Jo Maugham

it will leave the United Kingdom as an international outlier on the use of puberty blockers

The ruling doesn't apply to Scotland or NI (iirc) so really it is only Eng and Wales who are the international outlier. And that is not (in itself) a bad thing. "Everyone else is doing it" is a spectacularly bad reason for doing something - as I learnt in my teen years through my mother's repeated use of the phrase "if everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you?!".

they were denied all independent voice by a series of case management decisions made by the Court

Surely that is an outright lie. The court did hear the voices of some trans children. What they refused to do was to hear the voice of the same trans child twice.

Jo M keep repeating there were no trans voices heard. Did he not read where they were presented? This is quite a jump.

Update from Jolyon:

There is much in that decision that the trans community is justified in feeling angry about. However, there are three points, in particular, that seem to me to be worth noting.

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."

The second is that a case about the approach adopted by a particular institution - and one viewed with some suspicion by the trans community because of its continuing pathologising of gender incongruence - was used by the Court as a trial of a particular treatment. This seems to me to answer the wrong question - with hugely damaging consequences for those who benefitted from that treatment.

The third - and I want to say this very clearly - is that it was profoundly and especially wrong of the Court to do this in a case in which no trans voices were heard. The Tavistock took evidence from a number of trans young people to seek to defend its position. But they were denied all independent voice by a series of case management decisions made by the Court. No advocate on behalf of a trans young person - the only group affected by the decision - was permitted to address the Court. In light of the first two points, I believe this state of affairs was shameful

Yes, some are, some are curious, some very much want nothing to do with it.

When teaching year 7 reproduction in science (age 11and 12) many find the idea of sex absolutely disgusting. It is completely normal, and developmentally appropriate to not understand the sexual arousal at that age.

I think there might be something in that Molten. So much projection involved.

That childs testimony is showing off one of the main problems with the whole thing IMO. That age, not many care about future children or relationships and such.

And then put them on puberty blockers and they're unlikely to develop in the same way as their peers with regards to relationships anyway.

I find it very worrying that so many people seem to think 13 year olds should be interested in sex. Yes, some are, some are curious, some very much want nothing to do with it.

I feel like this is somehow linked to the availability and normalisation of porn as a healthy way for kids to learn about sex but can't really articulate it. Its as though we've lost sight that kids are not just mini adults, but in fact distinctly psychologically different and indeed very much vulnerable.

This might get me deleted, so am ready, however I find the contrast quite stark, the assume transkids are assexual, yet so many adult trans people (seemingly transwomen, more than transmen) appear to be hyper sexual.

Thats not me saying all transwomen of course, but a fair few of the older transitioners certainly come across that way to me. Of course 'nontrans people' can be hyper sexual also and its not necessarily a bad thing either, however, the assumption that kids are asexual, in order to shove them onto blockers (and create a sort of self fulfilling prophecy really) is..odd to say the least.

This is even before getting into the health problems and such too.

you will use all funds raised in a Successful Campaign to pay directly and solely for fees and/or costs associated with the Case as described on the Case Page

It is unclear whether "running costs" count as case costs. If they do, then why has he split it out like that, if not then he shouldn't be doing it at all? (I also think changing the case the money is to be used for is a tad dodgy as well...)

So 10% of the money raised will not be used for the stated purpose, but just as extra profit?

I would imagine it goes towards covering general overheads.

I think that is fair.

Just had a look at the crowdfunder and I'm now confused.

The stated lawyers for the fund are the "Good Law Project", which means all money raised (minus crowdfunder site cut) goes to them?

But in addition it says at the bottom of the blurb that "In common with our general practice we will retain ten percent of the fund to help cover our running costs"

So 10% of the money raised will not be used for the stated purpose, but just as extra profit?

I thought quite a few children appeared to be one of several same sex children in a family, I've read things about always wanting a girl after several boys etc. So perhaps not necessarily firstborn

There are so many unanswered questions that stem from the administration of these drugs being unmonitored.

how many of the children referred to the Tavi are first born?

DH raised the question of when in the year are they born. Is there a split throughout the year or is there an over representation of summer born children?

Both interesting questions. However, as the Tavi couldn't even be bothered to look at their patients records to see how many had an ASD diagnosis, I don't hold out much hope that they've collected any other data about their patients.

And did Jolyon's complaint on 5 October simply reflect things that any lawyer could have known anyway, about who was intervening and who wasn't - even though it wasn't part of the news reporting at that time - or would it be because he was involved in the application to intervene, or was in touch with those who were?

I presume Mermaids themselves had publicised that their application to intervene had been denied. I mean I guess they might have instructed JM to represent them but because his specialism is tax rather than judicial review and human rights, that would be an odd choice of barrister. I suspect he was just repeating what was already in the public domain.

Is it a conventional legal thing to talk about 'hearing voices', or should we connect Jolyon's 5 Oct complaint of 'all voice' being denied, and the judge's retort that the child did indeed have a voice?

Yes, it’s a fairly common expression by judges, especially in cases involving children. I don’t think the judges were in any way responding to Jolyon’s social media posts. Judges aren’t allowed to be on Twitter and I suspect they stay well away.

The first indication in public that a 13 year old trans child would be taking part in the judicial review came in Sue Evans's "case update" dated 7 September. She wrote:

"There has been a significant amount of interest from groups that have wanted to become formally involved in the case. Transgendertrend has been allowed to participate, as has a 13 year old trans-child. Mermaids and Stonewall have been refused permission to get involved."

But two days before the case was heard, Jolyon seems to have broken the news that, in fact, the child's request had been refused. He wrote on twitter on 5 October: "The case against the Tavistock... will hear no submissions from trans kids. They, and charities representing them, asked to be heard but were denied all voice."

Then with the judgment of 1 December came the description of the 13 year old, given the name S, as "a 13 year old trans boy who is on the waiting list at GIDS" and is now a GenderGP customer. (para 87). In the judges' order refusing permission to appeal (at Ground 9), it was explained that S had applied to intervene "to ensure that the voice of the child was heard" but it turned out that he had already made a statement, using a different initial, which had been included in the evidence by the defendant, but using a different initial letter for his name. But S had not disclosed this. The judge commented: "The voice of the child, and this particular child, was heard."

Is it a conventional legal thing to talk about 'hearing voices', or should we connect Jolyon's 5 Oct complaint of 'all voice' being denied, and the judge's retort that the child did indeed have a voice? And did Jolyon's complaint on 5 October simply reflect things that any lawyer could have known anyway, about who was intervening and who wasn't - even though it wasn't part of the news reporting at that time - or would it be because he was involved in the application to intervene, or was in touch with those who were?

I honestly don't know the answers!

Cos gay people cannot want kids ?????
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Davidson

I have noticed today on twatter that activists are now saying that it is forcing heteronormativity on them to discuss fertility as being a significant factor in their lives.

Errrr! ????

A question for the hive mind

how many of the children referred to the Tavi are first born?

just that is there possibly a link between unrealistic parental expectations of childrearing
and referral?

A kid at my gym, while changing for swimming with his mum
proudly told all present that
when I grow up I want to be a girl
he was 4
he is now 15 and luckily his mum realised that lots of little kids say daft things

Here's the problem with living in an echo chamber and insisting on 'no debate'. You get absolutely no practice in defending your position. You also don't get to see which arguments others find persuasive and which ones they view as completely nutty.

I imagine a confused child distressed about whether they are a boy or a girl "works" as an argument to an extent, because you would have to have a heart of stone not to care about them. The problem is, when the debate moves on to the long-term effects of puberty blockers etc, you can't just keep holding up a picture of a sobbing child to say "look! Stop hurting these children!"

Yes, we know they are desperately unhappy. However, many people consider that putting these children on a path to sterilisation, serious but ultimately cosmetic surgery and a lifetime of hormones a very drastic step in combating that unhappiness. You're going to have to come up with better evidence than a 13-year-old kid who hasn't given his future romantic encounters much thought.