4 comments on “Risk and the “Trans-kids” Agenda

  1. Hard hitting and maybe harsh in places, but there are gaps in what I know from first hand experience of the event leading to these blog entries…for example I wasn’t aware of posts being deleted for reasons, it appears, other than tidying up typos. There was a post of mine in amongst all this that I now regret making – it makes me look bad – but someone has replied to it in the manner it deserved and which would look silly if I deleted mine. It seemed to me that the ethical thing to do was to leave it up and to accept responsibility for my intemperate post.

    I guess I agree with around 70% of what you say. 10% of where I disagree (in the sense that I would have said or done it differently) is where you stand your ground where I would have gone into peacemaker mode. The last 20% is a bit of a void where a view I held about intervention at puberty has been put on hold…I don’t have a view at the moment. My understanding, and I need to check this and other things, is that the experimental aspect of the proposed treatment is not a raw as you imply. Intervention at puberty is already practiced in parts of the globe and the Endocrine Society in the UK recommended the practice in its paper Guidelines on the Endocrine Treatment of Transsexuals, first draft dated, I think, 17 November 2008. I have been unable to track down the final draft and the date given may be suspect…but I have a PDF of the document.

    I need to rethink my position. In particular, I want to know about those adolescents who were prescribed blockers, but later withdrew from the programme. What happened to their psychological development? How many regretters are there? Have they been followed into adulthood? And if so, how did there interpersonal skills develop in a sexual context.

    I wasn’t going to link this widely. In the FB conversation you refer to, I know there were two or three people who supported what I said about Dreger, from which I infer agreement with or sympathy for those who develop outside the binary, but a reluctance to join a debate where pressing the loud button takes the place of rational conversation between mature adults.

    I plan to continue putting the case wherever I see the need to remind people that we do not all develop in the same way.

  2. You write:

    “Things have moved on a long way from there, but both traditional responses to transsexual and intersex gender and genital non-conformity respectively have their roots in this ideology. As a result, intersex people really have been erased by people maintaining this gender-conforming doctrine over the past 50 years or more, in a way most transsexuals cannot even start to imagine.”

    I would argue after immersing myself in the current diagnosis and treatment of intersex infants with the same form of CAH that I have; things have not moved on a long way from there. Doctors and parents collude to provide normalization surgeries on Prader 3-5 XX infants after invasive infant surgery to confirm ovarian tissue, and think only of the ‘normalcy’ they are imposing upon their children, which is still treated as an emergency in the obstetrics ward, and I remain shocked and appalled.

    • Thank you, I stand corrected. I should have said that the story we are told is that things have moved on from there. I am sure you are right, Louise. Until the evidence starts coming in, with the next generation of intersex adults, most of us will not be in any position to know what is really happening. So, thank you for raising this.

Comments are closed.