Guest post: You can’t run a unicorn ranch if there are no unicorns

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Stay away from the Tavistock.

How many children escape the vortex of unquestioning, unanimous, compulsory ‘affirmation’ at Tavistock?

Letting desistance run its course would cut down on the number of those children going on to “transition.” Desistance and detransition together present a huge challenge to the concept of “transness” as a thing. Referring to children being treated as “dysphoric” rather than “trans” decouples the child from the putative diagnosis. It also removes the instrumentalized power of the concept of “trans kids” which is thrown about so much by activists. Refusing or failing to see discomfort with “identity” as a phase or surmountable difficulty rather than a final, inevitable destination, immediately and infallibly discerned in the faintest, most hesitant expression of gender “non-conformity”, strips children and their caregivers of the possibility of different outcomes and resolutions than those favoured by the trans industrial complex. That it is sometimes the parents themselves pushing for this hasty foreclosure is particularly tragic and heartbreaking. All the more reason for experts to be cautious and open minded in their treatment of children in their care. The concept of “trans kids” locks these children onto a pathway that serves the political goals of adults pushing an agenda, rather than the health and wellbeing of the children so termed.

Jenkins seems to be under the impression that parental participation is allowed on his sufferance. Losing patients/clients/whatever is a numbers game to him. He’s shown by this highhandedness that he’s not interested in helping individual children find their own best solution. He’s more interested in recruiting them into “transness”, and if he thinks they’re trans, then by God, they’re going to stay trans. No questioning or doubt of the truth of his conclusions will be tolerated. Erosion or weakening of the very concept of “gender identity” threatens his position as CEO of an organization totally dependent on the reification and “development” of the idea of “gender identity.” You can’t be the man in charge of a unicorn ranch if there are no unicorns. There could be a slight conflict of interest, no? He’s made his choice. The perpetuation and security of the institution of which he is head is more important than the health and safety of the children in its care. Where have we heard that tune before? Does Jenkins engage in cosplay as the Pope?

Imagine a doctor who insisted on preventing a straightforward, successful, non-medical resolution of a disease or disorder because he wanted to keep them as “his” patients, and parents questioning this were cut off from further contact and involvement with regards to his “treatment.” Imagine a doctor disregarding and suppressing findings that suggested a safer, more cautious approach, which offered the choice of a broader range of diagnoses and better outcomes for patients, at the expense of giving up an unwarranted certainty in the correctness and efficacy of his current methods? What if such a doctor showed that he was more interested in supporting his own questionable practices rather than taking the time and effort to find what was best for people under his care? How long before such a practitioner was investigated and fired? What if this individual standing in the way of a better, higher standard of care and accountability wasn’t even a doctor, but some executive?

Well Mr. Jenkins? The clock is ticking.

One Response to “Guest post: You can’t run a unicorn ranch if there are no unicorns”