Janice Turner on Keira's Case in the Times today

Brilliant post RedToothBrush

The QC argued that Tavistock patients think more about sex and identity than ordinary children, and an 11-year-old “who did not know what an orgasm or erection was would not be deemed capable of consent”.

This point is central.
An 11 SHOULD NEVER fully understand what it is to have an orgasm from having sex.

No child under the age of 13 should be having sex. Because they can't consent.

And if they are its a safeguarding concern - even if they are having sex with someone of a similar age. Because they lack the full understanding and ability to deal with the consequences.

It put kids from a vulnerable background in a position where they could be deemed more able to make a decision, when in reality its a reflect of a lifestyle in which they have been exposed to things they shouldn't rather than a comment on their ability to understand what this really means.

Children who have had sexual relationship at this age should be the ones that raise red flags about an unstable background with perhaps inappropriate boundaries. They should be the ones you worry about more in terms of making such a life changing decision at that age, not the ones you green light first.

Children living in an adult world who do not have the capacity to deal with what they are being exposed to, might well show signs of distress about their own bodies and sexual identity. Precisely because its a presentation of immaturity rather than maturity.

That the Tavistock don't understand that is troubling to my mind.

We have a very sad recent history of abuse scandals in this country in which young girls have been framed as sluts who knew exactly what they were doing, rather than young girls who were very vulnerable, didn't fully understand what was happening and felt powerless about what was happening to them. And no agency or authority spotted this issue and stepped in to help this girls reclaim their boundaries and own agency and control over their bodies. Instead they were shamed and the agencies became almost complicit with the idea that the girls were not only willing participants but were actively seeking this lifestyle. They didn't see the problems that lay behind because they forgot to question the maturity and ability of these girls to assert themselves in situations that were way beyond their years to deal with. They didn't have the language and understanding to realise that they were being raped and to convey this to adults who should have understood this problem, and should have asked questions.

The Tavistock as an agency, I fear is in danger of making a similar type of mistake, because its not asking the appropriate questions and mistakes experience or knowledge for understanding or genuine maturity.

This is especially true given we know there is a sizable issue with the influence of social media and online forums which share information, which kids pick up but don't necessarily comprend. And also are also not necessarily fully accurate and may have unduly influenced a child in terms of ideas of 'social belonging' within a group and distorted ideas of whats 'normal'.

Not only that but the idea that teenage sex is the same as a sex in an adult sexual relationship is another that is a fallacy too anyway. And its a very important part of becoming a young adult that you learn the difference.

I find the whole idea that an authority of this type can suggest that an 11 year old can make life changing decisions about having children rather bizarre. If an 11 year old rocked up to the doctor and said 'I want to have a baby now before my 12th birthday, please can I have the relevant information about how we can get pregnant quicker and what my birth plan options could be'. No one would say that an 11 year old would be capable of making sure a decision with a level of maturity which fully understood the implications, yet here we are discussing how they can make decisions which might lead to to having to go down the road of IVF or surrogacy or adoption later in life - all of which are emotionally and/or physically difficult.

Thats fundamentally different from a 11 year old who accidently found themselves pregnant (and there would be safeguarding questions asked) and was in need of medical advice and support to cope with a situation which could be lifethreatening in a child of that age because their body isn't fully developed.

The logic is baffling, as is how far removed from what safeguarding concerns there should be at the Tavistock.

I am watching the case aghast and with a great deal of anxiety over how it will conclude and what the implications of the ruling may be.

I only hope that the judges are looking at it and have similar concerns and fully understand why the law on the age of consent is written as it is.

rodgmum: what the fuck. That is horrific. How can he just sit there and say all that without realising the horror of what he's been doing?

One thing I can't get over in all this is: I'm aware of how clinical trials operate, to a limited extent. I know how exacting IRB boards are, how you've got to dot every i, cross every t, and anticipate near-impossible circumstances and incredibly low-key possible "harms."

But apparently it's possible to get around all this by just not doing any fucking research on your treatment plan and labelling it "experimental"? Then you can do whatever the hell you like to your patients - to hundreds and thousands of patients, for YEARS, with apparently no supervision whatsoever.

A 12 year old can know what an orgasm is & an erection, but can’t possibly know what accompanies adult human sexuality - the joy, the grief, the intimacy, the passion, the intensity of togetherness, the way sexual love can bring meaning and discovery to life. No 12 year old can possibly have sufficient knowledge to shut the door, forever, to that area of his or her life.

I’m aware of how barristers operate, but I think that QC should be ashamed of herself.

destiny’sDaughter I found that surgeon’s insta a few days ago and was horrified by their feed. The whole ‘nipple’ reveal Friday. Smiling faces, chat about stitching the nipples back on the wrong way round and how it doesn’t really matter. She also does metoidoplasty but not phalloplasty I think and is obviously raking it in. There are very detailed illustrations that she does of the various surgical procedures that are very educational though. And shots of Miami Beach where you can sun yourself post-operatively.

27unwashedanddazed thank you for watching that video and commenting on it, I feel like I should start a separate thread on it. It's the cutesy way it's being presented that is so alarming to me, and to such young women too. Being able to identify out of sexual assault, harrassement and being a lesbian is obviously v appealing ( and lucrative to disgustingly dishonest Drs like her), but it's NOT the answer!

Taking away sexual feeling from a woman is one of the aims of female genital mutilation, isn't it?

Sorry, that did have paragraphs when I wrote it!

