Experimenting on Children:
Trans Ideology Takes a Step Too Far
By Dr Damian Wilde, HART Member and Consultant Clinical Psychologist
Last year, I was becoming more concerned about the rise of trans ideology and the indoctrination of children in schools across the UK and wrote about this important issue, linked here. Although there was still work to be done, there had been some shift in the right direction with the publication of the CASS Review and the banning of prescription of puberty blockers for children. It felt like, after years of madness, there was some hope that these dangerous practices would be coming to a stop.
However, earlier in the year, there were signs that the ideological stronghold was starting to be enforced once again. The television writer, Graham Linehan, had been a long-term critic of trans ideology and was in support of women having protected spaces. Mr Linehan spoke assertively and passionately about this important issue, but soon felt the full force of this aggressive ideology at play when he arrived back into England at Heathrow airport to be met by five armed police officers for daring to express himself on the social media platform X. It was astonishing, and a sign that there was trouble ahead; the establishment was not for turning.
Further concerns in recent months also surfaced when Dr Helen Webberley appeared again, this time taking her fervent push to transition children to America, with her Gender GP Service. Dr Webberley, a former GP, has relinquished her GMC registration, and her husband, a former consultant gastroenterologist, is no longer allowed to practice medicine in the UK due to unethical practice around gender affirming care. She has flown off to spread the danger elsewhere.
Dr Webberley’s rhetoric on X in recent weeks has been incredibly disturbing, leading to others writing about her. In the Spectator, Stephen Daisley was aghast with her behaviour and commented, “The facts are devastating for Webberley’s brand of medicine, but still no match for her ideological zeal”. It is clear that some adults are dogmatic to the point that they are not able to see the significant ethical problems with this dangerous practice. As I said in my first article, it is adults with issues pushing this warped doctrine and it is children who suffer the consequences, physically and psychologically.
Puberty Blockers NHS Clinical Trial
In the days after Webberley suddenly landing on radio and tv stations far and wide, the news was delivered that King’s College, London would be running The Pathways Trial, which would see children potentially as young as 8 years of age be given puberty blockers, as the NHS sought to measure the impact of these drugs on the health of children with ‘gender incongruence’. This term is the new flavour of the month in trying to ethically justify these unethical practices. What does gender incongruence even mean?
In the trial, children will be randomised into one of two groups receiving puberty blockers, either straight away or after a 12-month delay. There will be a non-randomised untreated group, presumably because parents wanting treatment for their children would refuse randomisation if it might mean they were assigned to no puberty blockers. It is hard to see how a trial with this design will really provide any answers to the fundamental question as to whether allowing puberty to progress naturally is better or worse for long term physical and mental health.
This manipulative play on language (‘gender incongruence’) seems to be to try to medically fit in with the hypothesis bandied about that children are somehow born in the wrong body. There is zero evidence to support this claim. In my personal and professional experience, any child who is raised in a settled and secure environment never ends up going down this path. As I discussed in my original article, wanting to transition can be construed as a psychological defence to get away from distress and trauma felt by the young person. A psychological formulation, focussing on feelings and systemic factors, e.g. parents and school, will offer an explanation that is nothing to do with gender incongruence. Understanding is key. Let us not rush in.
The news about the trial was met with robust criticism, with the BMJ News site concluding, “But some clinicians have argued that it is “unethical” to expose children to potentially damaging drugs without clear benefit.” As reported on X, a group of MPs have written to Wes Streeting, Secretary of State for Health, demanding a halt to the puberty blockers trial. People are angry and concerned for good reason.
However, Mr Streeting went on the defensive and tried to justify experimenting on young children and seemed happy that they be used as guinea pigs in the adult led trial, with no thought for the possible consequences. Streeting went on to say on X, “Children with gender incongruence deserve safe, compassionate, and effective care.” Indeed, Mr Streeting, indeed, but not by blocking natural biology - that is in no way safe and is far from compassionate. Rather than label a child’s struggles with some gender label (that offers no explanation or understanding), which requires drugs and mutilating surgery, try sitting with the child and having a conversation. What happened to conversations? This is how we get to the core of feelings and difficulties that are occurring, that and working with parents and schools.
If exploratory discussions are not possible due to child communication struggles, this must beg the question as to how ethical could the prescribing of puberty blockers ever be? At the very least, in those circumstances, the people who know the child best, starting with the parents, need to be fully informed as to the potential impact of such a permanent and untested procedure, including a walkthrough of the worst possible consequences, physically and psychologically. Informed consent is crucial and is the cornerstone of ethical healthcare.
Children who are confused, distressed, traumatised and anxious should be afforded understanding, and ethical and good quality care that helps them recover and regain their quality of life. This is why we campaign against dangerous treatments that will likely harm children, who are precious enough as they are. Whilst I cannot comment on the medical aspects of this process, it is the area of psychological health which understandably gives me and others cause for concern. If a child’s distress is not properly understood, the wrong intervention will be provided. Throwing drugs at the problem, like medics do for children with attentional problems, is not a healthy way forward and is in no way compassionate.
Children saying they want to transition is not a medical problem, it is an emotional, psychological, and systemic problem. Therefore, no medical treatment is required. The Pathways Trial should be stopped immediately before catastrophic damage is put upon the 226 children, all in the name of experimentation. In fact, given the extreme nature of this process and the likely harms, I would not only ban puberty blockers for all, but surgery, too, for children and adults. We can do so much better as a society and a healthcare system. If a child said they were unhappy with their arm, would we consent to surgery and attach a different one all in the name of choice? No, we would not, it would be deemed too extreme and complicated. So, why is chopping off a boy’s penis seen as being, okay? It is in no way okay and is a perilous way forward. We should be protecting children, not harming them. The NHS should know better, but it has, unfortunately, been captured by trans ideology.
If people truly cared about the health and wellbeing of young people, then we would provide them with individual therapeutic spaces to explore feelings about identity and other internally felt difficulties. If there are problems in the system around a child, healthcare professionals should support and disseminate good psychological healthcare practice through understanding and guidance where needed, e.g. family therapy. Let us be gentle and nurture safely, and let children be who they naturally are underneath all the ideological construct.
It is a mistake to believe that those behind these and other dystopian measures we have experienced recently e.g. COV2 + Vaxes would respond to rational, legitimate arguments.
Rationality is irrelevant when we understand that the agenda behind such "care" for young people is to intentionally, purposely disrupt and divide societies. Cohesive culture in the presence of actual compassion and dignity is a real threat to the masters. And, as we've seen they will do anything to promote and enhance states of fear and disharmony among the masses.
Let's be clear, "leaders" are not merely being obtuse when they reject reasoning such as this presented by Dr. Wilde and continue to push radical and inhumane policies because they do so knowing that their success in the disingenuous mission they espouse is unimportant. Their ONLY objective is to DESTROY the ordinary peaceful state of affairs within and between all peoples of the world. Whether children receive the respectful care they deserve is absolutely irrelevant to these shady, well compensated demagogues.
This is state sanctioned child abuse. Many young children 'want to be someone else' as do adults. The psychological aspects of this state of mind need to be addressed BEFORE pumping hormones into this children. It is not known what cellular or epigenetic effects this will have. Parents and doctors knowingly facilitating this abuse should be 'lined up'. I know this sounds radical but neither party 'KNOWS' what will happen to these children.