Women & Equalities 22nd April 2020 - YES!

That's what I think Eliza. Very few 14 year olds would be worried by the idea they would be at greater risk of osteoporosis aged 60. I used to listen to a Radio 4 programme called Inside the Ethics Committee about real life ethical dilemmas. They often made the point that young children born with disabilities often made extremely sophisticated decisions about agreeing to/refusing treatment because they were so used to thinking about their condition and how they were affected. A young person who develops gender dysphoria in adolescence but who has never previously experienced any health issues is coming from a very different starting point.

I can't imagine any child to be competent enough to make choices about fertility, deciding to have a hugely increased risk of brittle bones and future heart problems tbh.

They are definitely framing it as denying under 18's contraception and abortion

But an under 18 year old would never be allowed to have a vasectomy or sterilisation. But it’s ok if the effect is the same for those on puberty blockers. It’s also grates to see comments about Gillick competence when one of the main reasons why so many people are concerned about puberty blockers is that it is not clear that children are given enough information to demonstrate Gillick competence. That is one of the points Keira is making, isn’t it?

It doesn't really matter what they shout about.

This is going all way.

Things that will be asked for will be all the stats, studies and surveys to do with puberty blockers.

Likewise cross sex hormones and follow-ups to do with outcome.

No-one can make a decision without all the information.

And we all know, that information doesn't exist.

Let the world know that children are being given umpteen different types of drugs that are rendering them infertile, with little to no sexual function and are becoming lifelong medical patients. And the decision starts around age 11.

And there is nothing credible to support it.

Oh, alternatively, if there is, let's see it.

Sorry.... they WILL shout down anyone who points out....

They are definitely framing it as denying under 18's contraception and abortion. There has been a social media outpouring about comparing it to that since the announcement went out. That is very much the tact they are going to continue to take and will probably shout down anyone who points out how different it is.

They claim to be a kids Gender Dysphoria charity. Can you imagine a cancer charity or a dementia charity behaving this way?

TRAs have appropriated cancer proticols eg for preserving fertility.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3333708-NHS-faces-lawsuit-for-not-funding-fertility-services-for-transgenders-who-want-kids

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3326933-NHS-told-give-trans-patients-equal-access-to-fertility-service

I was thinking of the possible consequences of a recent court ruling whereby NHS was required to pay for commercial surgery in USA following a finding of negligence in diagnosing a woman having cervical cancer & her resultant infertility.

www.theguardian.com/law/2020/apr/01/uk-woman-wins-claim-for-nhs-to-pay-us-surrogacy-costs

I think the difference is the result of medical action or inaction.

Yes, I was thinking about this earlier and it's my feeling too.

In no other Gillick case does not doing anything mean continuing to have a physical, healthy body and no changes.

Oh indeed. Every argument they make is disingenuous.

They make a huge deal that cross sex hormones are not prescribed below 16, but campaign to lower that age.

They claim to work to prevent suicide but ignore the guidance against spreading suicide ideation.

They claim the science is on their side but attack every professional who is anything other than a cheerleader for their 'affirmative' approach.

They claim to want more research into how to help trans children but attack anyone who tries to research desistance or side effects and spend none of their vast funding on medical reearch (as opposed to social science haigiographies).

They claim to be a kids Gender Dysphoria charity. Can you imagine a cancer charity or a dementia charity behaving this way?

But what comparable medical pathway would a 'cis' child be likely to choose? We're talking about compromising the future fertility of trans children, or eliminating it altogether if they progress from puberty blockers to cross-sex hormones and then surgery. If a young 'cis' woman (let alone a girl) who is certain that she never wants children goes to her doctor and asks to be referred for a sterilisation procedure she will most likely be refused on the grounds that she might change her mind later

There are a number of TRAs who want to make the comparator access to abortion. Some are keen to frame this as a way in which under 18 females could be denied contraception additionally.

