Submitted by elimial t3_11i9heq in philosophy
Jess3200 t1_jax8ouz wrote
Reply to comment by elimial in Žižek Has Lost the Plot by elimial
>Puberty blockers were administered to almost all children sent for assessment at Tavistock
This is so patently false, the rest of his commentary is brought into question.
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jaxdn0b wrote
>This is so patently false, the rest of his commentary is brought into question.
I'm not sure you can blame him, it's what all the articles about Tavistock were saying, and it doesn't seem like they have retracted or corrected it.
I mean it sounds crazy, but isn't that why the Tavistock clinic was closed down?
​
>Puberty blockers were given to almost all children sent for assessment by Tavistock clinic
>
>
>
>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/20/puberty-blockers-given-almost-children-sent-assessment-tavistock/
innocuousEclair t1_jaxpfr1 wrote
No, and I wouldn't be too eager to trust the British press on anything involving transgender people.
ghostxxhile t1_jaznuiw wrote
innocuousEclair t1_jazz077 wrote
Yes, even the Guardian. It was so bad there that at one point the Guardian in America said something.
ghostxxhile t1_jazzpyf wrote
The issue isn’t with Trans rights, it’s about private clinic contracted by the NHS handed out hormone treatment to children without thorough examination from the view of a senior consultant whose heads of Trust tried to silence. If there practice was so morally sound they would have allowed transparency in the report and wouldn’t have tried to shut him down.
This about consent of the child, not being pushed by doctors bankrolled by a public sector contract or pushy parents and be careful and being sure.
The somehow idea that this is against trans rights lack nuance. It isn’t a case of denying treatment, it’s about being damn sure that there isn’t any other underlying mental health issues that maybe spurring the dysphoria like autism, depression or other such things.
innocuousEclair t1_jb00e7r wrote
Stranger, I'm quite sure you aren't reading what I'm saying. I'm talking about bias in the British press. Getting some facts right while spinning them to paint transness in a negative light is still anti-trans. The problem with trans healthcare in the UK is not that too many kids were getting drugs, but that so few trans youth were being seen compared to the number of referrals. The wait lists for first assessments are astronomically high.
ghostxxhile t1_jb00vye wrote
Yes I have no doubt there are various publications presenting the closure of the Tavistock clinic as a means to promote anti-trans idealogy however the point in question, from what I understand is where the closure of Tavistock just and whether it’s practice was sound.
It’s a tragedy that Trans kids face these waiting lists but so is every other sector, including those with cancer, so it’s fundamentally how poor the NHS is being run that is the main problem.
innocuousEclair t1_jb05fww wrote
Its practice wasn't sound. There is no sound public healthcare option for trans people, let alone trans youth, in the UK.
ghostxxhile t1_jb0pxqf wrote
What is sound healthcare for trans youth then?
innocuousEclair t1_jb0rd5b wrote
ghostxxhile t1_jb0rfem wrote
thanks
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jazuwzq wrote
Isn't this just what the right do, pretend any news they don't like is fake news?
innocuousEclair t1_jazxmm2 wrote
Feel free to dig into the issue and I'm sure you'll agree. There's nothing pretend about the anti-trans bias in the British press.
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jazy2dp wrote
When they say stuff like the following, that sounds fairly unbiased and objective.
>The NHS gender identity service’s own data shows that 96 per cent of children
Also it's strange to treat all major press including far left media as having an anti-trans bias.
The words anti-trans and transphobic are just thrown around soo much that they have lost all meaning. So when you say that all British media are anti-trans, I have no idea if they actually are anti-trans or if they used some facts you don't like.
innocuousEclair t1_jazysy8 wrote
When I say there's an anti-trans bias in the British press, I don't mean they're using "facts I don't like", I mean that the British press is well-known by the trans community for sensationalizing, fear-mongering, and spinning stories to paint trans people in a negative light.
EstablishmentRude493 t1_jb0xoax wrote
Is your argument that other journalistic outlets reported on the supposed anti-transness of the british press?
e/ for clarity, I do not mean to imply that there is NO anti-trans bias. But I want to get a concrete engagement on the subject as a evidence/clue, not a corporate created algorithm.
innocuousEclair t1_jb0yd2o wrote
I am showing that it was bad enough that a media outlet's American branch felt it necessary to point out. I don't need any media company to report on anti-trans bias in the British press, I can read and see it for myself. If you can't see it after doing some reading for yourself, then you and I are not operating with a shared definition of what it means to have an anti-trans bias. There's nothing supposed about it. It's there in black and white.
