On what possible basis can my comment on the potential reasons why clinicians feel unable to release information they might feel is personal be construed as support for child mutilation?

I have read some nonsense in these pages but that will take some beating.,

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

It’s not about a lack of compassion. It’s about a lack of conversation and time. 10-16 year olds being given chemicals to start a gender change is wrong. You are down the rabbit hole with this so won’t see the possible cover up for wrongdoing being the reason for non disclosure of information.

You don’t know the reason any more than I do. I just have more confidence in the integrity of those in the NHS who devote their lives trying to make others better.

Sure, redaction and anonymity look like obvious routes to providing the data. So obvious it must be something else. Your cynicism says it must be a cover up. My trust says it won’t be. I suspect that because the numbers involved are small it is feared that no amount of disguise will protect the vulnerable from intrusive enquiry.

Time will tell.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Let me make it very plain that I have had no involvement with the Tavistock Clinic and have next to no knowledge of its activities. Suggesting I have provided any support for it is completely untrue. All I have ever done is try to show more understanding for those suffering from gender dysphoria and for those trying to help them. Compassion is what is required. Not outspoken criticism based solely on prejudice and offered by non clinicians. Describing treatments as “child mutilation” is very clear evidence of that prejudice.

I have no problem whatsoever for expert reviews looking at all the current knowledge gathered both here and abroad with a view to determining best practice. Making sure that what is done is safe and appropriate is surely what every reasonable person wants. Salving prejudice is not what’s needed.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

They aren’t “quacks”! They are qualified clinicians. It is NHS Trusts refusing to provide data. Not private clinics.

Why do you think they don’t try to dissuade? I know that isn’t true at all. There is a very thorough appraisal, review of options and insistence on consultation over a long time.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Unless I misunderstand the situation they have now closed.

From the little I know they found themselves understaffed and were making decisions too quickly. It was questions about informed consent by young people with mental health problems that caused the closure. Some of them with very severe mental health issues.

I don’t think anyone was “castrated”. I thought they prescribed hormone treatments to block puberty without properly assessing the risks. Those treatments have now been suspended for young people.

Perhaps this might inform:-

[Link]

What some describe, emotionally, as castration others describe as gender affirming surgery! It all depends on your perspective and whether you are suffering from gender dysphoria.

Importantly, contrary to popular opinion, as less than 1% of those undergoing such surgery later express regret perhaps it would be better to leave it up to those involved to decide. Imposing personal prejudices on others is not showing compassion.

Just so long as the decisions are made safely.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.