Thread by @SVPhillimore

It’s very important that those who support medical transition for children understand precisely what this will inevitably involve. The child being discussed here was 10 years old. There was no discussion about impact on fertility.

Why not? Because a 10 year old child has no conception of life as a sexually functioning adult. They are unable to consent to giving away their fertility and their sexual function.

Webberley argues that you don’t need to bother with that because all we are talking about are puberty blockers which are completely harmless and reversible! Ignore for the moment that no one has any idea the impact on a 10 year old who takes PB for next 4 years as advised here.

And consider WHY PB are prescribed in the first place. To prevent the development of secondary sex characteristics which may inhibit the child later ‘passing’ as the stereotype s/he is encouraged to aspire to be. The next stage is almost inevitably cross sex hormones.

Not even Webberley can argue that these are ‘irreversible’ but she does seem to argue it is perfectly natural to give a 12 year old girl artificial testosterone, at levels which her own body could never naturally produce.

The High Court in Bell v Tavistock were particularly struck by the 10 year old patient and a witness statement from a teenager who professed to have given no thought to their adult sexual function - ‘not on my radar’.

The reality is that the end game for those who support medical transition is for children to be routinely prescribed PB at a very young age. This is to ensure they are kept in perpetual childhood to make it easier to fashion a simulacrum of either male or female sex later on.

The emphasis is as ‘passing’ as either GI Joe or a Barbie doll. There is no consideration of the impact of all this on their minds, their emotions or what happens if they later regret.

This is what support for medical transition of children means. If you don’t think this is a good idea then please do speak up.