Jo Maugham

The first is that (unless overturned) it will leave the United Kingdom as an international outlier on the use of puberty blockers. The World Health Organisation, for example, talks of the need to depathologise trans health: "trans-related and gender diverse identities are not conditions of mental ill health, and classifying them as such can cause enormous stigma" and goes on to add that "Inclusion of gender incongruence in the ICD should ensure transgender people’s access to gender-affirming health care."

If transgenderism is 'depathologised', then surely it needs no medical treatment because it's not a medical condition. How can something be simultaneously not a medical condition but also in need of medical treatment? Are there any other conditions to which this applies?

Too clever for JM to grasp though

Why is a QC bemoaning the fact that trans people were not allowed to give evidence on this case ? This case is about two specific parties - it’s not a consultation. Women’s groups don’t give evidence in murder trials because VAWG is a thing. The case is about the specifics of the case.

In this case the Tavi lost because they clearly failed on every medical safeguarding protocol you can think of. What would trans kids have to say about Tavi record keeping or capture by ideologists? Nothing. All they can do is tell their sad stories and hope to win some sympathy but that is not what a court is for.

JM knows this - and is being disingenuous at best. Some of his recent tweets are unhinged.

@nauticant

"The first is we must ignore UK law and do what others do."

[...]

This is startling stuff from a QC.

Not really; barristers (and even QCs) do come out with this sort of stuff all the time. Sometimes it is even very well done.

For example, there was a case that was reported a few weeks ago that had very similar issues. It concerned a 15 year old girl who the court held to be Gillick competent and was a Jehovah's Witness, who was refusing a blood transfusion. The Court held that, despite the girl's opposition, the transfusion should take place. This is the full judgment:-

Re X (A Child) (2020) EWHC 3003 (Fam)

It was a distressing case where the girl in question had, apparently, only a matter of hours, rather than days, left before the situation became critical.

The judge who heard the case (Sir James Munby - who is a seriously impressive judge by any standards) could only give a short judgment due to the time constraints. Nevertheless he did mention the very powerful arguments made by counsel for the girl against the blood transfusion which referenced a decision of the Canadian Supreme Court:-

[8] Mr Brady's argument, which is powerful and demands much fuller response than I can give it today, is that to impose this form of treatment on X is to impinge impermissibly upon her autonomy as, I emphasise, a Gillick competent child of almost 16. He submits that the law has moved on, not merely in consequence of the Human Rights Act 1998, but in more general developments, so that the position which had seemingly been reached by the Court of Appeal in the two cases ... in the early 1990s no longer reflects the law as it is. Those are powerful arguments which deserve full analysis and proper consideration. Unhappily, we do not have time for that today in the light of Dr C's medical evidence. I will return to the consequences of this shortly.

[...]

[15] Mr Brady, in an enormously helpful and detailed skeleton argument for which I thank him, has put together arguments suggesting that this view of the law is in need of urgent re-analysis and review, partly in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998, partly in the light of more general recent legal developments, and partly in the light of the very important decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to which he powerfully drew my attention: AC v Manitoba [2009] SCC 30, [2009] 2 SCR 181. These are arguments which require to be dealt with, but it is quite impossible for me, within the timescale that Dr C's evidence sets out, to engage properly with these arguments today. It seems to me that I have no realistic choice, but to take the law as being that which was laid down by the Court of Appeal in the two cases I have mentioned, the best part of 30 years ago, and also in the more recent decision of the Court of Appeal in 2012 in Re G (Education: Religious Upbringing) (2012) EWCA Civ 1233, (2013) 1 FLR 677, where, as it happens, I gave the major judgment.

In para [8] above:-

"so that the position which had seemingly been reached by the Court of Appeal in the two cases ... in the early 1990s"

One of those two cases was Re W which was also relied upon by the High Court in the Keira Bell case and was one of the grounds of appeal used by Tavistock.

It seems to be that Sir James James Munby is suggesting that perhaps this needs to be looked at again and that, perhaps, it needs to be looked at as to whether a court should respect a Gillick competent child refusing life-saving treatment. However, given that he decided that the girl should be given the transfusion despite her refusal it isn't clear on which side of the fence he sits.

Personally, I'm totally on the side of the part of the judgment in the case of Re W where Nolan LJ said that the duty of the court is to ensure so far as it can that children survive to attain the age of 18 at which an individual is free to do with his life what he wishes.

So, the law in this area is evolving and is certainly not static.

Just going totally off topic, Sir James Munby was also the judge in the Court of Appeal case concerning the Owens divorce in 2018. This mumsnet AIBU thread from the time:-

Refused Divorce WTF

Sir James has a history of questioning the legal status quo and he made it abundantly clear what he thought of the law in his judgment at the Court of Appeal before it went to the Supreme Court:-

Owens v Owens (2017) EWCA Civ 182

[2] The question for us is whether, within the meaning of CPR 52.11(3)(a), the wife can establish that in coming to this decision the judge was "wrong" – in which case we can interfere. If, for whatever reasons, we find ourselves unable to interfere, the question inevitably arises whether, in 2017, the law is in a remotely satisfactory condition?

He noted that the law continually needs to be updated:-

[41] So, in my judgment, when [the 1969 Act], uses the words "cannot reasonably be expected", that objective test has to be addressed by reference to the standards of the reasonable man or woman on the Clapham omnibus: not the man on the horse-drawn omnibus in Victorian times which Lord Bowen would have had in mind (see Healthcare at Home Ltd v The Common Services Agency [2014] UKSC 49, [2014] PTSR 1081, para 2), not the man or woman on the Routemaster clutching their paper bus ticket on the day in October 1969 when the 1969 Act received the Royal Assent, but the man or woman on the Boris Bus with their Oyster Card in 2017.

So, overall, while there do appear to be powerful arguments in favour of under 16s being given increased autonomy in these sorts of areas, at the moment, the courts in this country are not persuaded by them.

However, it seems that if society does change its position to such an extent that trans rights and self ID etc become accepted generally then the courts are likely to change their position.

This part is so scary to me tbh. Why on earth should deciding medical ethics and safegarding apply to all children, based on facts, be deemed courageous?! Its really a terrible state of affairs.

If I were trying to argue that puberty blockers were just a 'pause' and were completely reversible, I'd avoid saying that only people who might want to take them are trans.

No advocate on behalf of a trans young person - the only group affected by the decision - was permitted to address the Court.

His language is very imprecise for a lawyer. The people affected by the decision are people who are patients at GIDs, whether they identify as trans, de-transitioners or neither.

The World Health Organisation, for example, talks of the need to depathologise trans health: "trans-related and gender diverse identities are not conditions of mental ill health, and classifying them as such can cause enormous stigma" and goes on to add that "Inclusion of gender incongruence in the ICD should ensure transgender people’s access to gender-affirming health care."

I think this is the central problem - there isn't agreement on what is being treated.

The WHO paragraph above only makes sense if you follow the 'born in the wrong body' narrative - if there is nothing wrong with the brain there must be something wrong with the body. In turn 'wrong body' only makes sense if either you believe in a gendered soul, or you believe that particular traits can only belong to a male or a female - the choice is religion or sexism.

Any other explanations e.g. gender dysphoria that might have been triggered by a variety of causes, and that might not be permanent, must be rejected if you have to reject a mental health diagnosis. In a society where schools have been told that gender must be affirmed, how does a doctor talk about other factors like mental health, autism and trauma?

It seems odd in 2020 that stigma should be a reason to deny the existence of a mental health link, but here we are. I think the only conclusion can be that sometimes it is good to be an outlier. However, its not difficult to see why GIDS is in a mess. Who needs Mermaids to apply pressure when the BBC and Netflix are happy to tell children that football is for boys, girls don't wear blue, and a doctor can give you a new body?

"trans-related and gender diverse identities are not conditions of mental ill health, and classifying them as such can cause enormous stigma"

Well maybe if we can just get bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, any form of depression etc unclassified as mental ill health we’ll have solved the problem of MH stigma, eh? (Rolls eyes, knocks self out).

The World Health Organisation, for example, talks of the need to depathologise trans health: "trans-related and gender diverse identities are not conditions of mental ill health, and classifying them as such can cause enormous stigma

the WHO that said they were advised on the redefinition of transgender condition by some helpful trans activists.

I thought there was a big push to destigmatise mental health issues? Surely claiming that calling something a mental health is stigmatising will be a self-fulfilling prophesy?

JM is really sounding pretty unhinged about all this. The experiences of ‘trans children’ were heard, they just didn’t get to stand in court & say it, they were submitted in writing

It’s a perfect example of hubris & an echo chamber mentality. I would love to see him argue this in court, it would be brilliant to watch him try the “you’ve been sooo unfair & mean” approach in a court of law

No advocate on behalf of a trans young person - the only group affected by the decision - was permitted to address the Court.

It's almost as if JM has a particular advocate in mind, an advocate for whom JM has boundless admiration. Perhaps a crusading advocate who does not fear the limelight?

Always worth remembering Diva

But the court did hear first hand from a trans person. Keira Bell. Her life, her experience as a trans teen.

To borrow from Joel v Morison, it looks like Maugham is "on a Harrop of his own".

He battered an animal to death with a cricket bat. He’s a twat.

I'm incredibly proud of the UK judiciary for making these courageous, evidence-based judgements.

The rest of the world is watching. I doubt the impact will be limited to England and Wales.

archery2 and I seem to be skirting around the same point. I don't want to be banned so will say no more.

The first is we must ignore UK law and do what others do.

The second is we must ignore the parties to the High Court case and imagine some other hypothetical parties who were behaving differently.

The third is we must ignore the evidence that was actually put forward by the defendants and considered by the judges.

This is startling stuff from a QC.

Suicidal feelings are a major indication of a mental health crisis.
And also the fact that it's not a medical issue at all, it's an identity one. So why is the NHS paying for it then??

Schrodinger's cat all over again. Being trans is simultaneously a mental health problem leading to suicide ideation, a medical issue needing drugs/surgery and an innate sense of self, so questioning it is tantamount to conversion therapy.

So interesting that JM can't make the distinction between the trans community and children. What was the concluding paragraph in that excellent Observer leader?

Children are not pawns to be deployed in adult debates about identity. Bell’s bravery has paved the way for a child-centred judgment that gives them the protection they deserve

Depressing to see adults with evident intelligence doing precisely this.

trans-related and gender diverse identities are not conditions of mental ill health

I'm sorry, but they're really getting on my nerves. They can't say it's nothing to do with mental health and then bang on about high suicide rates. Suicidal feelings are a major indication of a mental health crisis.

And also the fact that it's not a medical issue at all, it's an identity one. So why is the NHS paying for it then??