians; that “sexuality was not consistently discussed”; that assessments lacked structure; and that “there was a lack of evidence of professional curiosity” as to how a child’s specific circumstances may impact on their gender identity and decisions.

…

Cass describes how several staff in adult gender clinics have “contacted the Review in confidence with concerns about their experiences working in adult gender services”. These clinicians, from NHS gender clinics across the country, describe how a large proportion of patients have “various combinations of confusion about sexuality, psychosis, neurodevelopmental disorders, trauma and deprivation… and a range of other undiagnosed conditions”, yet there was an expectation that they would be started on hormones by their second appointment.

It’s very odd, isn’t it. Wouldn’t you think all these other issues would prompt the medics to be very cautious about prescribing puberty blockers as opposed to prompting them to rush to do so?

Perhaps the most shameful thing detailed in the final Cass review is the revelation that NHS adult gender services – paid for by the tax-payer – have refused to cooperate in sharing data that would improve the evidence base for this group of people. The review had aimed to track what happened to the 9,000 young people who had gone through Gids, with the government even changing the law to help researchers do this. But the gender clinics refused to help. Follow-up is standard practice in the NHS, Cass explains, but “has not been the case for gender-questioning children and young people”. Finding out how thousands of young people had fared after receiving different help represented “a unique opportunity” to provide more evidence to help gender-questioning young people and their families make informed decisions about what might be the right treatment pathway for them.

It is baffling that those working in services purportedly aiming to help these same people have refused to help make their care better, safer and more evidence-based. “I don’t understand the reasons why they wouldn’t cooperate,” Cass told me. Some of the clinics raised issues about ethics – yet the research design had been granted official ethical approval; others raised issues about it requiring extra resources, but NHS England said it would pay for it. “So, it is mystifying to me,” Cass said. “Particularly when you would expect that they would be curious about outcomes for the patient cohort going through, and if they are confident in the management approach, they would want to be able to demonstrate that.”

It has a kind of Jonestown feel to it – that they were all addled by the same bizarre atmosphere as each other, and all bumbled over the same cliff.

Staff from Gids have been making these points for almost a decade. Two decades if you go back to the very first whistle-blower who raised concerns before puberty blockers were given to under 16s. Some in the media have amplified those concerns, too, as have women’s rights activists, former Gids service users, and parents. Those who have spoken out should be applauded. But, we should be asking the question: where has everyone else been?

What about all the others who have not spoken out? Those who were told what was going on, who saw what was going on, and did nothing. The NHS, the government and political classes, the media.

Jonestown is everywhere?

I don’t have anything more intelligent to offer. I’ve never understood the power of this ridiculous ideology. I’ve never understood why so many formerly intelligent people rushed to sign up to it and demonize their friends who said no.

Again with the re-wording.

Doc Stock asked for examples of Stonewall doing its thing, which has made for a highly useful thread full of sources. One item gives us yet another lie about what the trans ideology is about:

Second paragraph under “We stand up for people”:

“We do draw a line with regard to questioning whether trans people deserve the same level of equality as any other group.”

NOBODY SAYS trans people don’t deserve the same level of equality as any other group. NOBODY. There is no campaign to Make Trans People Less Equal. That’s not the issue, that’s not what it’s about, that’s not what anyone says.

What does it tell us, that they do this so relentlessly?

It tells us that they can’t defend their actual demands, so they translate them into ones that sound familiar and reasonable.

Forcing everyone to play along with people’s fantasies about themselves has nothing whatsoever to do with equality. NOTHING. It also has nothing to do with human rights except when it cancels them for other people. If you think women have a right to exclude men in some circumstances then trans ideology cancels that right.

It’s very very very telling that Stonewall and others consistently do this, because it tells us they realize, on some level, that what they’re actually campaigning for is indefensible.

Welp.

Stonewall tried to suppress early warnings to schools about the shaky evidence base for medical transitions for children, The Times can reveal.

Not just ignore; not just dispute; not just dismiss; suppress.

Speaking for the first time since the publication of the Cass review, Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green insisted that Stonewall had always supported calls for evidence-based medicine during her leadership from 2014 to 2019.

That buzzing you hear? That’s gender-critical types exclaiming “Like hell it did!!”

