Blog

Through asking a question in the House of Lords Hilary Cass has exposed a shocking case of an eleven year-old boy who as a toddler was told by his parents he is a girl and has lived his whole life believing he is a girl ever since.

The question Cass was asking was about the eligibility of eleven year-olds for the puberty blockers trial and whether it should be politicians or doctors making the decision. An unremarkable question. The case study Cass used to support her case was anything but. It should be a wake up call to everyone about the reality of the profound harms caused to children by the idea of ‘gender affirmation.’

The case Cass described was of a boy who has been affirmed and treated as a girl for his whole life since the age of two. At age eleven he refuses to leave his room and will not go to secondary school for fear of being ‘outed’ as a boy. As a result of his inactivity he now has weak bones.

This is the full transcript: 

“I ask noble lords to consider the case of a child who I will call Jo who was a biological male, socially transitioned at two and a half by his parents. At eleven, she – which I say advisedly because the chances of her reverting to her biological gender is vanishingly remote – she has been in stealth and will not go to secondary school because she is so afraid of being outed in that environment. She’s now refusing to come out of her room except very rarely and she now has weak bones, not as a result of puberty blockers but through inactivity. I ask the noble lady the minister should her subsequent treatment be decided by politicians or by the clinicians who are looking after her?”

Cass, in a few sentences about an eleven year-old, has made the strongest case yet against not only the low age limit for the puberty blockers trial but the premise of the trial itself. In addition, she has inadvertently exposed the act of ‘social transition’ as the child abuse it really is. We know more cases exist but they generally remain hidden from public view and they are certainly not openly talked about in parliament. Now it is undeniable that children are being harmed, we heard it from Cass herself.

It is the first time we have heard public admission that social transition is not reversible.

How could it be for a toddler brought up to believe he is the opposite sex? This boy has had a whole childhood as a girl – that’s as far as he understands. It has been reinforced every day: at school, at home, on holidays, on Christmases and birthdays, on all the important events of childhood. He has experienced them all ‘as a girl.’ Completely dissociated from the reality of his body, he has lived his whole life as something he is not, without knowing it. How could he know when his whole world has told him a lie?

To be clear, a two and a half year-old child is at the stage where they are unlikely to be speaking in full sentences and are repeating words without understanding what they mean. This child is highly likely to have still been in nappies when his parents told him he was a girl. A child of this age is learning about the world by testing reality and by what adults tell them. Internalising this information before understanding it, this child’s development was distorted right from the start. The child had no way of knowing this.

Every step of the path he has been on is inevitable and predictable. Of course he will believe the lie and of course he will continue to believe it as it is reinforced every day by every adult in his world and all his friends. Everything that happens in a child’s life is that child’s ‘normal.’ His parents’ belief becomes his own, he will not be able to distinguish between what is taught to him and what he genuinely feels himself. He does not reach the childhood stage of introspection and emerging self-awareness until much later, during the adolescence he now needs to prevent with puberty blockers.

It is difficult to imagine the betrayal of reality when it comes, as it will, at puberty. No doubt he’s been told that although his body is ‘not stereotypically female’ the doctors will fix that when he grows up, that’s the activist script. The desperation and distress he feels now was created and set in motion as the inevitable end result when he was still a toddler. It is he who has to deal with the appalling results of everyone in his world thinking they are being ‘kind.’ His childhood has been destroyed and the question of whether he can now accept reality is, as Cass puts it ‘vanishingly remote.’ How can what has been done to him be undone?

Of course he is desperate for puberty blockers, it is the only solution to a created problem no child of eleven is equipped to face. It’s a problem with no solution for this child, there is no future option without risk. Even if he had the ability to question what he’s been told by his parents and all the important people in his world all his life, it is not safe for him to do so. How could a child of this age face the enormity of the consequences?

This is how social transition works to create the need for the next step on the pathway: blockers.

The case raises serious questions for child protection. How could this child have lived ‘in stealth’ as a girl for so long? Did no teacher, doctor or health professional know what was going on? And how could parents tell such a lie to their own child at two years old?

Two is the age that Stonewall has claimed it is possible for a child to ‘recognise their trans identity.’

On the question of whether politicians or doctors should decide the future treatment of this child the answer should be obvious that doctors are the ones who are qualified to make such decisions. But it is the healthcare professionals and NHS England who have been ideologically captured by trans advocacy groups such as Stonewall. How can we now trust them?

A child with already weak bones should mean they are ineligible for puberty blockers so how can justification be made for this child to be accepted onto the trial? Further risk to the child’s bones would not normally be countenanced by medics but in the world of ‘trans healthcare’ normal rules don’t apply.

Cass has given her justification for the trial as a protection of children from the worse harm of accessing blockers online, and that this is happening because they and their parents have been told for fifteen years by health professionals that they are safe, reversible and even life-saving

When will it be acknowledged that parents have also been told for fifteen years that gender affirmation and social transition is harmless, reversible and kind and that this too is a lie?  

The response from Baroness Merron to Cass is open to interpretation:

“This is not a political matter. This is a matter – as I’ve said – that must be driven by clinical evidence and must focus on the safety of our young people. The example the noble lady describes is deeply disturbing and results from not taking action that is evidenced.”

It is indeed a deeply disturbing case, but what does ‘not taking action that is evidenced’ mean here?

The action that should have been taken long ago was to warn parents that the message of ‘gender affirmation’ pushed by activists should be ignored as there is no evidence it is safe. Ordinary knowledge about child development tells us it isn’t. Yet NHS professionals in CAMHS all practised this approach and still do.

The psychological, physical and social harm done to little children whose parents have been led to believe ‘gender affirmation’ is the correct approach, has been exposed in a few sentences spoken in the House of Lords. How many more harmed children are out there after over a decade of trans activism targeting children and parents, and a totally captured NHS going along with it?

A decade ago the case of this eleven year-old would have been seen as a clear case of child abuse. But no health or education professionals in this child’s life recognised it as such, or were too afraid to say so. This is the legacy of a decade of trans activism and the silencing of opposition: the abandonment of child development knowledge and the total failure to protect children. The ‘deeply distressing’ aspect of this case is not only the devastating effects on the child involved but the fact that it was ever allowed to happen and that some people still don’t see it as abuse.