Jess3200 t1_jaxl2x1 wrote
Not blaming, but holding to account. He is a very intelligent man, capable of doing his research. Not reading a mainstream media article critically is a tad suspicious of a man renowned for being critical...
The Tavistock was closed down for, essentially, being oversubscribed. The interim report goes into more nuanced detail, of course.
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jazkxb5 wrote
>The Tavistock was closed down for, essentially, being oversubscribed. The interim report goes into more nuanced detail, of course.
That's just seems like a misleading retelling of history.
If it was solely just closed for being oversubscribed, wouldn't it make sense to wait until the replacement centres were set up first.
Let's look as statement from Cass who is writing the report.
​
>Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust has been told to shut the clinic by spring after it was criticised in an independent review.
>
>Dr Hilary Cass, said the Tavistock clinic needed to be transformed.
>
>She said the current model of care was leaving young people "at considerable risk" of poor mental health and distress, and having one clinic was not "a safe or viable long-term option".
>
>Dr Cass's report said there was a lack of understanding about why the type of patients the clinic was seeing was changing, with more female to male patients and more autistic children. Dr Cass also highlighted inconclusive evidence to back some of the clinical decision making.
>
>But in 2020, questions about the service were raised after it was rated "inadequate" by inspectors,
>
>In an interim report earlier this year, Dr Cass said:
>
>The service was struggling to deal with spiralling waiting lists
>
>It was not keeping "routine and consistent" data on its patients
>
>Health staff felt under pressure to adopt an "unquestioning affirmative approach"
>
>Once patients are identified as having gender-related distress, other healthcare issues they had, such as being neurodivergent, "can sometimes be overlooked"
>
>She then suggested introducing local hubs, writing that the current provider model "is not a safe or viable long-term option".
>
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62335665
Jess3200 t1_jb09vpc wrote
Odd. I provided a direct link to the actual report, yet you seem to be quoting from a BBC news piece here...and after I named how suspicious it was the Zizek did the very same.
The actual report spells out the concerns re: how overwhelmed the service was, how frustrated many young people accessing the service were with this and how certain professionals within the service felt their voices weren't being heard. It's clear that the first of these is the most important in the service not being able to meet demand and expectation.
I'd encourage everyone to read the report for themselves.
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jb0bt7q wrote
>Odd. I provided a direct link to the actual report, yet you seem to be quoting from a BBC news piece here...and after I named how suspicious it was the Zizek did the very same.
If the article is quoting directly from the person who wrote the report or from the report itself I don't see the issue.
Anyway here is a similar quote directly from the report you linked.
​
>Primary and secondary care staff
>
>have told us that they feel under pressure
>
>to adopt an unquestioning affirmative
>
>approach and that this is at odds with the
>
>standard process of clinical assessment
>
>and diagnosis that they have been trained
>
>to undertake in all other clinical encounters
>
>https://cass.independent-review.uk/publications/interim-report/
​
>I'd encourage everyone to read the report for themselves.
Sure, if people believe the BBC is lying they can also do something similar and look up those points from the report itself.
Edit: The interim report clearly mentions failings. Anyone who actually reads it should be in no doubt that Tavistock was shut down partially for it's failings rather than solely because it was oversubscribed.
Jess3200 t1_jb0dksl wrote
They should also recognise that it's failings were largely due to it being oversubscribed. No service can work efficiently when overwhelmed.
ghostxxhile t1_jazo0n1 wrote
>Among these concerns were the fact that children attending GIDS often seemed to be rehearsed and sometimes did not share their parents’ sense of urgency; that senior staff spoke of “straightforward cases” in terms of children who were to be put on puberty blockers (no case of gender dysphoria, notes Bell, can be said to be straightforward); that some were recommended for treatment after just two appointments and seen only infrequently thereafter; some felt that GIDS employed too many inexperienced (and inexpensive) psychologists; that clinicians who’d spoken of homophobia in the unit were told they had “personal issues”. One told Bell that a child as young as eight had been referred to an endocrinologist for treatment. “I could not go on like this… I could not live with myself given the poor treatment the children were obtaining,” said another.
This is from Dr Bell, one of the senior consultants at Tavistock in an Guardian interview
Jess3200 t1_jb09vs6 wrote
As with the other person who commented, I find it a little odd that you would choose to reference a mainstream media piece rather than the actual report - that I shared a direct link to...