However, when campaigners sent out resource packs to schools in 2018 warning teachers that there was little medical evidence to support puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, Stonewall sought to have them removed from schools.

The evidence-led approach advocated by the resource pack was sent out to thousands of schools by the pressure group Transgender Trend in February 2018. Much of its content has since been upheld by Dr Hilary Cass in her landmark review.

The pressure group Stonewall has some explaining to do.

The resource pack warned about autism and mental health issues, and the sudden spike in girls joining the gender mania.

It advised them to be cautious if supporting a pupil’s social transition, pointing out that “very few come off the path of increasingly invasive medical treatments once they start” and reminded them of their safeguarding and legal responsibilities. It also advised school leaders to resist offers by external activist organisations to “mentor” children in this complex area.

Advised them to be cautious! How scandalous! Obviously it’s the right thing to be reckless and in a great big hurry to persuade children to ruin their bodies and futures.

In response, Stonewall Scotland told its tens of thousands of followers on Twitter/X: “We, in the strongest possible terms, denounce and condemn this publication. If it lands on your desk, do the right thing: shred it.”

A further Stonewall statement branded the pack as “dangerous” material, “masquerading as a professional, ‘evidence-based’ advice. One thing we want every educator to be clear on is that they must have nothing to do with this deeply damaging publication.”

That’s so fascinating, because what did Stonewall think it was doing? If it’s “masquerading” to urge caution before letting children ruin their bodies, what is it to urge children to ruin their bodies? Eh? How is it that Stonewall has every right to urge children to do drastic life-altering things while others have no right to urge caution? Why did Stonewall think the default was go ahead and mess up your body, and the evil deviation was slow down and use caution before messing up your body?

Hunt, who stepped down in August 2019, has denied that her organisation suppressed debate around transgender healthcare. “If we thought it was bad guidance, and it is, we were right to tell people we thought it was bad guidance,” she said, referring to its scepticism around the concept of a “trans child”.

But you thought it was bad guidance and it isn’t. That’s the problem. Not that you thought it was bad guidance, and it is, but that you thought it was bad guidance, and it isn’t. Do you get it now? You’re the ones who put out the bad guidance. Not those other people; you.

[Hunt] denied that she had ever supported “no debate”, adding: “I’m absolutely someone who has always been working in the middle ground, trying to build consensus.”

Hunt’s critics may contrast that position with her response in October 2018 to a petition asking Stonewall to acknowledge there was a conflict around transgender rights and sex-based women’s rights. She wrote: “We do not and will not acknowledge this. Doing so would imply that we do not believe that trans people deserve the same rights as others. We will always debate issues that enable us to further equality but what we will not do is debate trans people’s right to exist.”

And there it is again, The Big Lie. There’s the implication that gender skeptics wanted genocide for trans people. There’s the sneaky malevolent lie that feminist women hope to see trans people killed. That’s her “middle ground, trying to build consensus.”

Talk about mission creep…

Amnesty International put out a press release announcing Cass review on gender identity is being ‘weaponised’ by anti-trans groups.

What does the Cass review have to do with Amnesty International? And what does Amnesty have to do with the Cass review? Does AI now see itself as simply The Correct Ones, there to rebuke the wicked and sanctify the good, “wicked” and “good” according to Amnesty itself of course?

In response to the sensationalised coverage surrounding the independent review of gender identity services for children and young people by the paediatrician Hilary Cass, Amnesty International UK and Liberty, said:

“All children have the right to access specialist effective care on time and must be afforded the privacy to make decisions that are appropriate for them in consultation with a specialist.  

“This review is being weaponised by people who revel in spreading disinformation and myths about healthcare for trans young people.

“It’s concerning that sections of the media and many politicians continue to spread moral panic with no regard for the possible consequences for trans people and their families.

Well, Ams, guess what: it’s “concerning” that you are talking venomous shit about people who are trying to keep children and teenagers from having their bodies and lives ruined by a deranged fad for sexual mutilation. Where’s your regard for the possible consequences for people labeled “trans” and their families?

“The negative rhetoric by the Government about the dangers of so-called gender ideology, healthcare for young trans people, as well as the push against LGBT-inclusive sex and relationship education is harmful and extremely damaging. It is no different from the ultra-conservative and evangelical groups pushing for discriminatory laws targeting trans people in the United States.

