woman loses residency of son she was raising as daughter

I want a special cross posting pedant badge, maybe in an upside down flower shape. I'm not typing the condition name again.
I don't know if the half siblings lived together.. and the operation was probably long forgotten by the time the younger child was aware? I think the judge's conclusion was the topic was raised by the mum?

I couldn't bear to read the mail link but the actual judgement wasn't really about trans was it? It was about a safe place for the child to grow up.. and the dad had for instance created that safe place for the half sibling, albeit as NRP.

Oh I must have mis read that then.
Doh!
Maybe planted a seed of an idea that penis =bad/sore
Or I could be totally wrong 😁

Check out the cross posting pedants club!

fed it was the half brother that had hypospadis, and I read it as saying that J was made aware of it by his mother's mention of K's right /upside down flower (Wtf?)

I don't think it was the child subject to the order that had the operation on his "flower" because of the hypospadia. Wasn't it a sibling... on the dad's side?

Fedup: As I read it, it wasn't the boy himself but his half brother, called K in the judgement, who had the condition which required the minor surgery.

I really hope the judge doesn't become the subject of transactivist aggression

Very interesting to read that this boy had a condition called hypospadias and required surgery to correct this when he was 4. He may well have had physical discomfort caused by this before and after surgery so you can imagine him saying he hated his penis etc. I wonder if mum somehow latched onto this (hypospadias would have been present from birth) in her assertion that he was a girl.

Having read the full judgement I agree the judge made entirely the right decision but how sad that his mum is still trying to convince him that he's a girl. It must be very confusing for him and there's certainly, to me, an element of abusive behaviour on the part of the mum, regardless of her intentions

The judgement made me feel very emotional towards the end. There seems to be a genuine hope for the boy to find his own happy path in life wherever that might take him.

How can a pre pubescent child have much of a concept of their sex anyway. They have a bit of hormones and the genitals but that's it. It looks like the mother was disturbed.
If the child wants to explore other things when he is post puberty then fine but it is awful to impose something on a 7 year old.

Thanks for posting the full judgment - quite scary, though I feel as if the child has a potential chance at a good life now.

Poor kid. He's been through so much. It really does sound like his mum had her own agenda. Hope he does better with his dad.

I don't know where that square came from

🙏🏻

I really hope this, along with those speaking out about the detransing, is the beginning of the end of the trans madness.

ThirtyRock

Another one agreeing with these comments. I would have said I'd rather be a boy at this age and was a right Tom Boy until about 12.
I enjoy being a girl/ woman

I agree RiverTam. There are too many detransitioners coming out of the woodwork now for that not to be true. If I was involved as a professional who had helped and encouraged children to trans, I would be anticipating spending time in court in the fairly near future

Sorry, she made several allegations that were false, and one that involved bad behaviour on both sides. My mistake.

I would be very very surprised if this is not the first of many such cases. I think there will be an enormous backlash against parents who got involved in transing their children, in many cases by those children. Ditto against organisations such as the Tavistock, Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence.

The sad thing is, thousands of people will just read the newspaper headlines and decide either that the judge was transphobic, or that a sensible judge decreed that it is cruel to children to let them express an unorthodox gender identity. Just hearing what they want to hear, and very few troubling themselves with the nuanced reasoning on bailii.

Nowhere in that judgement does it say that the DV was a false allegation. The judge just commented that it was minor and involved poor behaviour on both sides.

I think this is hugely telling from the baiili transcript. Essentially, no one in children's services challenged the mother despite lots of concerns raised from school and other professionals. The "orthodoxy" simply blinded them to any alternative views.

"Transgender equality has received a great deal of attention in recent times. I believe that in this case the profile and sensitivity of the matters raised by the mother blinded a number of professionals from applying their training, skills and, it has to be said, common sense. They failed properly to investigate M's assertions, in part I suspect, because they did not wish to appear to be challenging an emerging orthodoxy in such a high profile issue."

Bloody hell, I've only read about a quarter of the judgment but so far I wouldn't have left a gerbil in the mother's care, let alone a child. Smoking skunk at home, making false accusations of DV against the father, isolation of J....

As for Mermaids, they're a fucking disgrace.

Interesting to see the brief line mentioning the mother had also had a little obsession about the child's weight, and his hearing.

She sounds rather troubled.

I think this is an extremely thoughtful judgement and boys toys etc seems to form little or no part of it.
The judge says all children are "ill served by premature labelling. What they require, as F has so capably demonstrated, is the opportunity to develop their identity in which ever way it evolves"

He acknowledges the good and bad in both parents and focuses on the needs of the child.