GIDS granted permission to appeal

yourhairiswinterfire
Is it likely they'll be aware of certain lawyers and media outlets misleading the public and telling porkies, such as the judgement 'destroys abortion rights for girls'?

I would like to know this too

Perhaps a side issue, but given that it is known people on steroids are clinically highly vulnerable to Covid, and testosterone is an anabolic steroid, wouldn’t anyone proposing to take “T”, as it is euphemistically called, need to understand that added risk, and any long term outcomes?

Even without Covid, shouldn’t all adolescents taking steroids understand that steroids are supremely dangerous?

In the Order of the High Court refusing the Defendant’s application for permission to appeal, point 3 is as follows:

The implementation of the Order is stayed until 4 p.m. on 22 December 2020. In the event that the Defendant or the First and Second Interveners apply by 4 p.m. on 22 December for: (a) permission to appeal; and (b) for a continuation of this stay pending appeal if permission is granted, this stay shall continue until the Court of Appeal determines whether to grant both permission to appeal and the stay as applied for.

It's likely the operation of the High Court decision will be stayed and so the previous practices of the Tavistock could be continued. However, any responsible medical practitioner, or one with an interest in self-preservation, will know that encouraging children to start or continue down the medical pathway to sterilisation in the current circumstances could see them in front of a tribunal at some point in the future.

Is it likely they'll be aware of certain lawyers and media outlets misleading the public and telling porkies, such as the judgement 'destroys abortion rights for girls'?

AnotherLass clarifying a point of law. Courts like the chance to do that. They might not be particularly interested in the details of a case, only that it serves a purpose in clarifying.

That's extremely hopeful that the appeal wasn't granted on realistic prospect of success! So the court of appeal doesn't think there is a realistic prospect of success?

It also makes it a bit weird though. What's the point of it then?

The case was about informed consent, wasn't it, so surely the benefits and side effects of PBs were important to the case, because the children would need to understand it all to consent?

I would like to know more about this too.

If the question is simply: Can children and teens give consent to a treatment that may affect later fertility and sexual function? Then I think the answer would be Yes, as children can consent to chemotherapy. But in that case there is a major proven benefit i.e. not dying of cancer.

However if the question is: Can children and teens give informed consent to a treatment that may affect later fertility and sexual function, when there is little or no evidence of benefit? Then I think the answer may be No, as the child/teen is too young to understand the balance of (substantial) harms versus (negligible/uncertain) benefits.

An additional question would be whether the Tavi were providing patients with accurate information on benefits and harms to enable them to give informed consent, and I suspect the answer to that may be No.

As for Jolyon Fox-Killer huffing and puffing about “benefits of puberty blockers” (tweet attached by yourhairiswinterfire) . . .

Very difficult to prove the “benefits” of a medically invasive, high-risk, life-changing pre-pubertal treatment resulting in developmental delay, for a condition that:

• can only be diagnosed post-puberty

• when over 80% of pre-pubertal children desist if left to experience natural puberty

• when existing research relates primarily to pre-pubertal boys experiencing gender dysphoria from an early age whereas the massive boom in children self-diagnosing as “gender dysphoric” is due to the “ROGD phenomenon” experienced primarily by adolescent girls.

The justification for blocking the puberty of girls for “cosmetic” reasons holds no water since it stunts growth and makes it less rather than more likely that they will “pass” after taking testosterone.

Even if it were technically possible for a pre-pubertal child to be able to give “informed consent” the information is simply not there at the basic level of diagnosis.

The most that the child could be told is, ”It is very unlikely that these drugs will help you. It is much more likely that they will hurt you. Out of 10 children just like you, only two might be helped - the other eight will be harmed by the drugs forever in ways that you cannot even begin to imagine.”

”Debate: Different strokes for different folks”
Kenneth J. Zucker
Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

A gender social transition in prepubertal children is a form of psychosocial treatment that aims to reduce gender dysphoria, but with the likely consequence of subsequent (lifelong) biomedical treatments as well (gender-affirming hormonal treatment and surgery).

Gender social transition of prepubertal children will increase dramatically the rate of gender dysphoria persistence when compared to follow-up studies of children with gender dysphoria who did not receive this type of psychosocial intervention and, oddly enough, might be characterized as iatrogenic.

Parents who bring their children for clinical care hold different philosophical views on what is the best way to help reduce the gender dysphoria, which require both respect and understanding.

Full text at:
www.researchgate.net/publication/333516085_Debate_Different_strokes_for_different_folks

What a child can even less give informed consent to is:

• an “Affirmative Approach” involving “Social Transition” that creates the “persistent, insistence” that is used to justify considering puberty blockers

• “reparative” aka “conversion” therapy that equally focuses on a symptom, “gender confusion”, rather than the child

To do either is completely at odds with normal psychotherapeutic practice.

”Is ‘affirmation’ an appropriate approach to childhood gender dysphoria?”
By Stephanie Davies-Arai

”The ‘gender affirmative’ model, or ‘affirmation,’ is an experimental approach towards children and young people with gender dysphoria. It is not a model which has been informed and developed through clinical research and evidence but one which has been promoted by transgender lobby groups and activists. The established global model of care for children with gender dysphoria is a ‘watch and wait’ approach which does not steer a child towards any pre-determined outcome, but recognises developmental change as an intrinsic part of childhood and adolescence.”

