Boris Speaks!

I was quite pleased to see the likes on this BBC article on Facebook. I assume, being the BBC, it’s about as neutral a source as exists at present. Almost 35 thousand positive reactions to only 2.3 thousand angry faces,

Why do people talk about like the current government only turned up yesterday? They've been making the rules for the last 12 years!

His party has only been in power for 12 years.

This currently would effect around 2500 girls in the UK.

And that figure seems to be falling year on year.
Pretty sure we women are competent enough to sort this out for those 2500.
I'm certain we could think of some way to either stop the removal of gillick or find another route to girls accessing terminations.

Not that gillick is under threat.

I personally have seen current situation rolling on unabated for nearly 20 years, I've seen nothing to suggest gillick is going to be removed, but if I did, I'd vote for the party that said they would keep it, it would be my hill to die on and my solitary reason for voting for that party.

Never mind any pregnant teenagers

I'm far more worried for pregnant teenagers if certain tax lawyers manage to push through their vision of ignoring whether a child can consent.

I don't want parents deciding for pregnant teenagers.

It’s desperate, desperate stuff indeed.

Yep. I'd have thought that barrel was well and truly scraped during the Bell case. Obviously not.

Even were gillick to be somehow removed? That doesn't effect adults.
No fear of women losing birth control or abortion rights, not to mention we can simply go and get these things elsewhere, because adult
Oh well, that's OK then.
Never mind any pregnant teenagers.

Do we even know about the long term effects of Puberty blockers and irreversible surgeries young children would be subjected to?

How can we even talk about Gillick competence if we can't provide answers to these questions? I am not aware of any large longitudinal research on PBs or Gender reassignment surgeries. Happy to be pointed in the right direction if there are any studies published in peer reviewed journals.

Should not be confusing these interventions with contraception or abortion!

You keep bringing up gillick and 15 year olds.
I dont think you understand gillick.
Birth control for under 16s has been a thing since I was a child. It would take a lot of undoing. Also just because a child can easily access birth control doesn't automatically mean they have the ability to also have breast reduction or double mastectomy.
Both these things are not like the other.
Birth control is not permanent
Double mastectomy is permanent

If we go to other stuff that invokes gillick.
Minor operations like tonsils. If child is capable of understanding why they are being removed, and that its permanent but theres a good reason for it (mostly these days it's really difficult to get tonsils removed so yes theres a good reason) then great, if not a parent/guardian has to step up and decide.
Leg removed because cancer, if child capable etc
Heart transplant, if child capable etc.
And on.

Even were gillick to be somehow removed? That doesn't effect adults.
No fear of women losing birth control or abortion rights, not to mention we can simply go and get these things elsewhere, because adult.

Ireland is an abject lesson for what happens when self ID is brought in by stealth. Google Barbie Kardashian if you can stomach it. Then support @TheCountessIE on Twitter because she is rallying a fight back

It’s desperate, desperate stuff indeed.

Oh for goodness sake.
You're going to pretend you don't know what I'm talking about and ''a 15 year old what?' ' just because you don't like the way I said it?
Come off it.

Girl I will assume.
When there are no longer girls how will we know if one is pregnant?
What will happen to maternity care when there is no longer a need for it?
I mean I can go on with this but I think you can figure it out.
When words no longer mean what they used to or are a shifting constellation of meanings how will we know?

It should be up to the parents of a 15 year old child to consent to an abortion

No, the 15 year old should get to decide whether they kee the baby.
Not the parent!
Then people say '' oh, but it doesnt mean for abortion. ''
It's made perfectly clear on this thread that once you've rolled back rights for trans people, there's people out there who are more than happy to roll back other rights affecting all women.
Fuck.
That.

It should be up to the parents of a 15 year old child to consent to an abortion, the same as if they wish to have puberty blockers.

It means that because she cannot understand what is involved, she can't give consent without someone, normally parents or legal guardians, to make the final decision.

Are you really suggesting that it is a good idea for children who don't have the capacity to understand the nature of a medical procedure to make decisions about it alone?

The abortion "argument" is another US import we could do without.

Abortion law here happened because of campaigns and reasoning to change hearts and minds. It's in public law, it's not a private right like in the US.

If any of the US parties or establishment really cared about women, they'd have done something a long time ago instead of having this to dangle over women at elections.

Perhaps something along the lines of Biden's Executive Order on his first day in office. The day he erased women, he could've maybe protected them instead.

Just an idea.

It's possible right now, if fact certain, that there are some 14 years olds who don't have that intellectual capacity. And they need someone, like their parents, to give them guidance and to watch out for their interests. They can potentially still access contraception and abortion, but not without the involvement of their guardians.

But in the general case, it's seen as standard that girls can access these things without anyone watching over them. The fact that entering "gender affirmation" treatment paths is seen as a different medical decision doesn't impact that. Every different medical issue - cancer treatment, amputation of a crushed leg, etc, would all be looked at on their own merits.

That's the whole point.

Plus an extra "f". Ha ha, serves me right for being catty about other people's speling.

(Extra "as" there, sorry.)

Yes, this. ^^

Janet, Gillick competence is about assessing the child's ability to consent, given the consequences of the proposed course of action. It is always about balancing advantages and disadvantages, and safeguarding the child. You appear to think that saying children cannot consent to some specific things is an attack on all bodily autonomy. Does that mean you think children should be able to consent to everything, or do you in fact agree that the law's job is to work out as where the line should be drawn, and that the fact that there is and must be a line is not inherently an attack on human rights? We can disagree about where the line should be, of course - but invoking and discussing Gillick competence really isn't sinister in and off itself.

Whereas the consequences of Stonelaw quoted above are appalling, and are not hypothetical, either.

And Gillick and whether 15 year olds should be forced to have babies have absolutely no bearing on people like Johnson believing in single sex sports and single sex spaces.

Should a 15 year old be forced to have a baby then?

Maybe?

See, that's where we differ.
Nobody should ever be forced to have a baby.

People are misunderstanding what Gillick competence means. It’s not a blanket Yes/No that covers every possible medical treatment. A child can be deemed Gillick competent to consent to one particular treatment but not competent to consent to another treatment. For example a child can be deemed competent to consent to abortion if the doctor feels they are able to understand the full implications of that, but not competent to consent to gender treatment because it’s a more complex situation and they aren’t able to understand the full implications of that.

In other words: no, children being unable to consent to gender treatment does not prevent them consenting to abortion.