I agree that the comparison with sterilisation is more accurate, elective hysterectomy perhaps more so? The lack of sufficient evidence base for 'puberty blockers' & cross sex hormones should alone have been sufficient for immediate ethical reconsideration

BMJ Prof Carl Heneghan (Oxford Evidence Based Medicine)

'Gender-affirming hormone in children and adolescents – Evidence review'
Posted on 25th February 2019

"Conclusions

There are significant problems with how the evidence for Gender-affirming cross-sex hormone has been collected and analysed that prevents definitive conclusions to be drawn. Similar to puberty blockers, the evidence is limited by small sample sizes; retrospective methods, loss of considerable numbers of patients in follow-up. The majority of studies also lack a control group (only two studies used controls). Interventions have heterogeneous treatment regimes complicating comparisons between studies. Also adherence to the interventions are either not reported or at best inconsistent. Subjective outcomes, which are highly prevalent in the studies, are also prone to bias due to lack of blinding, and many effects can be explained by regression to the mean.

The development of these interventions should, therefore, occur in the context of research. Treatments for under 18 gender dysphoric children and adolescents remain largely experimental. There are a large number of unanswered questions that include the age at start, reversibility; adverse events, long term effects on mental health, quality of life, bone mineral density, osteoporosis in later life and cognition. We wonder whether off label use is appropriate and justified for drugs such as spironolactone which can cause substantial harms, including death. We are also ignorant of the long-term safety profiles of the different GAH regimens. The current evidence base does not support informed decision making and safe practice."
blogs.bmj.com/bmjebmspotlight/2019/02/25/gender-affirming-hormone-in-children-and-adolescents-evidence-review/

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3518188-BMJ-Prof-Carl-Heneghan-Evidence-Based-Medicine-Oxford-Panorama-Trans-Kids-Gender-affirming-hormone-in-children-and-adolescents-Evidence-review-concludes-There-are-significant-problems

That meant to read donquixotedelamancha's example..

In donquixotedelamancha's the action has to be taken to prevent far more serious physical consequences (terminal cancer,blood poisoning).
In no other Gillick case does not doing anything mean continuing to have a physical, healthy body and no changes.

Regarding Mermaid's statement - they claim it's discriminatory to treat trans children as less able to make an informed decision about their medical treatment than 'cis' children (less likely to have Gillick competence). But what comparable medical pathway would a 'cis' child be likely to choose?

It really isn't comparable, is it? Although I've being seeing it compared to all sorts of other things like contraception and abortion.

I think the difference is the result of medical action or inaction.
If a girl takes contraception or has an abortion, her body and life (for the most part) stays the same as if she did not conceive a child. In this case, the action of taking contraception or having an abortion serves to maintain equilibrium.
Medical inaction means she goes through pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood, resulting in substantial life changes.

With trans children, its completely the other way around.
Medical inaction means the child continues to have a physical, healthy body so that physical equilibrium is maintained, whereas action results in substantial physical changes that puts the child on a medical pathway of drugs, surgery and medical intervention that will almost certainly substantially alter their body for life.
They are the complete opposite.

they claim it's discriminatory to treat trans children as less able to make an informed decision about their medical treatment than 'cis' children (less likely to have Gillick competence). But what comparable medical pathway would a 'cis' child be likely to choose?

The only example I can think of is incredibly rare life saving procedures such as choosing to have chemotherapy or a hystorectomy for cancer or choosing to have a limb amputated to combat blood poisoniong. Such decisions are weighed incredibly carefully and certainly not taken without parental consent as well.

I imagine their ridiculous argument is that taking off-use drugs as puberty blockers or cross sex hormones is just as urgent because otherwise the kids will commit suicide.

Yet them constantly fucking telling everyone that trans kids kill themselves apparently carries no risk.

Regarding Mermaid's statement - they claim it's discriminatory to treat trans children as less able to make an informed decision about their medical treatment than 'cis' children (less likely to have Gillick competence). But what comparable medical pathway would a 'cis' child be likely to choose? We're talking about compromising the future fertility of trans children, or eliminating it altogether if they progress from puberty blockers to cross-sex hormones and then surgery. If a young 'cis' woman (let alone a girl) who is certain that she never wants children goes to her doctor and asks to be referred for a sterilisation procedure she will most likely be refused on the grounds that she might change her mind later. Or if she has acute endometriosis and requests a hysterectomy to alleviate her suffering this will only be granted as a last resort, if at all. If she has chronic back pain due to having large breasts and requests a reduction, she'll likely have to fight tooth and nail to get it.

