Anne health Susie Greens new clinic

I have actually said plenty about gender affirming healthcare for children on this thread.

But yes, chin stroking or not, it is certainly very illustrative that the GC voices on here range from actively opposed to adult women having full control of their fertility to merely silence on that matter. Not a single so called feminist (myself excluded) prepared to say definitively that women are better placed than their doctors to decide if they are prepared to take a risk that they may one day regret not having children.

Thank you for giving your opinion on that issue. I don't think there is anything else to say on the matter.

Do you have anything to say about people who set up businesses abroad to sell drugs to children for purposes that are not legal in the UK?

@PlanetJanette oversimplifyimg obviously causes misunderstandings

The human brain doesn't finish developing until 25. A lot of women don't really start making peace with their body until mid 30s. A person gets legal adulthood long before they have the capacity to react as an adult rather than a teenager in the full flush of teenage certainty in their own infallibility. An 18yo who has been on puberty blockers for a number of years (which are known to stunt brain growth) will have the legal right to consent to transition surgery and medical treatment as an adult, long before the likely timescale for them to reach the maturity level at which they realise how much they have been lied to and abused by the ideology train.

As for controlling fertility, I'd like to restate that PJ is in favour of sterilising gay kids (because that's what they were doing at the Tavistock) but doesn't have the balls to make that argument.

That's why she refuses to say anything about Susie Green.

No, you can fuck right off with trying to put words into my mouth.

I know you're very fond of the chin-stroking "hmm, I find this very telling" jibe, but that doesn't wash with me.

Especially bearing in mind you've posted dozens of times on this thread while refusing to address the actual subject of the thread.

Ah I see. Curious you would address the topic on this thread but can’t stand by your claim.

Fair enough, as you were. Another so called feminist who refuses to say that women should be able to control their own fertility decisions.

Of course. Doctors can very reasonably want their patients to have tried other means of contraception or have good reasons for not choosing those before opting for sterilisation. That is part of the prioritisation that needs to happen in a healthcare system.

And in reality most younger women who seek sterilisation will not be choosing it as a first choice. It is almost always women for whom other forms of contraception are painful or dangerous or cause intolerable side effects.

And a doctor absolutely can refuse treatment on the basis that it would do medical harm. That is an area where their expertise will make them more qualified than a patient to make a judgement on the likelihood of medical harm.

They should not, however, be supplanting their own risk assessment for a grown woman’s when it comes to the risk of regretting not being able to have children. That is not a medical issue - it is an emotional and social one, and a doctor is no more qualified than the woman herself - far less so, in fact - to judge how likely regret is, and whether the risk of that regret is justified by the benefits of sterilisation.

If you want to start a thread about that, be my guest.

Do you have any comment to make on Susie Green's activities?

Hang on you lot claim there are lots and lots of detransitioners out there. But also that puberty blockers ‘lock in’ a trans identity. Those two things are not compatible unless you think puberty blockers actively prevent regret/detransitioning which I don’t think you do.

Which premises about women’s rights to choose a sterilisation do you disagree with?

I honestly can’t believe that on a so called feminism forum that I’m having to explain why women should be allowed autonomy over their own fertility.

I actually agree with what you have said about the vastly different impact of reproductive role on men and women.

The need for women to be able to control their fertility is, I think, the most obvious sex based right and why it is so important that sex and sex specific rights are recognised in law. I'm so glad that you understand this.

However, that right is not absolute. A pregnant woman cannot demand an abortion at any time.

In the specific case of sterilisation, doctors are allowed to balance the consequences of giving irreversible treatment to somebody who may later regret their decision, given that other forms of long term but completely reversible contraception are available.

But even if you think the balance is wrong in both these instances, it still doesn't follow that GNrH antagonists (no evident of benefit, clear evidence of harm) should be prescribed to prevent puberty, because that is a completely different treatment, and the judgement needs to be made on completely different criteria. It's really not clear why you would conflate two such different things, and calls into question whether you are arguing in good faith.

Given her embarrassing ignorance about the effect of puberty blockers, I would be astounded if she makes any further attempt to get involved in the original post.

