Wednesday, January 8, 2020

Stop Pretending That You Give a Rat's Ass About Children!

Dorothy Cummings McLean
Dorothy Cummings McLean, 2013 (best I could get)
via YouTube
The transphobic vitriol (dishonestly cloaked as concern) is designed to misinform the parents of gender diverse children. It has nothing to do with what is best for those kids. It sure as hell has nothing to do with medical science.

Rather, it is an effort to prevent children from transitioning because religious conservatives hold that the existence of transgender people conflicts with scripture and the teachings of the Catholic Church.

The science is quite clear. Preventing a child from transitioning does not cure gender dysphoria. Preventing a child from transitioning makes the symptoms of gender dysphoria — anxiety and depression — more acute. The potential for self-harm increases dramatically.

Dorothy Cummings McLean, a warrior for the faith and poseur, would have people believe that she is concerned for the welfare of children. McLean writes: Mom, nurse fundraising for court fight arguing kids can’t legally consent to ‘sex change.’

All that is less important than McLean's reckless rhetoric:
A nurse and a mother are taking England’s public health system to court to stop sex-change experimentation on kids and they need financial help.
The faithful are always suckers for this nonsense. That idiotic Texas father (James Younger), who was otherwise unemployed, raised nearly $200,000. It is unknown how much of that was used to pay legal fees. But I digress.

The loaded words “sex-change” are inapplicable. The notion that the use of puberty blockers and hormones for gender-affirming care constitutes “experimentation” is hyperbolic bullshit. In this country, the evidence supports the recommendations of the Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics and others in support of that course of treatment.
Susan Evans, formerly a psychiatric nurse at the Tavistock & Portman National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, and a mother known only as “Mrs. A” are seeking a judicial review into Tavistock’s Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS).
If one follows the links to the links to the links, the source of the October, 2019 story about the alleged lawsuit is RT, the Russian propaganda site that was required to register as a foreign agent in the United States. That, in turn, links to the Times of London which (with paywall limitations) claims that it is a threatened lawsuit.

Susan Evans, the nurse, has not worked at Tavistock for 13 years. 13 years in medical science is a significant period of time. Furthermore, she was not employed there as a psychiatric nurse but as a lecturer. She has no first-hand knowledge of policy or practice at Tavistock presently.

As for mommy (“Mrs. A.”), she told the Times of London that her daughter (trans son perhaps) “wants to start taking puberty blockers;” not that they were being provided without her consent.

The youth is 15 years of age which possibly renders puberty blockers useless. (It depends upon his or her Tanner stage.)
Deus ex machina -;)
To sum this up a mother, whose late teens trans son is not taking puberty blockers, with the help of a nurse without first-hand knowledge for 13 years, are suing (or threatening to sue) a clinic because — according to Dorothy Cummings McLean — they are in a “court fight arguing kids can’t legally consent to ‘sex change.’”

Oh, and according to the pair: “Our lawyer wrote a formal letter to NHS England and GIDS Tavistock, on 11/10/19 requesting that they should cease prescribing hormone blockers to children under the age of 18 years.” That translates to a request to stop prescribing GnRH agonists entirely since they would be of no value to someone 18 years of age or older. I am sure that the clinic will get right on that.

And what about all of the parents who actually understand the current medical science? Why should the lawyer for these two crackpots substitute his judgment for those parents when it comes to the treatment of their children?

Cue up the time machine: According to these geniuses: “we gave them until 1st November to respond” to a November 11 letter.

Fuuuuuuhck! Returning to Ms. McLean:
As British doctors do not amputate healthy body parts from minors, at stake is the question of whether or not children under 18 can legally consent to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.
This crowd isn't known for its originality. They just parrot the same BS over and over again about gender confirmation surgery. It usually includes either “mutilate” or “amputate healthy body parts” — sometimes both. They do so not out of genuine concern for anyone receiving the surgery or for children who might receive puberty blockers and possibly cross-sex hormones. This is a defense of the faith.

According to the nurse (according to McLean), 16 years ago:
“The alarm bells began ringing for me when a colleague at the weekly team clinical meeting said that they had seen a young person 4 times and they were now recommending them for a referral to the endocrinology department to commence hormone therapy.”
I would think that four sessions are more than sufficient to diagnose gender dysphoria. Apparently nursey believes in some sort of toxic conversion therapy. It would be infinitely clearer in the United States that a nurse is not the equivalent of a board-certified psychiatrist with a sub-specialty in pediatrics.

What McLean is doing — quite intentionally — is dishonestly floating the idea that gender dysphoria can somehow be cured by withholding the recommended treatment to mitigate its symptoms. Not that she gives a crap about the kids but, in her demented brain, this approach results in fewer trans people (it does not) and, thus, fewer slanderers of sacred scripture. Ms. McLean would make a dandy Scientologist.
“I also clinically disagreed with the request to fall into line in immediately ‘affirming’ the children's beliefs and also the expectation to write to other professionals using the name and sex the child had chosen rather than the patient who had been referred,” she added. She stated that the normal professional practice is to keep an open mind while examining all the difficulties troubled children are having.
In other words, Susan Evans, a nurse, is at odds with the scientific literature. Has she done any independent research which was submitted to a peer-reviewed academic journal and then published?
Mrs. A is the mother of a 15-year-old girl with autism and other mental health issues. She allowed her daughter to be placed on the Tavistock waiting list because of a lack of “specialist expertise” in adolescent mental health in her area. However, she is worried that the girl may be harmed by the Tavistock’s staff.
Nowhere does mommy write about discussions with clinic staff about her child's condition. I would think that simply withdrawing her child from the clinic she doesn't like would be simpler than litigation. The age of medical consent in the UK is 16 so at this point the mother is in charge.

Mom might have a legitimate concern going forward. She might also be guilty of child abuse if her child has been properly diagnosed with gender dysphoria and mom has withheld consent for proper treatment.

The proper way to argue this matter (and to ask for donations) is to present the consensus of clinic staff, what she disagrees with and why she disagrees. That should then be followed with disclosure of how she has presented her opinions to the clinic and how they responded.

None of that information is presented at the crowdfunding site. My guess is that she hooked up with the nurse because she knows that the nurse is a dissenter. That would mean that mom's intent was formed before getting any professional advice (which is not to suggest that the nurse, Susan Evans, is qualified to offer advice).

The nurse thinks that she knows more than medical science. She really has no business meddling in this case. The circumstantial evidence suggests that she has a religious objection to gender-affirming care. The fact that she supports a request to stop the administration of puberty blockers entirely goes against not only medical science but common sense. It suggests that Susan Evans is an ignoramus.

Based on the evidence, I would not trust Nurse Evans to properly handle a child's garden variety adjustment issues.

Dorothy Cummings McLean doesn't give a rat's ass about gender dysphoric children or the anonymous mother. Nor is she really trying to help the pair raise money. This is all just one more vehicle to attack science as a Defender of the Faith.

McLean's concern is just pretense and convenient pretext. Religious dogma should not be used to influence medical treatment. Were she personally ill her approach would probably be different.

The real danger to children is not puberty blockers. The real danger is religious zealots who try to misinform parents in order that they make choices coinciding with religious beliefs. That is no way to treat kids who are probably at the most vulnerable and insecure moment of their lives.

Related content:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.