Susie Green and Keira Bell on Newsnight

@maudtheinvincible I'd argue that the primary purpose of blocking puberty which creates fertility is to sterilise so that would include (a).

The court quite clearly laid out that (b) there were plenty of children who would never pass the threshold for consent because certain implications could not be explained to them in an age appropriate manner.

Arguably saying that puberty blockers are completely reversible and that cross sex hormones are not a foregone conclusion is (c) convert sterilisation.

And its definitely the case that this is a controversial area of medicine which isnt fully tested because there is a serious lack of evidence and there are twitter storms, mass threads on MN and elsewhere and hundreds of media reports/articles on the subject which suggest it falls under (e) too.

So thats a, b, c, d and e - all sections of this law - where it seems perfectly valid that courts should become involved.

That's quite the list.

This is from the judgment, concerning the circumstances when the Court of Protection might be asked to decide on whether treatment ought to be given or not:

^95. In those circumstances he submitted that the court should be guided by the approach of the Court of Protection in its Practice Guidance (Court of Protection: Serious Medical Treatment) [2020] 1 WLR 641 which sets out those decisions relating to medical treatment where an application should be made to the Court of Protection.
96. Paras 10 and 11 of that Guidance state:^

^“10. In any case which is not about the provision of life-sustaining treatment, but involves the serious interference with the person’s rights under the ECHR, it is:
“highly probable that, in most, if not all, professionals faced with a decision whether to take that step will conclude that it is appropriate to apply to the court to facilitate a comprehensive analysis of [capacity and] best interests, with [the person] having the benefit of legal representation and independent expert advice.”
This will be so even where there is agreement between all those with an interest in the person’s welfare.^

11. Examples of cases which may fall into paragraph 10 above will include, but are not limited to: (a) where a medical procedure or treatment is for the primary purpose of sterilisation; (b) where a medical procedure is proposed to be performed on a person who lacks capacity to consent to it, where the procedure is for the purpose of a donation of an organ, bone marrow, stem cells, tissue or bodily fluid to another person; (c) a procedure for the covert insertion of a contraceptive device or other means of contraception; (d) where it is proposed that an experimental or innovative treatment to be carried out; (e) a case involving a significant ethical question in an untested or controversial area of medicine.”

The judges agreed that the evidence presented showed the drugs to be experimental (point (d) above), so the court should be involved.

Susie Green's failure to submit the reams of evidence she claims to have is no one's fault but Susie's.

Watching the clip from last night, I am reminded of when Graham Linehan went onto Newsnight and was ripped into by Sarah Smith (I have just re watched the segment).

I wonder if she would approach the topic differntly today, given yesterday's ruling?

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p08305wc

Back in August there was a Twitterstorm when the BBC quietly dropped its links to Mermaids (who vociferously challenged this with various scarcely-veiled threats about consequences). At the same time, Mermaids did a spectacular 180-degree turn to arrive at the claim that no one is born in the wrong body and that children should be encouraged to wear and play with what they want. Now we're seeing an another volte-face in Susie Green's new claim that the 'suicide statistics' constantly being quoted (but that no one can actually quote) are 'anecdotal evidence'.

'Anecdotal evidence'. For using experimental treatment on children which has permanent, irreversible effects. As for their former inaccurate claim that the use of PBs is 'reversible', that was another spectacular about-face by Mermaids who later suggested they never made it in the first place. And don't get me started on Green's highly irresponsible muddying of the waters surrounding minors' bodily autonomy and capacity for consent. She will no doubt backtrack on this, too, at some later stage. All I can say is the memory hole at Mermaids HQ must be working at full capacity.

Happily there is a noticeable lack of ideological dogma in that judgement. 'Experienced' and 'expressed' gender are referred to, as are 'primary and secondary sex characteristics'. No fluffy 'assigned at birth' or 'correct pronouns' jargon. And the Twittersphere was, interestingly enough, very upset by the erasure of their particular language (funny, that). As the second claimant pointed out, take that away and the whole case for treatment tumbles down like a house of cards.

The best way to discredit Susie Green is to allow Susie Green to speak for herself. Top work by Maitlis (again)!

From the Charity Commission website:
"Only use this form if there is a serious risk of harm to the charity or people it was set up to help.

Examples of serious issues include:

-a charity not following the law, with damaging consequences to its reputation and public trust in charities generally
-serious harm to the people the charity helps or other people who come into contact with the charity through its work
-a person or organisation receiving significant financial benefit from a charity
criminal, illegal or terrorist activity
-a charity set up for illegal or improper purposes
-a charity losing significant amounts of money
-a charity losing significant assets, for example land or buildings"

Thinking there's surely an argument on the first two points.

