As I said, I would almost hesitate recommending as it might ruin your week, but I wanted to read something that was based on evidence, it took her years of research...and it's really upsetting. But it's also fair-minded. I guess her approach is one as an investigate journalist - she follows the story/stories, and collates so much evidence, it takes the heat out of the horrible online "debates" and gives you this cohesive document. I cannot stop thinking about it.
It's actually a bit more complicated than that - I read this book a few weeks ago, and it made for some harrowing reading -
Time to Think by Hannah Barnes review – what went wrong at Gids?
-as ever, nothing coherent seems to emerge on Twitter or other comparable sources, so I don't engage with it, it seems to extrapolate unhelpful headlines, leaving a strange space for even further unhelpful discourse - it's always comforting to know there are people doing the actual research in the background. I would almost hesitate recommending the book, as it's very depressing, and the world can be heavy as it is, but it is very, very rigorous.
I suspect I am "cancelled" anyway, but I am okay with that, it's more peaceful on this island.
It's appalling writing, so bad.
It is a minefield, but the book clearly shows that a lot of bad decisions were made, and often relating to children, some of the cases are children younger than 10. You're right, this book investigates the Tavistock clinic in the UK, but there are different parallels with the U.S. and some other places. I don't know what Dee Snider has read as such (!) but there are so many issues - and we know they won't get solved on the internet, but I'm grateful that some experts and investigate journalists are trying to give a more clear and rounded depiction of these issues, so that it might be more helpful going forward. The book frightened me, because it was hard to accept the gravity of some of the mistakes that were made, and that there was something of a pattern, it feels like treading gently is the way forward.
Yep, from the article @YoungHearts posted it seems like there is. He's expressed it poorly, but that doesn't mean he's wrong
Just in terms of the UK (given that book I mentioned) there was a court case a few years back that initially established a legal principle that young people under 16 could not be given puberty blockers and cross sex hormones, as they weren't viewed as mentally "competent" to understand the gravity of the long-term effects of that (fertility, and so on), but then that ruling was overturned by the Courts of Appeal there in 2021, because the judges said that they didn't want to establish a legal principle in this matter as it was too delicate - "The court was not in a position to generalise about the capability of persons of different ages to understand what is necessary for them to be competent to consent to the administration of puberty blockers". So it is legal there to put young people under 16 on that treatment path, but as far as I know, doesn't give a guide-age about when the treatment can actually begin, it is linked to puberty, but then some children are being put on that treatment long before puberty is onset.
I must look that Louis Theroux documentary up, I tend to like his approach
or; here's a debate with ramifications, where a lot is at stake; anyone sensible really only gets involved if they think they have something useful to say. albini uses it to get a dig in at someone, unrelated to the matter at hand. pure twitter.
Yes
Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...
Upgrade now
