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 He may therefore be motivated by outdated notions of gender development and personal ideology.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.

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.

Sure thing.

They should also recognise that it's failings were largely due to it being oversubscribed. No service can work efficiently when overwhelmed.

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.

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.

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.

>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.