The Pushback against Leftism

You clearly have not read the full coverage of the Dr Cass' report on the Tavistock clinic.

You are misrepresenting the clinic as if to say, "Well, it was busy and so it was understaffed and bad decisions were made". If that were the full extent of the Tavistock report, then every hospital and clinic in the country would get shut down because they suffer from precisely the same problems.

No, this wasn't about being understaffed or not having sufficient resources. The clinic was closed on far, far greater grounds than that!

Here are just some of the major findings of the report:

• The presentation of gender-distressed children has changed, for reasons that have not been adequately explored.
• Gender dysphoria is not a unique presentation that should automatically and unquestioningly lead to clinical intervention.
• The evidence base for an affirmation-only model is severely lacking. In other words, people just saying they are trans- is clinically questionable.
• There is too little evidence to make any recommendations on hormone treatment. Hormone treatment was therefore overused without the backing of scientific evidence.
• The best way to support young people experiencing gender distress has not been determined. The one-shot approach by the Tavistock to medicalise every patient was inappropriate.
• Primary and secondary care staff have told Dr Cass 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 (this matches what the healthcare professionals said, who claimed they could not act in a clinical capacity and felt forced to adopt an ideological line).
• The reports notes that external pressures are harming clinical practice. Clinicians and others are afraid to speak up: the toxic nature of social engagement on this issue is stifling discussion. Dr Cass notes that "Social media […] can be seen to perpetuate unrealistic images of gender and set unhealthy expectations".
• She goes on to note that, "GPs have expressed concern about being pressurised to prescribe puberty blockers or feminising/masculinising hormones after these have been initiated by private providers".
• On sexuality and gender, Dr Cass reports that, "We have heard from young lesbians who felt pressured to identify as transgender male".
• That detransitioners, who live with the irreversible effects of transition have no clear access to NHS services.
• That even terminology is not agreed upon, "A lack of a conceptual agreement about the meaning of gender dysphoria hampers research, as well as NHS clinical service provision.”

I could go on, but I'll stop here.

What we are seeing here is not "...a busy clinic with not enough staff", but institutionalized ideology at the heart of the clinic; severely impairing the safeguarding of children, compromising patient safety, and undermining healthcare professionals through the application of pressure.

That's not the only conclusions we can draw, but the above list of observations by the author of the inquiry is absolutely damning. That's why the clinic was closed down. Not because of the disingenuous pseudo-summary you want others here to take as fact.

The same analysis will be conducted for Mermaids and their inappropriate practices. We will have to wait for the final report on that case in the meantime.

They were direct quotes, from the actual report - a report I personally linked to.

You clearly did not read the report, yet had the confidence to summarize the report as if you did. You were called out on your lack of knowledge of the report. Your interpretation was not only wrong, it was disingenuous.

You can keep claiming otherwise. You can continue to spread misinformation. But facts will always remain facts.

Read the report. You'll find the above quotes in an instant.

Now let's await the inquiry regarding Mermaids. No doubt it will be equally as appalling and equally as damning in its findings.

Nobody disputes that healthcare services couldn't be improved. In fact, what healthcare report wouldn't include that?

The more healthcare provision in every area, the better. Cancer services need to be greater. Rheumatoid arthritis services need to be greater. All healthcare services need to be greater - and more effective, and more accurate, and in the best needs of every single patient. Who in the world wouldn't agree with that basic principle? It's an axiomatic reality across healthcare. But that's got almost nothing to do with the Tavistock report. At best, it's a peripheral commentary.

Again, you are deliberately misrepresenting the Tavistock report.

I have listed the concerns and analysis, as detailed by the actual report. I relayed the exact underlying reasons and concerns as to why the Tavistock clinic, specifically, was closed down.

You tried (and failed) to pass off the Tavistock question as a lack of staff.

You were called out on it.

And everyone can see what the actual causes were, can verify those causes through the link I provided, and people can dismiss your deliberate - and disingenuous - misrepresentation of the situation.

Keep digging.

Nobody is saying healthcare provision should be decreased in this area - or any area. If anything, the report has demanded that more specialist care was required and that, for too many patients, they were fast-tracked on a "treatment path" that current medical evidence to date does not justify.

You are completely denying the conclusions of the Tavistock report. Completely ignoring them. 100% denialism.

Everyone can see what game you're playing here. But nobody is in any doubt about what the Tavistock report said. You can misrepresent it, but the report clearly states what problems exist.

So, now that your analysis of the Tavistock report has been utterly destroyed and totally discredited - which it has, and decisively so - you've decided to reframe the debate as some pseudo-conspiratorial conclusion about my motivations - which, by the way, has never and doesn't court an ounce of evidence.

People can see through this.

In a report, there is a difference between the report's conclusion and the discussion and analysis that led to those conclusions.

In the conclusion, did the report recommend a greater number of clinics throughout the UK? Yes - and, as an addendum, they recommended that a more "holistic" approach be taken to patients. In other words, they recommended against the "affirmative model" that the Tavistock employed (namely, that children who say they simply are trans [affirmation] should not be taken at face value), and recommended a more patient-centred approach that aligns with the best available evidence in medicine. No ideological imposition, in other words - just plain medicine. That sounds like a very reasonable conclusion to me, and I have no issue with that. You don't either, it seems. So our views align here.

But that's where the alignment ends.

Because what you are deliberately ignoring is the discussion and analysis of the report - which I referenced and direct quoted in great detail.

That discussion and analysis, and all the evidence that came with it, was absolutely damning. Lack of safeguarding for children, misapplication of medicine protocols, ideological imposition, inappropriate use of medicines, and all the rest. It's all in the link above.

So whilst you can point to a singular point in the conclusion and suggest that that's all the report is about, everyone else can see that this is a disingenuous attempt to ignore the discussion and analysis of the report, which savaged the Tavistock clinic, and were the direct reasons why the clinic had to be closed down.

Now, as I say, we'll have to see what the inquiry into Mermaids reveals. Though after it has been exposed that Mermaids sent breast binders to children as young as 13-years old against the consent of the children's parents, I'm very concerned at what else may have been happening at this charity.