So many good points on this thread. I agree with Antibles that the entire concept of "being trans" needs addressing. Whenever we hear "some children will grow up to be really trans, but many will desist" (which I see frequently) or any other sentence containing "trans" in it we need to translate it back out of gender speak. Because if trans means "someone with persistent dysphoria towards their sexed body who undergoes a medical, legal, and social process to live as if they were the opposite sex" then yes, some children will grow up to be adults who meet that criteria. If it means "someone with a gender identity that is different from their biological sex" then no, no children will grow up to be that because there's no such thing as a gender identity. If you disagree with me then please provide me with literally any evidence that it exists. There's as much evidence for a gender identity as there is for an immortal soul. Even when we talk about trans adults we'd be better to say "adults who have had transition surgery", "adults with dysphoria", "adults with AGP", "adult cross dressers" etc. Wherever we know what "trans" is being used as a synonym for, let's use that instead.

As for the loss of sexual function /many adults are happily asexual thing, I think a lot of it comes back to the idea that women aren't really sexual beings. When they say "many adults are happily asexual" I'd bet money that what they mean is "many women don't care about sex". Similarly young boys who are having drugs/surgery to appear female and live as if they were women (I'm thinking especially of someone like Jazz Jennings) who may never have any sexual feelings, I'd be pretty happy to bet that at some point this has been handwaved away with the explanation that it's OK if they never have any sexual desires or positive sexual experiences because most women aren't sexual and don't like sex, most women never organism, being sexual as an adult is a male trait etc. I really think that's part of it.

Finally (sorry for the long post) I agree that the use of correct bio terms in the court case is hugely important. I shadowed for a while at a gender clinic as a med student (about 8 years ago now) and I remember asking the psychiatrist in charge if the genital surgery options were as advanced for transmen as they were for transwomen. He said no, there were hardly any viable genital surgery options for transmen compared to transwomen. I honest to god, no lie, came away from that surprised but happy that for once medical treatment for women was advancing faster than that for men. I thought this was a great example of advancing "gender equality". I was about 25, had almost no exposure to feminism (which I mostly thought was a joke thanks to the vocal misogynists on athetist/sceptic YouTube), and the language of "Transwoman", "she/her" etc had totally scrambled my thinking (even though 100% of the transitioners I met at the clinic were non passing). If the conversation had been about the options for males with dysphoria advancing ahead of that for females with dysphoria, I might not have missed the obvious sexism.

Yes I found that extremely interesting too.

Sorry, that should have said "can't drop the pretence"

The most interesting thing i've heard about this case was from Venice Allen on PP's video - she pointed out that everyone in court was talking about girls having double mastectomies and boys taking estrogen, not boys having mastectomies and girls taking estrogen. In other words, they were correctly sexing the kids - y'know, hate speech. For me this is enormously positive, because one of the things that has done my head in most throughout all of this is when not even medical professionals talking about children in academic journals can drop the pretence.

This court case didn't take place in gender speak, and that seems like a victory in itself.

ValancyRedfern

The female stats are from the Kiera/tavi case in last couple of days.

The male stats are from something I've read in last week or so but can't remember where. Looked through my screenshots but not there sorry.

whatsnewpussyhat do you have a reference for where those stats come from? They'd be useful in a discussion I'm having right now but I know I'll be asked for citations!

There is a chapter in Inventing Transgender Children and Young People (a book which I think should be required reading by schools before they implement any teaching of gender issues) by Lisa Marchiano where she discusses 19th century hysteria vs anorexia vs gender distress/dysphoria. She quotes Elaine Showalter on contagions, “...for this condition to take root and spread as a contagion, Showalter identifies three main ingredients: ‘physician enthusiasts and theorists; unhappy, vulnerable patients; and supportive cultural environments.”

Exactly what we see happening with these “ROGD” adolescent girls. It’s absolutely heartbreaking that it is being championed in many schools and large parts of society and that the medical path is seen as the only form of treatment (as stated in court last week).

As trends in teenage girls' self-harm go, over the decades we have seen a wave of anorexia, then bulimia, then cutting, now I would say it's gender dysphoria

The amazing isn't it, that this new form of self harm is not only socially acceptable, but actively encouraged.

We need the children separating from the adults. We already know they are 2 very different groups with very different needs.

75% of the kids are female with ROGD around age 14.

Majority of the adults are now straight males over 25 with more than 50% being over 40.

These figures alone should make anyone ask questions as to why. Why aren't the numbers equal across both sexes and all ages.

If the law is to be upheld, the first question should always be why is a child under 16 having sex? Please lets get back to proper child protection and stop allowing those who have an unhealthy interest in prepubescent children not only abuse them, but seek to allow them to continue in this state.

Wanting to wear clothes of the opposite sex should be entirely acceptable. Saying it makes you change sex, shouldn't.

Making clothes interchangeable between men and women should go some way to reducing AGP too. I imagine the frisson would reduce once it became socially acceptable and commonplace. At least, that's what Grayson Perry says.

I can’t see the argument for forging ahead with risky life changing treatment rather than watchful waiting plus whatever is needed psychological therapy wise for dysphoria and any co morbidities. It would be a much better use of funding to focus spending on CAMHS as many others have said before.

Girls really should not be put on the medical pathway, perhaps doctors might even like to apply the same thinking as they do to sterilisation and be that cautious regarding age!?

Destinysdaughter that FB link is horrendous! A Dr who calls herself a vagician and a tit wizard and mimes to rap to 'answer' serious questions about surgery? She's a bloody lunatic.

The video of Aiden Kelly on page 1 should prove to anyone that these gender doctors don't know what they're doing. To not even have considered fertility until a couple of years ago when patients started to return with issues is absolutely unbelievable.

And it's not like we haven't been saying all this for years (where we've been allowed) but somehow we're the baddies.

Surgery is badly under regulated imo.