Keira judgement and abortion rights

You don't get the 'wrong' puberty on puberty blockers; you get no puberty at all. The name says it all. The cross sex hormones that almost inevitably follow give some of the secondary sexual characteristics typical of the opposite sex but cannot give an opposite sex puberty as there are no opposite sex genitals for the hormones to stimulate. It's quite simple really.

The scaremongering about abortions for children being the next ban is likely to be yet another attempt to link gender critical thinkers to far right US religious fundamentalists when in fact they are chalk and cheese. I think we can safely ignore that.

If you go with the safeguarding priority of what's in a child's best interests, a pregnant child has been raped by a mature male and her best interests are not likely to be served by being forced to give birth to another child she cannot care for in a process that could damage her immature body. Likewise, safeguarding a child who is unhappy and confused about their sex is not likely to involve experimentally treating them with cancer drugs, sterilising them and denying them sexual maturity in either sex.

Lots of things fall into place when we stop and think about a child's best interests rather than rushing to give them whatever they say they want in the moment. That isn't how we raise children.

Think of your own heart's desire when you were aged 10 or 11. What would you do with it now? How would being granted it have affected your life?

The case stated that Gillick competence wasn't being applied as the law states it should be. It hasn't changed the law.

The case stated that the treatment was experimental, there was a lack of evidence for it, that there were serious question marks about how services were being managed, raised the question of harm being done and that there was no age appropriate way to discuss these issues in a way that would allow them to understand the implication.

Its not comparible to an abortion in any way.

@Lotsofpots this blog on WPUK might interest you womansplaceuk.org/2020/11/29/womens-rights-healthcare-and-the-law/

I find the Tavistock's lack of scientific method to be quite shocking.

The utter fucking uselessness of hospital ethics committees is demonstrated yet again.

Want to conduct some harmless qualitative research- say, asking older people about their experience of physio? Here, fill in this 70 page form, including an equality assessment, DPIA and full details of outcome measures.

Want to give kids off-licence drugs that will permanently remove their fertility and sexual function? Go right ahead. No paperwork required.

(*Fraser not Frasier: getting confused with American sitcom: need my bed!)

This judgment actually supports Gillick competency for abortions - it makes clear that where the treatment is safe, the effects understood, the alternative outcome of no treatment understood, then a child can consent. Abortion would fall into this category, there is zero doubt on that.

Puberty blockers, on the other hand, fulfill none of those conditions.

This ruling truly is a good outcome for children who present with gender dysphoria. I hope they will now experience differential diagnosis and proper treatment as is normal in other branches of medicine.

One of my children is part of a medical trial for allergies. They were utterly wonderful at sharing data and outcomes so far, risks etc with us. There were options. There are papers published all over the place. They are ever so careful with measurements and record keeping. It is like they are looking to find out where they've got it wrong because all scientific theory is wrong somewhere, even if just in some edge case.

I find the Tavistock's lack of scientific method to be quite shocking.

I notice there are still people going on about "wrong puberty" tonight. How is that compatible with the consensus we thought we had achieved that nobody is "born in the wrong body"?

Just to add to all the very sensible posts on this thread, the judge in Keira's case has not done anything to undermine or change Gillick or Fraser principles, which remain good law. There is well established practice for clinicians assessing the capacity of children to consent to medical treatment generally and reproductive health specifically. The judgment is very clearly about the specific concerns around puberty blockers and will not undermine the well established protocols for giving children abortions or contraception, applying Gillick guidelines.

A girl of 14 can have a pretty good understanding of the impact of having a baby at 15 and therefore of using contraception or having an abortion. There would be Gillick competency.

Furthermore, a girl considering contraception or abortion must have already be well on her way through puberty not prepubescent like is desired for puberty blockers.

• 14-16 yr olds having sex with 14-16 yr olds,

Bit of an aside, but if a 12 year old is pregnant she has been raped: anyone under 13 is unable in law to give consent. ( I know the age of consent is 16 but if they are having sex with same aged partners and pass Frasier competencies they would not be prosecuted. Frasier is the law lord who developed the judgment based on Gillick: sorry if you all already knew this)

Fairly confident that any attempt to use this judgment to restrict abortion rights would get a dusty answer from the courts. There is no equivalence with the subject-matter of this ruling.

Abortion maintains the status quo (ie. having a baby is what would lead to life-changing issues) and is provably safer than pregnancy, especially in children. This is the exact opposite of puberty blockers, where taking them will lead to life-changing issues, and they are not provably safer than not taking them.

Thanks, Treestumps.