[quote SecondRow]Wrong link! This is the dysphoria thread!
twitter.com/AlexAlicit/status/1328079116151754757?s=19[/quote]
Thanks. Interesting read.

Why is it that gender identity should be treated differently?

The time that Polly Carmichael was interviewed a couple of years ago was very revealing...also by Emily Maitlis. Did not come over as anything but arrogant when asked about lack of evidence

What are these "many studies" Susie was lying through her arse about talking about?

She really is a shocker. Mermaids needs a complete overhaul or it needs to go.

It seems to me very telling that the Tavistock refused to put anyone up for interview. They know, deep down, that their position is indefensible

Thats happened alot with everything every step of the way. Its not that often you get a full range of guests ro discuss. Many leave statements or pre recorded interviews citing fear and prejudice as to why they "can't" go live. Its very clear that a live interview where its possible it might go off topic or on a slight tangent fir clarification, is something that alot of people are ill equipped to deal with.

Even being asked to define their terms is avoided.

I hate that she was so dismissive of what happened to Keira. Describing Keira as part of a small percentage and therefore irrelevant.

It seems to me very telling that the Tavistock refused to put anyone up for interview. They know, deep down, that their position is indefensible. They were made to look like fools in the judges' ruling because they hadn't bothered to collect data on really basic stuff like what happened to the children who were put on puberty blockers or how many of the children they saw were autistic.

Susie Green, on the other hand, doesn't know that her position is indefensible. She believes in this nonsense wholeheartedly, and admitting that she'd made a mistake would be personally devastating. It's fascinating to behold, in a car crash kind of way.

And we have all these moves to prevent it from being regarded as a mental health issue despite it apparently being something which is a feeling.

So its deeply problematic in terms of the principle of 'do no harm' which does apply to every area of medicine.

So far from GD being treated differently by the medical profession, the mermaids cheerleaders actually want it treated differently and for safeguarding and ethics to not apply because it doesn't suit their agenda.

How you frame this is important.

Whats going on when you frame treatment pathways as discriminatory when those same gatekeeping principles of safeguarding and ethics apply everywhere else in medicine?

Why would you advocate for children (and adults) who identify as trans to have less safeguarding and ethically practices than any other group in society when it comes to medicine?

SecondRow I'm not a lawyer but it's my understanding that any experimental treatment for children (which this, as identified in the judgement, is) must be approved by the courts. I believe that doctors can appeal to the courts where a child is refusing life-saving treatement if there's any indication that the child is being influenced against their best interests by their family or community.

She didn’t want any sunlight on that issue because it shows how she ignored the UK’s safeguarding protocols when it came to her own child.

forms.charitycommission.gov.uk/raising-concerns/

I suppose the ruling now - and the change of law in Thailand (was it there)? Are following her around as what not to happen to kids. Must be rather unnerving...

I find it interesting that SG's argument is that this judgement treats children with GD differently to any other child needing/wanting medical treatment when it's actually the complete opposite, and is just applying the same (evidence based, widely used and respected) competency framework that's is used in all other areas.

FamilyofAliens, When SG said "I've been involved in this for 21 years, BECAUSE..." and then changed course mid-sentence, it sounded like she thought better of saying "because I put my son on blockers acquired abroad at 12 and got him surgery on his 16th birthday".

I watched it with DH.

He commented after that Green didn't refer to the children. She instead refered to the parents and how they were reacting.

He found this odd and revealing.

One question Susie Green asked was interesting. Is there any other treatment that children have to go to court to secure for themselves?

I don't know, but if not, maybe that's because clinicians wouldn't dream of using off-label drugs with no good evidence base for any other condition, especially one where there is no immediate danger to life and limb. This couldn't have happened in any other field of medicine, could it?

I think for SG the problem is that it is also deeply personal for her. She facilitated gender reassignment surgery for her then 16-year-old son in Thailand because it was illegal here.

Obviously she’s not going to support any measure to introduce an extra layer of safeguarding for children when she rode a coach and horses through the notion of safeguarding where her own child was concerned.

You are right they didn't get to present evidence to the court hearings but they did present evidence for permission to intervene in the case. They were denied permission to intervene because they didn't present anything new that was pertinent to the case.

TransgenderTrend, who are also not medical experts, did present new relevant information and were granted permission to intervene.