“Scapegoating trans people is harmful and dangerous. The Government should protect everyone’s human rights rather than exploit the diverse experiences of trans people to score points.”

Amnesty sneers at the label “gender ideology” in the very act of promoting and attempting to enforce it. It is gender ideology to call mutilation “healthcare.” It is scapegoating to pretend that all dissenters are ultra-conservative and evangelical. Amnesty is talking this dishonest crap to “score points.”

What a disgusting spectacle.

16 Candles felony charges:

I don’t think she’s out on bail.

This isn’t how it’s done:

Critical thinking and open debate are pillars of scientific and medical research. Yet experienced professionals are increasingly scared to openly discuss their views on the treatment of children questioning their gender identity. This was the conclusion drawn by Hilary Cass in her review of gender identity services for children this week, which warned that a toxic debate had resulted in a culture of fear.

Why are the professionals scared? Why is the debate toxic? Why is there a culture of fear?

We all know. We’ve been watching it for years. It’s because of the staggering level of bullying that the rah-rah-trans side goes in for.

Her conclusion was echoed by doctors, academic researchers and scientists, who have said this climate has had a chilling effect on research in an area that is in desperate need of better evidence.

Some said they had been deterred from pursuing what they believed to be crucial studies, saying that merely entering the arena would put their reputation at risk. Others spoke of abuse on social media, academic conferences being shut down, biases in publishing and the personal cost of speaking out.

It’s another loop of futility. The area desperately needs better evidence but can’t get it because they will be fiercely punished if they try, so the area needs better evidence even more desperately, and on the cycle goes. The area was founded on nonsense and is enforced by inquisitors, so the nonsense keeps getting more nonsensical and the inquisitors keep getting more ferocious and dishonest.

Another senior researcher in endocrinology, who wished to remain anonymous, said medical professionals had resorted to sharing concerns and views on anonymous WhatsApp groups.

“The bad-mouthing and the social media destruction of people’s reputation and careers is so damning,” the academic said. “Professional people are worried about how they will be characterised on social media and cannot express dissent without it resulting in very aggressive, inappropriate behaviours. It’s causing people to stop talking and just move away from it and not get involved.”

She added: “This isn’t how good scientific debate happens – it happens when people can talk honestly and without fear.”

So the debate will continue to get worse and worse and worse, and thus more ferociously enforced, and thus worse again, rinse and repeat.

Originally a comment by Screechy Monkey on 14 when he knew.

The BBC has gotten so used to the mantra that (clap) trans (clap) kids (clap) are (clap) who they say they are (clap clap clap) that they can’t shake it even when reporting on a story about how the medicine actually doesn’t say that.

Imagine if a report came out that said that it appeared that oncologists were over-prescribing chemotherapy, and that the medical evidence strongly shows that it’s not appropriate in many cases in which it’s being used.

Would the BBC rush to interview cancer patients for their “opinions” on the medicine? No doubt some patients would have opinions (“I had chemo, and I think it saved my life!”), but would they be newsworthy? Would they be relevant to a story about what the medical practice should be?

When mainstream media outlets report on anti-vaxxers, they usually make an effort to draw the contrast. It’s not “immunologists and virologists and public health experts say the COVID vaccines are safe and effective, but American football star Aaron Rodgers says otherwise, so who can say?”

The Beeb rushes to chat with a “trans man” about how hurty it all is.

Trans young people say they feel “disappointed” and “ignored” by the Cass Review into gender care.

No, really??!

They’ve been taught to feel that, Beeb. They’ve been taught by you among others. You’re teaching more people by writing this stupid story.

Sean Donovan was 14 when he knew he had gender dysphoria, but was not able to access puberty blockers which he said could have saved him “so much trauma”.

Or could have wrecked “his” life.

The review recommended a “holistic assessment” of a child’s needs, including “screening for neurodevelopmental conditions, including autism spectrum disorder, and a mental health assessment”. Mr Donovan said none of this would have helped him, he just needed transition support.

And of course Mr Donovan knows that with absolute certainty and there is no way “he” could be wrong about any or all of it.