If there is an inequality in medical treatment provision between trans and cis, I can't see it.

I'm hoping that SuitedandBooted is right. The real nature of the aggressive totalitarian trans activists has finally been exposed - and they did it all themselves - plastering it all over social media.
#nodebate has been silenced and the public don't like what they see - especially in relation to children.

But we should be very cautious. These people have their hands round some very powerful throats and there are a significant number of new gay male MPs. And as we have seen from the behaviour of the old gay males in the House of Lords, they rarely miss an opportunity to put the boot into women's rights.

I think the true nature of the TRA's is finally starting to leak out into the wider public, and it is certainly not a vote winner

I remember discussing this a while back with some colleagues, and asking them what image they had in their minds of a Trans woman/girl. For all of them, it was pretty much a gay boy/man, who really struggled with society's view of masculinity, and would be altogether "better", and happier living as a girl. .
Their imaginations certainly did NOT stretch to straight men, telling the world that they "identify" as woman, and hence shagging (real) women makes them lesbians.

I may also have shown them a photo of Alex Drummond from Stonewall........

In terms of sex segregation, the law is already in place. All they have to do is highlight it and let retailers, services, the DofE, the NHS, the police, and everyone else, know.

Many people are being constrained by Stonewall law. Not the actual law.

I think RoyalCorgi is right. There'll be enough Tories to put it through, but along with that I don't think there are enough true believers in other parties to be able to oppose it. It'll be interesting to see how they vote but I suspect a good portion of Labour/Green/SNP/LD MPs won't want to touch it with a barge pole and will just abstain.

There is no guarantee any of this will happen. If a law is put forward the combine votes of Lab, Lib, Green, SNP and trans tories will stop it from being past.

I disagree. The Tories have a whopping 80+ seat majority. You'd need an awful lot of TRAs amongst Tory MPs to swing it the other way. As far as I can see, this new lot are less liberal-minded than the last intake, so I can't see them rebelling against the government against this. Especially not given that most of the Tory-voting heartlands are not sympathetic to the TRA arguments.

Jess Phillips MP has the shadow Safeguarding (Home Office) brief.

I'm seeing a lot of TRAs appealing to Marsha de Cordova (new shadow Equalities minister) asking her to oppose this.
She hasn't responded but doesn't seem to be very active on Twitter. If you're on there, might be worth asking her to support Liz Truss so she gets a view of both sides and not just hyperbole.
It'll be interesting to see how or if Labour responds to this.

There is no guarantee any of this will happen. If a law is put forward the combine votes of Lab, Lib, Green, SNP and trans tories will stop it from being past.

And you can get given the coverage this has had that Stonewall and others will be going into overdrive to ensure that the sucessful lobbying they have done over the past decade isn't stopped.

And as I said earlier, what exactly has LT said that isn't already a fact. But have been undermined because the trans lobby has capture not just politics but medicine as well.

I expect a letter to the Times or wherever from professionals stating categorically that the young people will be damaged if not allowed to follow what they believe.

Remember she is stating that adults should be allowed to do what makes them happy. ie women's erasure will continue because some men, supported by a huge number of woke people will demand their right to be happy by making others say they are women.

I’ve never voted Tory, in fact I was a Labour activist in the past. But with Liz Truss and Jackie Doyle-Price speaking out, the general tenor of Conservative Woman and in contrast to the mood from the left, I genuinely feel that I am now a true conservative. If they fix this issue, I will definitely vote for them. In fact I am considering joining the party to help move this issue along. Shame on Labour, they only have themselves to blame!

I've never voted Tory. But, if they keep this up, I might.

Sex segregated spaces can be dismantled once male people stop killing, threatening and creeping out female people. Til then, get out my changing room with your penis.