Thread by @Transgendertrd

All the accounts from ex and current GIDS staff are consistent: the most vulnerable children and young people are being put through an experimental medical regime due to pressure from parents & lobby groups, not clinical research and evidence. thetimes.co.uk/article/childr…

Kirsty Entwistle says they are “making decisions that will have a major impact on children and young people’s bodies and lives . . . without a robust evidence base”.
medium.com/@kirstyentwist…

"She said the service “minimised or dismissed” the fact that many of the children it saw were victims of parental abandonment, sexual abuse, domestic violence or extreme poverty."

If staff tried to “suggest that perhaps these early experiences might be connected to a child’s wish to transition”, Entwistle said, they “run the risk of being called transphobic”. The unspoken rule is "Gids clinicians do not tell families: ‘Your child is not transgender’”.

Patients are told blockers are "fully reversible." Entwistle says: “no one knows what the impacts are on children’s brains, so how is it possible to make this claim?” "In practice, nearly all those given the drugs go on to take irreversible sex-change hormones once they turn 16."

David Bell, who interviewed Gids clinicians, said "some children took up a trans identity “as a solution” to “multiple problems such as historic child abuse in the family, bereavement . . . homophobia and a very significant incidence of autism spectrum disorder”.

Melissa Midgen, Anna Hutchinson & Annastassis Spiladis have called for more research into Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, citing @LisaLittman1's groundbreaking first study as "resonating with our clinical experiences from within the consulting room." journals.plos.org/plosone/articl…

In their letter they say "In our experience, it is commonplace for clinicians to engage in conversations regarding this phenomenon" which is also "being observed in North America, Australia, and the rest of Europe." link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s…

They cite studies which show "a high level of comorbid psychological difficulty as well as psychosocial vulnerability" and "an over-representation of adolescent females with particularly complex needs presenting at gender clinics."

They conclude: "Unless we are free to discuss, explore, and research differential presentations of gender dysphoria, the range of interventions which might best serve each young person may not be available to them. We do not think that this is good enough for our patients."

We are also seeing psychiatrists challenging articles which promote the political narrative conflating T with LGB to justify the 'affirmative' approach. cambridge.org/core/journals/…

Damian Clifford points out that "gay people do not require any treatment, medical or surgical, this is not the case for trans people. All treatments need evidence to be delivered ethically."

Lucy Griffin & Katie Clyde pinpoint the dangers of #MOU2: "Any attempt for a clinician to affirm a patient’s gender-nonconformity whilst allowing for acceptance of their sexed body, is presumably considered ‘conversion therapy.’"

As more and more clinical professionals are speaking out publicly about serious failings in duty of care towards the most vulnerable young people, this issue can no longer be ignored out of political cowardice. Children are being harmed while politicians remain silent.