Note that PJ not only refuses to engage with the subject of the thread and demands that we have a conversation about her tangent instead, but she also demands a response based on an aggressively partisan framing.

Any chance you might buck the trend and be a so called GC feminist who actually argues that women should be able to control their own fertility?
Or are you also in the camp of saying women can’t make those decisions because their pretty little 29 year old heads can’t possibly weigh up the risk that they might regret the decision later on?

Even if I agreed with PJ, I wouldn't agree to that framing, partly because of the insulting way it's framed, but mainly because it's framed in such a way to allow PJ to then claim agreement with any tangentially related opinion she might have.

I reject PJ's premises outright, and look forward to PJ expressing a view on Susie Green's antics.

So you're flat out refusing to address the subject of the thread and demanding that I should agree with your derail?

Good luck if you think that'll shut me up. I can keep bringing this up indefinitely.

This is the policy in the NHS.

"You can have a vasectomy at any age. However, if you are under 30, particularly if you do not have children, your doctor may be reluctant to perform the procedure.

Your GP does have the right to refuse to carry out the procedure or refuse to refer you for the procedure if they do not believe that it is in your best interests."

Come now, what about boys who like to play with dolls? Surely that's justification enough?

Any chance you might buck the trend and be a so called GC feminist who actually argues that women should be able to control their own fertility?

Or are you also in the camp of saying women can’t make those decisions because their pretty little 29 year old heads can’t possibly weigh up the risk that they might regret the decision later on?

Yes, a vasectomy can sometimes (usually?) be reversed, but men and their partners certainly used to be, and I assume still are, given clear warnings that there is no guarantee of reversal being successful. The clearer case is castration (bilateral orchidectomy) which of course is irreversible, and ought to be reserved for life threatening conditions, and irreparable physical trauma.

Maybe not. But as you (I think it was you) said, men are less affected by unplanned pregnancy. Theirs is not the body that has to have the morning after pill or a termination or to give birth if there is an unplanned pregnancy. They are also far more in control of the usage of the most accessible and least invasive form of contraception available (condoms). By contrast, most contraception within the control of women has the potential to be at best uncomfortable or at worse medically harmful.

So even if the same rule is applied to men and women, the effect of that rule falls disproportionately on women.

I honestly can’t believe that on a so called feminism forum that I’m having to explain why women should be allowed autonomy over their own fertility.

I notice that Planet is still wanging on about cutoff ages for sterilisation on the NHS, and is still studiously avoiding saying anything about Susie Green's activities.

Any chance of a comment on the OP's subject?

Right but the poster I was quoting specifically spoke about capacity to consent. And then claimed I’d misrepresented her by accurately reflecting back the view she expressed.

Your version is more grounded in reality insofar as health systems do need to prioritise resources and care and so doctors do have a role in that. But none of that amounts to a justification of some sort of blanket ban on sterilisation of women under 30.

To take an example of a woman who cannot take the pill for medical reasons and for whom an IUD is painful or uncomfortable, I think she has a right to have a sex life without broadening her risk of pregnancy or depending on her sexual partner to use a condom (correctly, or at all).

And if she is of sound mind then she absolutely should be trusted to know better than her doctor whether a sterilisation to facilitate that is the right option for her. Doctors should not be basing their decisions on the potential for regret 15 years later - and I’m not aware of any other area of medical treatment which might be sought by a patient where that factor, and not any medical harm, is a reason to deny treatment.

Back to the topic in hand, because what age doctors consider it ethical to sterilise people really is not the point of this discussion - I do hope the government find a way to stop Green cashing in on harming children.

The NHS have made the decision on the basis of the available evidence that the treatment shouldn't be given outside carefully controlled trials, obviously it is very concerning that someone else is trying to arrange for the treatments to be given basically at the click of a button. Someone with no medical expertise, just a personal interest in normalising what she did to her own child.

Also not clear that an NHS doctor would be any more willing to sterilise a childless man under 30. I think it's easier to reverse a vasectomy, so I suppose that would be an important factor.