Thanks for this thread, it's useful to have the responses to this topic in an easy to find place, especially as I'm sure we've got a few new lurkers today. (Hello!)

Does an abortion permanently impact on a girl's ability to have children later in her life, to be able to experience a sex life as an adult, to not suffer unknown lifelong possible side effects such as uterine atrophy and brittle bones, and reliance on medical care and medication? Is it an experimental procedure with no certainty of outcome? Does it have a possibility of negatively impacting on her IQ and ability to mature her brain as she grows up?

Is it in the best interests of a young girl to have a one off, well known medical procedure with a low risk medical outcome, or to go through a pregnancy and become a mother when a child herself with the risks of pregnancy, birth and the impact on her life and future?

It's not the same thing at all. This is follows the exact same process in putting the needs and the rights of a child under law to the forefront, and considering their objective best interests.

It's frankly scary (though admittedly not surprising) how far people are prepared to misrepresent in order to fit their narrative.

It's abundantly clear in the judgment that the court regards puberty blockers for GD as a unique situation.

Of course, theoretically there could be some other 'treatment' where a drug was prescribed with no evidence base, which had severe life changing side effects where there was no threat to life or even physical symptoms, and the entire raison d'etre of which was to prevent children reaching the state of emotional and intellectual maturity which would allow them to consent to the treatment...and if such a treatment were proposed no doubt the Bell ruling would apply.

Abortion isn't such a treatment though.

That's just one of the smokescreens being sent up to obfuscate the judgement.

Use of blockers for their original, well researched purposes is another.

It's despicable.

But, if you read the judgement itself the language used clarifies the matters. There is no issue because the judgement was based on the Tavi having no evidence, no research and no records of long term outcome to justify what they have been doing!

I'd have thought the long term implications for a 12 year old carrying & giving birth to a baby are beyond the 12 year old's ability to give informed consent to. It's certainly the more dangerous option to continue with the pregnancy. This applies physically (long term physical adverse affects) and mentally (especially given the likelihood a pregnant 12 year old is a victim of rape and /or neglect. An abortion, which ultimately returns the body to the status quo, may even end up as less medical intervention for a 12 year old than continuing a high risk pregnancy.

It just felt disconcerting to see the language I use to defend abortion rights used by those arguing that young people should receive puberty blockers

Adherents of mainstream trans rights activism (mods and monitors I do not mean trans people by this term. Indeed, in my experience, often unlikely to be trans.) also appropriate the experience of people with disorders of sexual development and the struggle for racial equality. The arguments they submit here are similarly back to front. Disorders of sexual development only exist because of sexual dimorohism and people with dsd are not assigned a sex any longer because medics are able to find out their sex. Racial segregation was a way for the class with the power (white people) to retain power. Sex segregation is a way for the class with less power (females) to find safety away from the class with the power (males).

What is worrying is when you see organisations such as the Tavistock lack the critical thinking skills to unpick these back to front illogical claims. The Tavistock provide training as well as treatment. They used to be very highly regarded.

It needs to be remembered that this is an ideology that uses myths, untruths and false equivalences to persuade other. There is a reason that lobby groups have spent so much time and effort focussing on children who don't have the life experiences or wisdom to critically evaluate their beliefs.
Fortunately - as has already been pointed out - the judgement addresses in detail the issues around consent. But to read and understand it would mean trans advocates having to acknowledge that they have been on the wrong side of history in advocating for unethical medical experimentation on children. So they set the squirrels running like the abortion issue. It's worth reading the actual judgement - and quoting it relentlessly at all the gaslighters.

www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-on-the-application-of-quincy-bell-and-a-v-tavistock-and-portman-nhs-trust-and-others/

It's completely different. A young girl who has an abortion avoids all the risks and complications associated with under age pregnancy. So the decision to have an abortion does not have a permanent detrimental effect on her life that she needs to understand.

This is completely different to asking a child to understand the consequences of stepping onto the drug and surgery conveyor belt. Asking a child who has never had sex to weigh up the risk of never being able to achieve orgasm, and destroying their future fertility has such enormous, life changing consequences that it is too much for an undeveloped and inexperienced brain to properly consider. Especially if everyone they pay attention to is telling them that it is possible to change sex.

Oh I know this judgement doesn't affect abortion rights. There are all kinds of complexities to puberty blockers that don't exist in the abortion case, no one needs to study statistics, or attempt to take an objective position on her own adolescent narcissism ,in order to judge whether abortion is the right decision for her.

What I mean is that I am concerned that the TRAs have latched on to "you want to take away abortion rights" so readily, given that everything they accuse us of is projection.