Another win for magic gender:

The German parliament has passed a law making it easier for citizens and residents to legally change gender. It’s also introducing hefty fines – in specific circumstances – for disclosing someone’s prior registered name or gender without consent.

Hefty fines for mentioning someone’s actual sex? Really? So men can force themselves on, say, women’s hostels or refuges or rape crisis centers and no one is allowed to “disclose” the fact that he’s a man?

Previously, changing your registered gender required a doctor’s certificate and the approval of a family court. Now over-18s can change to male, female or diverse, a third gender option that already exists under German law…The intentional and harmful disclosure of someone’s prior name or legal gender could attract a fine of up to €10,000.

Despite the fact that women often need to know who is a man and who isn’t. Yawn; women don’t matter.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz said: “We show respect to trans, intersex and non-binary people – without taking anything away from others. This is how we continue to drive the modernisation of our country. This includes recognising realities of life and making them possible by law.”

Recognizing what “realities of life”? Not the reality that men are not women, for one.

Nyke Slawik, from the Greens – who is transgender – said it was a “first step” towards a society which allows self-determination for trans people.

But we can’t have that kind of “self-determination.” It’s not possible. We can’t self-determine ourselves into raccoons or planets or airports or an endless list of things we’re not. We can’t make ourselves into reptiles or fruits or furniture. Our scope for self-determination is sharply limited. Sentimental airy glurge about unlimited “self-determination” is infantilizing. Knock it off.

Trans ideologues refused to show their evidence.

The NHS’s most senior adviser on transgender health refused to share data about his clinic’s patients with the Cass Review. Dr Hilary Cass said efforts to track the journeys of around 9,000 children who went on to be seen by adult services were “thwarted” by the refusal of clinics to provide evidence.

Researchers were trying to establish the long-term consequences of medical interventions by seeking data from adult clinics, which take patients from the age of 16. Six of the seven clinics which run adult gender services refused to comply with the request.

Thus revealing themselves to be not “clinics” at all but political headquarters. Transitude is all in the head, so evidence is beside the point; all that matters is loyalty, determination, omertà.

They include the Nottingham Centre for Transgender Health, one of the leading centres in the country. Dr Derek Glidden, its clinical director, refused to comply despite being NHS England’s gender dysphoria national speciality adviser.

He chairs the NHS England Clinical Reference Group on gender dysphoria, while another of its five members, Dr Laura Charlton, the clinical lead at Leeds Gender Identity Clinic, also refused to participate in the research.

Why would they refuse to share data? Why would they handicap the research?

My guess is because at bottom they don’t see it as a matter of research but as a political movement. If trans is political rather than medical then data and research are beside the point; loyalty and commitment are all.

Labour Quislings stand by their hatred of women:

Angela Rayner has declined to apologise for endorsing a charter describing feminist organisations that raised fears about the treatment of trans children as “hate groups”.

When Ms Rayner stood to be the deputy Labour leader in 2020, she backed a trans rights charter that described bodies including Women’s Place UK, which campaigns for single-sex rape refuges for women, as “trans-exclusionist hate groups”.

In other words, prominent Labour woman backed a charter of “rights” for men who pretend to be women while she called women who defend women’s rights “hate groups.” In other other words she’s a contemptible traitor to women.

High-profile Labour figures have previously made remarks endorsing the views of trans activists, including Sir Keir Starmer, the party leader, who in 2022 said that “trans women are women”.

And he’s not taking it back now.

Two years ago he said: “A woman is a female adult, and, in addition to that, trans women are women, and that is not just my view, that is actually the law.”

On Wednesday, Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, said he had been wrong to say in the past that “trans women are women, get over it”.

Labour is full of assholes, get over it.

The charter signed by Ms Rayner called on signatories to “organise and fight against transphobic organisations such as Woman’s Place UK, LGB Alliance and other trans-exclusionist hate groups”.

In short women are politically homeless. We have to unplug feminism and restart it, and it’s going to take years.

The Guardian thinks it needs to inform us that

CEO of female-only app would not address trans woman as ‘Ms’, Sydney court hears

That’s because he’s a man, Guardian. What’s your point? (I mean that in the largest possible sense, as well as the ordinary one.)

A court has heard that the founder and CEO of a women-only social media app will not address a transgender woman as “Ms”, saying “I don’t think it’s kind to expect a woman to see a man as a woman”.

It’s not “kind” and it’s also not reasonable.

[Tickle’s counsel, Georgina Costello KC] asked Grover if she would “call her Ms Tickle in real life?”

“No,” Grover answered. When asked if that was kind, Grover said: “I don’t think that it’s kind to expect a woman to see a man as a woman.”

What does that even have to do with anything? They’re in a courtroom, not nursery school. Since when are adults supposed to be showily dramatically “kind” to each other? Or rather since when are female adults supposed to be showily dramatically “kind” to men who claim to be women? How about men being kind to women for a change?

As part of her argument, Costello described a transgender woman who had a female birth certificate, hormone therapy, breasts, gender affirmation surgery, wore makeup and women’s clothes, had a woman’s hairstyle and used women’s facilities.

“I suggest to you that that is a woman in our society,” said Costello.

Oh ffs. I could describe a giraffe that had a female birth certificate, hormone therapy, breasts, gender affirmation surgery, wore makeup and women’s clothes, had a woman’s hairstyle and used specially-made women’s facilities. None of that would make the giraffe a woman. This stuff is so childish. Playing dressup does not make you the thing you dress up as. It’s great fun to pretend it does when you’re a child, but doing that as an adult is a whole different kettle of giraffes. We used to know this. Really: we did.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Send us your best.

In reality, the problem has never been disagreement about how to care for trans children and young people.

Bullshit. If you can’t define it, how do you treat it? In reality, the problem has been in immediately deciding children with any degree of dysphoria are “trans,” desistance and detransitioners be damned. How do you decide who qualifies as “trans”? What’s the test? What are the criteria? Desistance and detransition are huge red flags showing that somebody has got it wrong. They should be a valuable source of refinement and calibration of “trans” diagnoses, not shameful failures to be swept aside and demonized. If someone “wasn’t really trans to start with,” how do you decide who is?

Quite apart from the determination of the correct target group of patients, the “treatment” itself is flawed and problematic. Puberty blockers are not a “pause button” that allows children or youth to “make up their minds.” Given the evidence of stunted cognitive development, puberty blockers literally prevent their minds from being made. There is no “wrong” puberty, just the one and only one your body has been aiming for since conception. If you miss the train, or fail to hit the mark, there is no other puberty available to you. These children can never have a “choice” of which puberty they will have; it’s one per customer, take it or remain unfinished and malformed. Treating puberty as a preventable disease, or like a flavour of ice cream, is not a very good idea. The body’s gonna do what the body’s gonna do. Interfering with that (without an actual disease or disorder being present) is not going to end well. Selling someone an impossible fantasy is not “care.” Better a difficult truth than an easy lie. So yes, there’s always been disagreement, because your idea of “care” is a ticket to life-long body horror.

Another Guardian piece today from the same reporter, Robyn Vinter:

Trans children in England worse off now than four years ago, says psychologist

As if it’s just settled fact that there are “trans children.”

Transgender children are being left in a “far worse position” than before the Cass report, with a service that is “going backwards instead of forwards”, according to a psychologist who has set up a private gender service.

Dr Aiden Kelly, a clinical psychologist specialising in gender who was part of the team at the Tavistock and Portman NHS mental health trust’s gender identity development services (Gids), said he was “very, very worried” about the NHS’s ability to deliver a suitable gender service based on the findings of the Cass review.

I wonder if this reporter has an agenda at all.

“We’re in a far worse position than we were four years ago,” he said. “The Cass review and NHS England’s policy updates, and the kind of measures and decisions they’ve made in terms of what to do with services, how to set up services – or not, as the case may be – means we’re in a far worse position.”

Got that? Should she have said it a third time?

Kelly, who now runs an independent gender service, Gender Plus, with some former colleagues, said there was an “unjustifiable” level of caution from the Cass report that did not match his experience in the service and that poor outcomes had been overemphasised, leaving England “out of step” with the rest of the world.

He said: “It’s important to remember that people carrying out this expert review have never worked in gender. The people who actually know the work, and have been doing the work for a long period of time, don’t hold that level of caution and fear.”

Ah yes. And people who work in, say, the tobacco industry don’t hold that level of caution and fear about the health effects of smoking, because their livelihood depends on their not holding it.