The Guardian also has a bit of a reputation for transphobia and Dr Bell is a dubious source, as he employs a psychoanalytic viewpoint - which is quite, to put it mildly, out of date.
As with my other response, I encourage everyone to read the actual report.
ghostxxhile t1_jb0oor8 wrote
There is nothing strange about the comment. It’s in a response to yours and another’s stating that children weren’t given testosterone which they were. Secondly, the point was also made that no mainstream media could be trusted, which I agree wholeheartedly on the most part but even a progressive and inclusive newspaper reported on the topic and hosted Bell.
The Guardian is the most progressive newspaper in the UK and are very inclusive of trans people and rights. This is household knowledge.
Why would a senior consultant choose to make a report which loose him his job? He had nothing to gain and everything to loose.
Thirdly, if psychoanalysis is should not be used to assess the mental status of patient then what over method should be used? Firstly, he raised concerns of that other staff confided in him and secondly he says that a majority of the children coming in had autism, depression etc and that those should be explored first before prescribing hormonal treatment that can change someone’s life forever. If you have ever seen the accounts of young of those who have detransitioned it’s just as tragic to hear the accounts of those who are transitioning and facing all kinds of problems. I find it strange to discredit this viewpoint when it seeks to do the least amount of harm as possible.
He has also worked at the clinic for over 20 years as a senior consultant. If he was out of date then why was he in such a high position of judgement and why did staff feel they could confide in him for his expertise?
We have to also remember that the clinic is a private clinic contracted by the NHS. Before their contract they had 80 cases a year and then increased to over a thousand which increased their income.You can understand why the heads of the Trust were so concerned with Dr Bell launching a investigation and why they were so eager to shut Bell down. At the end of the day, their are institution out to make money, and to discredit their practice would potentially loose them that money.
Jess3200 t1_jb1guz1 wrote
There's plenty strange, especially as I have not suggested no child was prescribed testosterone whilst under the care of the Tavistock - this is something you have imagined.
The Guardian may be progressive, but most 'gender critical' individuals identify as left-wing - transphobia isn't limited to the right of politics. The Guardian is in no way "very inclusive" of trans folk^(1)^(,)^(2)^(,)^(3)^(,)^(4).
Plenty of people choose their principles over their employment. That doesn't always mean their principles are valid...just ask any 'Christian' baker who gave up their business instead of putting two little men on top of a cake.
The method that should be employed is something that requires development (as outlined in the report). From personal experience working with trans-identified young people, I would argue a systemic and existential approach can work well to support exploration in this cohort. I also think we need to be very careful not to fall into ableism by assuming autism must be explored. I think it's necessary to include it in any formulation, but it in no way should single an individual out for 'special measures'. As for depression existing in someone with gender dysphoria - come on, that's part of the diagnosis.
Detranistioners do deserve compassion and support, but it's important to always remember that regret rates for this particular cohort are very small. More research is needed, but denying appropriate care to gender dysphoric children because some may regret this is about as fair as denying someone in agony pain meds because some people are scamming to get free drugs.
Some staff spoke to Dr Bell - the majority seem not to have agreed with him.
I admit there may be some political motivation on the part of the NHS to downplay dissent. However, if we're allowing for that we also have to allow for political motivation in the likes of Dr Bell in wanting to shut down a clinic at odds with his personal ideology.
ghostxxhile t1_jb1k8i3 wrote
Your original comment was in reply to another that says ‘all children were administered testosterone blockers’ and then was followed by other comments stating that no child was given blockers, which may be an honest mistake on my part in that you were replying to the ‘all children’ part of that statement.
You have cited four articles out of many, many pages of pro-trans articles on their website. Hardly enough to describe a the most progressive newspaper transphobic. In fact, it’s quite ridiculous.
Your example is silly. We’re talking about health practitioners who have chosen to purposefully work in a gender dysphoria clinic who are concerned about the methods and practice of the institution applied to children. Is honestly fair to say their concern is out of ideology or malice?
There is no falling into ableism because that isn’t the point. The point is that majority of the patients were young girls who had signs of autism. Now the question MUST be asked, what is the connection with young girls with autism who claim they have gender dysphoria? You cannot ignore that correlation.