Full text

www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/2399-B-Transgender-Children-WEB.pdf

Other detransitioners, mostly female, who transitioned as children and adolescents are speaking out.

Their experiences are far more relevant than those of adults, mostly male, who transitioned late in life and who advocate for transitioning children as early as possible.

”A Message of Hope for Dysphoric Young People, From Five Anonymous Detransitioners”

”1. Time is not your enemy when it comes to medical transition. Young people with gender dysphoria are routinely presented with media that normalizes suicidal behavior. However, the reality is it’s more common for trans people to create the foundation for their medical transitions by first building their adult lives- finding a preferred career, building financial resources, and building adult support networks. Medical and social transition are tricky, expensive projects to pull off, and often having the benefit of adult insight and resources assists people in pulling it off successfully.”

Continued at
a-message-of-hope.com/2020/12/17/a-message-of-hope-for-dysphoric-young-people-from-five-anonymous-detransitioners/

This has come through from Keira via the gardening page:

"Earlier today it was confirmed that the Tavistock have been granted permission to appeal at the Court of Appeal. There are two grounds on which they can be granted permission; realistic prospect of success or some other compelling reason. The appeal has been granted on the latter. The Court of Appeal is interested in the Tavistock’s position that the judgement in Gillick has not been properly followed by the Divisional Court... We remain disappointed that the Tavistock is trying to overturn the rightful judgement that was made at the High Court last month."

It will be interesting to see it proven how three judges failed apparently so very badly.

Foxy Kimono's still having trouble with coherent thought, then?

The case was about informed consent, wasn't it, so surely the benefits and side effects of PBs were important to the case, because the children would need to understand it all to consent?

I would've been surprised if the appeal wasn't allowed. I agree that the evidence must be thoroughly scrutinized and tested, to ensure the best possible care is given to those children who are affected. At the moment, there is insufficient evidence of what is being treated by the blocking of puberty, and likewise whether the outcomes of doing so are beneficial.

If there are good reasons and evidence that will stand up under law as to why the activists have this right, then we all need to know them and fill in the holes in the arguments that are the reason for the concerns and the court judgement.

If they don't stand up under law and cannot be used to justify this way of managing children with dysphoria than we all need to know that too.

It has to be established, publicly, legally, beyond all doubt, as to what the right answers are.

Some of the replies on that twitter thread are sickening: 🤪 GiVe ThE KiDs ThE DrUgS oR tHeY'lL kIlL tHeMsElVeS 🤪

Thanks, Charley, that's cleared it up.

I think it's rare for new evidence to be allowed, isn't it? So it looks like they're stuck with their shitty reasoning and 'evidence' of the first hearing.

Gems such as ''if the patients lose their sexual function, it's alright because they might have turned out to be asexual anyway.' 'Some 12 year olds have sex, so do understand what they're signing away.' 'Girls can just freeze their eggs' (as if that's brings no risks and trauma, and no mention of whether they explain the costs involved of renting a woman's womb later on.)

Yeah...they must love being publicly humiliated or something, I don't think I'd be able to show my face again after the first circus. I sure as shit wouldn't be so eager to sign up for round 2.

However, as it is highly unlikely, after this ruling by the Court of Protection, that this same Court of Protection would then allow children to be sterilised/experimented upon, this is of course a pointless, costly, embarrassing and time consuming exercise the Tavistock has rightly refused to embark upon.

So, the Court ruling applies and the NHS has to suspend all medication for under 16s unless the Court of Appeal rules against the Court of Protection judges.

Personally, I don't see how a child of 13 can understand permanent sterility and a lack of a sex life anymore by March 2022, than they do now.

And the Cass inquiry and the Sonia Appleby safeguarding questions all need to take place. Which will both, presumably, shed even more light on the entire issue.

I'll be very interested to see what kind of criteria is going to be used to justify circumventing safeguarding, and explaining how minors can understand adult sterility and and future sex life curtailment.

And by very interested, I mean can't wait. Their track record leads me to believe it's going to be a masterclass in self sabotage.

Let's have it.

According to Alison Bailey, the High Court judgement stands until overturned by the Supreme Court.

'It’s worth remembering that the grant of leave to appeal does not change the judgement of the court.

The rule of law will and should run its course. In the meantime, all any of us can do is to follow the law as it stands.

Don’t trust anyone that suggests otherwise.'

It’s worth noting that it is not stating that a date has been set FOR March 2022 - it’s that the hearing will take place BY March 2022.

Which I read as meaning it could happen before then.

@GivesNoFox

A trans acquaintance on my social media was reporting this decision with a sad slant in regards to the date of the appeal (March 2022) and how horrible it was to leave 'trans youth' without medication (read: sterilization drugs) for over a year.

They're allowed to continue using PBs until the appeal, but apparently GIDS have chosen not to? I think that tells us everything we need to know about the validity of the suicide claims...

Revolting people.

It says by 2022 so could be sooner. Depends what the backlog is I guess.