Time to Think: The Inside Story of the Collapse of the Tavistock's Gender Service for Children

Product Information

Katy Hayes of the Irish Independent called the book "meticulously academic, thoroughly footnoted and referenced", though it is "a dense, clotted read". Hayes notes that interviews were "almost exclusively" with former GIDS employees who "dissented" from the direction the leadership took. Therefore, while "Barnes has her well-argued position, and the questions she raises are legitimate", "the result makes the book feel very one-sided. All the clinicians talk about how they harmed children. There is very little mention of how any clinician might have ever helped anyone." Hayes complains that the "book occasionally slides into innuendo" (such as about funding), which Hayes says is "a pity, because they make Barnes sound biased", and that "the overall tone of the book is so hostile that it is likely to become another weapon in the unfortunately loud and bitter war over this subject." [10] Meticulous, difficult, essential; three words I’d use to begin to describe this text. It will take some work to square up the repercussions of the information in the detailed documentation of the fall of GIDS, the UKs only gender specialist unit, with my continued and determined belief in Trans rights. I’m embarrassed to say I knew absolutely none of it prior to reading this and on finishing it I’m incredulous that I knew nothing. This book contains so much more than is outlined here. It should be read carefully by everyone involved in the care and safeguarding of children, including schools and government ministers. What other institutions are in thrall to transgender activists, leaving the most thoughtful professionals afraid to speak out? Where else do we see the same failure of safeguarding demonstrated at the GIDS? Why are the same ideological groups that influenced the GIDS allowed to influence policy in schools? Medical harm may be the most extreme result, but what other harms are being caused to children in schools, social care and child agencies by the failure to put facts and evidence ahead of ideology?

Hannah Barnes Swift Press | Hannah Barnes

At one point, that's how it was described to me. So I think it was very difficult for people to speak out. Lots of different competing emotions. But I don't want to suggest that others who didn't speak to me don't care about these young people, either. I think it's a story about how well intentioned people can go wrong. And an intervention that is well intentioned, can be overused for a group for whom it wasn't intended, perhaps. The pair started a new service, identifying people who were ready for transition by assessing them before they started hormones. This approach, involving an assessment by a psychiatrist, was criticised as pathologising by the trans community, but they say it has resulted in dramatically better outcomes. Hannah Barnes lays bare the whole appalling business in a clinical and forensic fashion. She is fair-minded - she speaks to young people who avow that they were helped by the service, as well as those who were irretrievably damaged. She uncovers a truly appalling management culture, and lays the blame very much with the leadership, although she does not impugn motive (there's some speculation here but no conclusion).MyHome.ie (Opens in new window) • Top 1000 • The Gloss (Opens in new window) • Recruit Ireland (Opens in new window) • Irish Times Training (Opens in new window) As numbers increased, the caseload per clinician increased beyond safety levels. In 2015, in an attempt to calm the over-worked clinicians, an organisational consultant was called in. The subsequent report warned that GIDS was “facing a crisis of capacity to deliver effectively on an ever-increasing demand for its service” and recommended immediate action to cap referrals. This was ignored by GIDS director, Polly Carmichael. The caseloads continued to rise, first 50, then 70, , 90 or 100 patients each. One clinician reported an astronomical caseload of 140 patients. With some caseloads comparative to the size of a small primary school it is little wonder that clinicians had difficulties recognising their patients when they arrived for their second appointment. This was a time when two thirds of referrals were boys, average age 11 at referral. Over 25% had spent time in care (compared to a rate of 0.67% for the general children’s population (2021)). 42% had experienced the loss of one or both parents through bereavement or separation. Only 2.5% had no associated problems; about 70% had more than five ‘associated features’ such as physical abuse, anxiety and school attendance issues. 42% suffered from ‘depression/misery.’ Close to a quarter of those aged 12 and over had a history of self-harming and the same percentage exhibited ‘inappropriately sexualised behaviour.’

Waterstones says ‘no truth’ in claims it refuses to sell

Concerns about autism or parental pressure were allegedly dismissed by Carmichael. Children were turning up identifying as other ethnicities such as Japanese. By 2017, three quarters of their patients were girls, a dramatic shift from the years up to 2010, when the majority were boys. Were they not asking why? A one sided view which fails to take sufficient account of the voices of transgender people. It is purely looking to follow an anti transgender and gender critical view point. The testimonies in the book are raw, honest and moving. More than that they are a vital piece of evidence that shows – without prejudice – where things went right, where things went wrong and, remarkably, the thousands of cases of young people where we still don’t know’ Emily MaitlisWhen things are sensitive, it is always difficult to persuade people to talk to you. And really often in journalism, there's not much in it for them to do so. To put your head above the parapet is difficult. And especially, as you will know from reading the book, there are people who have put their head above the parapet, who have been named, who are prepared to say ‘I got things wrong’ as well. And that's incredibly rare. The book has a narrow focus on GIDS and does not comment about the way in which the number of children with gender dysphoria increased so dramatically. This is to the book’s credit. The narrow focus on the exposition of events at GIDS in such a careful way is very impressive.

Time to Think: The Inside Story of the Collapse of the

GIDS began seeing Irish children in 2012 under the Treatment Abroad Scheme. Three years later, as demand increased, staff started holding monthly clinics in Crumlin hospital. Between 2011 and 2021, 238 young people in Ireland were referred to GIDS. As in the UK, the Irish referrals were overwhelmingly female and had multiple other “difficulties”. Time to Think goes behind the headlines to reveal the truth about the NHS’s flagship gender service for children. Transgender Organisations and Activists Transgender and LGBT organisations, charities and activists Will Lloyd of the New Statesman called it "as scrupulous as journalism can be" and noted "[t]hough pundits will use it as fuel for columns, Time to Think is no anti-trans polemic ". [11] A therapist called Matt Bristow relates what happened when people tried to raise concerns, which suggests the place had a cult-like atmosphere: 'He and others recount how executive members of staff would become teary when criticisms of the service were raised. It would then be made known among the team that "this has made Polly cry", Bristow says. 'I don't think that's appropriate as a management style."' This refers to GIDS director Dr Polly Carmichael, a person many of the sources in the book seem to have been afraid of crossing.This incredibly important book shows that we still don’t know how many children were damaged for life. I want every institution and every politician who pontificates about gender to read this book and ask what happened to all those lost girls and boys – and why they were complicit’ – Daily Telegraph

Hannah Barnes “Time to Think: The Inside Story of the Hannah Barnes “Time to Think: The Inside Story of the

FiLiA: I wondered a bit about how it compares to other stories that you've covered in your career, because you've been working in journalism for a while. And this is something you're very experienced in, researching and telling stories so that people can understand them and it's accessible. How does it compare to perhaps other clinical stories that you've covered or aspects in other areas of society? And was there anything that was particularly surprising that you found about researching and writing this book?Instead, what Time to Think offers is almost like a time capsule of what happened inside GIDS. It is a forensic piece of work that captures what clinicians, patients and staff were thinking. Barnes writes with restraint. She avoids direct commentary, highlighting instead the reflections of those she spoke with: The evidence of the book shows that the grip of the ideology underpinning the demands of these groups only strengthened at the GIDS over the years. Language changed from ‘natal female’ to ‘assigned female.’ The clinic promoted Gendered Intelligence and the Genderbread Person (the GIDS conferences we attended over the years also reflected a service increasingly in thrall to gender identity ideology, with organisations like Gendered Intelligence, Allsorts and Intercom Trust given platforms to present their business models, and audience members invited to introduce themselves with their pronouns). In referral figures for 2021/22 the biological sex of 22% of children was not even recorded. FiLiA: There was this kind of siege mentality, let's say, because there was pressure being put on the service from all sides. I suppose one of the questions I had also was about whether or not there was a kind of worry about feminists from that perspective, too, if that makes sense. So the sort of questions around ‘TERFs’ or ‘gender criticals’ or if there was any sort of sense of that sort of dialogue also affecting folks at GIDS, when it was happening? An absolute must read for anyone who has heard anything or been involved in the transgender debate.