A small percent yes however that small percent may never be able to recover back the functions of their birth gender like being able to have a child. Should we really be practising a utilitarian approach to this or should we should try to reduce as much harm as possible? In case of the latter is it not sensible and more consensual and informed to allow these children to make their own decision once they become a consenting adult? This of course does not mean we do affirm the gender they identify but rather halt all life-changing drugs and treatment until they can make a decision as an adult. Many of those who detransition, if you watch their testimonial, blame the adults in their life for pushing them to take these treatments and we simply should allow these children to have face the horror that they will never recover just because we favour the majority.
Again, the majority does mean that the consensus is right nor truthful and we do not know if those staff were scared to loose their job considering the backlash Bell received.
I personally buy Bell having a political ideology against the clinic considering he’s worked there for 20 years and as I said has everything to loose. His main concern was that the clinic became less about care and more about handing treatment to those who came in without proper and thorough evaluation.
Jess3200 t1_jb1qvlg wrote
I did not say the Guardian was transphobic, only that it has a reputation for being so. You keep taking my tempered statements and making them absolute - I wonder why that might be. Doing so once may be a mistake, but repeatedly doing so…
My example isn’t silly. He was a governor of the entire Tavistock service, and not specifically the gender identity clinic - thus, it is perfectly reasonable to posit that he worked in such a position due to his interest in psychoanalysis and not gender identity. He may therefore be motivated by outdated notions of gender development and personal ideology. Again, this is the sort of nuance lost in Zizek and in responses I have received here.
The point is that the majority of patients being see by the Tavistock do not have autism. Their own data indicates that around 15% have a diagnosis of autism, whilst international data indicate between 10% and 25% of young people presenting at gender clinics have autism. This is far higher than the rate in cisgender populations (and would benefit from further research), but still far from being the majority. There’s also no indication that the majority, if any, of these autistic individuals are to be found in the adolescent girls seeking support - they might be, or they might be equally spread out amongst all the young people presenting at the clinic, or only in the boys seeking input. We simply don’t know. Your assumption here again is exactly what I was calling out Zizek for…
As for doing no harm - why is it always about doing no harm to the 3%-5% who might regret and never to the 95%-97% who won’t? There is harm in transitioning when this is not right for you and there is harm in being denied early transition when this is right for you. A ban on all transition related medical intervention for children and adolescents can cause real harm to those who will grow up to live as trans individuals - why no concern for them? Do we need to continue to develop our ability to identify who might fall into each group - absolutely. That doesn’t mean we ban all treatment for young people, however. That approach involves doing as much, if not more, harm than the alternative.
ghostxxhile t1_jb1utgb wrote
Differentiate between having a reputation of being x and is x? The two are very comparable and a more accurate way of phrasing would have been that the Guardian has published a few articles that have been deemed transphobic.
Your example of the Christian baker was silly. As to Bell, perhaps you are right but what type of person stays at a clinic for twenty-years whose practice he fundamentally disagrees with and then decided to launch a report at the end lf those twenty-years? Also, what is so wrong about requesting a report? Surely lack of nuance here is noting that the Trust did not want such report to be made at all which far more suspicious than Bell requesting one.
Sidenote: Bell is a psychiatrist and a psychoanalyst
The fact that autism is more prevalent in gender dysphoria than cis-gender people is still warrants the question of why that phenomena is the case and to go back to the point you made previously, it’s not about ableism, it’s about properly assessing each INDIVIDUAL, and not a mean, to see if that child is indeed experiencing genuine gender dysphoria before being administered hormonal treatment.
I honestly do not understand why there is retaliation to the idea of being thorough with each patient and ruling out all possible factors before allowing treatment. It’s seems like common sense but somehow lacks nuance.
Why should it cause more harm if they are with an environment where people affirm their gender? Why do we push the narrative to be your preferred gender then you need xyz. If gender is fluid and doesn’t pertain to genitalia then why is it so essential to have hormonal treatment or operation? You cannot have the cake and eat it to. The answer to this is to of course address the dysphoria, to allow them to express their preferred gender, to have their environment and those around them to affirm their preferred gender and take much less hands on approach until they become an adult. A child can note vote at 16 yet we somehow allow them to make a life changing decision? We either deem children responsible at such an age or we do not.
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jb0d8zx wrote
>The Guardian also has a bit of a reputation for transphobia
You know what, the word "transphobia" has completely loss all meaning with the way it's just basely thrown about.
It's like the boy who called wolf.
Jess3200 t1_jb0do4u wrote
Sure thing.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments