Posie: truthcrime harassment continues

[Pratchet]

Susie Green from Mermaids has appealed against the CPS decision not to pursue Posie.

Posie described truthfully what Susie Green did to her child in Thailand at the age of sixteen: surgery involving the removal of genitals, a decision so shocking to the Thai government they raised the age bar for such operations to 18.

A woman is being pursued and harassed for telling the truth. Can we show as much support as possible please.

I was referring to the attempt to cast SG as having facilitated something inappropriate for her child. Those are the comments that have been investigated by the police and what is being referred to here as 'truthcrime harassment'.

It links safeguarding and gender identity treatment in a way that implies either or.

I was responding to Bowl then as part of the above discussion. If they were referring to the potential invasion of female only space by non transitioned males then yes there is a potential safeguarding issue. But that isn't what the person under discussion was being questioned about by the police.

Sorry missed the bold:

But preventing a child from accessing medical care they require is also a safeguarding issue.

Who has been doing this?

No I don't. They need to be strengthened if anything. But preventing a child from accessing medical care they require is also a safeguarding issue. You created a false dichotomy.

Well Self ID will dilute down child safeguarding- for all children, of both sexes. That’s one of the main reasons I oppose it.

Denying access to medical treatment they need? Like say vaccines, dental checkups? Or do you mean ‘affirmative therapy including puberty blockers?’

Because that is not what safeguarding is at all.

I was referring to the attempt to cast SG as having facilitated something inappropriate for her child.

But the surgery conducted in Thailand wasn’t legal for minors in the UK, which does rather suggest there were concerns about its appropriateness....

that's not what safeguarding means

It can do Olennas

familyllb.com/2018/02/19/parents-lose-custody-for-failing-to-respect-teenagers-wish-to-transgender/

I was referring to the attempt to cast SG as having facilitated something inappropriate for her child

The action SG took was illegal in this country so she took her child out of the country before their 16th birthday to have the operation on that day and soon after she did having that operation at 16 became illegal there too.

Can you really not bring yourself to criticise her? True colours eh?

I was referring to the attempt to cast SG as having facilitated something inappropriate for her child.

Can you explain to me why a parent taking a child to a different country to engage in surgery to remove genitalia (FGM) is different to a parent taking a child abroad to engage in genitals being removed for any other reason?

Both surgeries illegal in the uk. Please explain what the difference is, and why one is appropriate and one not?

It can do Olennas

That's in the US. That's not (or should not be) how we understand the concept of child safeguarding here.

wasn’t legal for minors in the UK, which does rather suggest there were concerns about its appropriateness....

Ok I accept that point boat. Was just pointing out that preventing access to gender treatment can be as much as a safeguarding issue in some cases as inappropriately encouraging it could be in others.

I support Posie.

It seems to have become established 'fact' that children suffering gender dysphoria should be put on a path of positive reinforcement of their gender identity - nothing wrong with that when it involves wearing the clothes, playing with the toys, having the hairstyle.

But I'm, concerned at the use of puberty blockers - followed by sex hormones and surgery - when the evidence I've read is that 80% of gender dysphoric children will recover after puberty, and be happy living as their biological sex.

Seems to me this is child safeguarding issue - being put on a road of drugs/surgery/infertility isn't a decision a child can make in their early teens, and I don't agree that a parent has the right to make that decision on behalf of the child. No matter how well-meaning the parent is.

Was just pointing out that preventing access to gender treatment can be as much as a safeguarding issue in some cases as inappropriately encouraging it could be in others.

And again who is suggesting "preventing access"?

I support Posie too and am willing to put my money where my mouth is.

I support you Posie and will donate if necessary.

There are no circumstances in which puberty blockers and surgery are an appropriate treatment route for a minor with gender confusion. None.

Most teens with gender identity issues revert. The concept of irreversible and life changing treatment in a condition where a high percentage of the patients would not choose that post puberty is against medical ethics.

These drugs have life changing, lifelong effects. They are not a harmless pause button on puberty. They cause osteoporosis, infertility, metabolic damage etc. To treat children who may not even need or want the treatment in a few years with harmful and irreversible drugs says to me that this is ideologically based, because it is NOT in he best interests of the patient

I support Posie. I'd put my money where my mouth is if I had money.

These drugs have life changing, lifelong effects. They are not a harmless pause button on puberty. They cause osteoporosis, infertility, metabolic damage etc

They also potentially affect brain development putting in question further a child's capacity to make life changing decisions.

In that case linked the court ordered an independent medical opinion be given to decide what is in the best interests of the child regarding any treatment.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that is a bad idea? I would have thought most posters on this thread would be in favour of that approach in the instance we are discussing of a parent taking their child abroad for a treatment not legal in the UK at that age.

The link reports:

The grandparents, rather than parents, will be the ones to help make medical decisions for the child going forward. But before any hormone treatment is allowed, the court ordered, the teen should be evaluated by a psychologist who is not affiliated with the current facility where he is receiving treatment, on “the issue of consistency in the child’s gender presentation, and feelings of non-conformity.”

Please explain what the difference is, and why one is appropriate and one not?

One is an evidence based treatment for a recognised medical condition, gender dysphoria and is also commissioned by the NHS.

The other is a culturally ingrained harmful practice that inflicts an intentional injury to female genitalia for non-medical purposes, and has no health benefits for girls and women.

One is an evidence based treatment for a recognised medical condition, gender dysphoria and is also commissioned by the NHS.

Then why wasn’t it done by the NHS?

Also - at 16? Nope.

One is an evidence based treatment for a recognised medical condition, gender dysphoria and is also commissioned by the NHS.

Not at 16 it isn't.

Can anyone provide the link to the evidence base for this treatment being given at 16? Would it not require medical experts to decide?

With regard to contested medical treatment for minors adjudicated in court, the test is not the reasonableness of the wishes of the parents; it is the child's best interests.

A child with any treatment plan under NHS care with parents proposing to take them abroad for treatment not allowed here could see the doctors involved going to the courts to prevent the parents from doing that. But if the child were not under NHS care, there would be nobody to go to the courts to seek prevention.

That's why you see court cases take place over terminally ill children such as Charlie Gard (because they are in hospital under medical care) and not, say, for FGM (because nobody knows what the parents are planning).

But once a case gets to the courts, what the parents want is irrelevant. All parties put their case to the judge - including an independent party representing the child as well those representing parents and doctors - and the judge decides on the best interests of the child.

Safeguarding is something else entirely. Safeguarding comprises reporting frameworks for a range of professionals - teachers, doctors, social workers, etc - to identify risk and take steps to prevent and eliminate risk. For medical issues, safeguarding for professionals would include behavioural flags that could mean either parents not medicating when they should (eg asthma, diabetes) or parents attempting to get medical treatment when they shouldn't (eg FGM, Munchausen's).

(FGM is a crime so not a great example but um... well... I'm using it as a proxy.)

Not at 16 it isn't.

No but there is a major difference between the two 'procedures'. The difference in this case of genital reassignment is 2 years. There is obviously no age when FGM is appropriate. They aren't even remotely comparable imo.

I guess male genital mutilation wasn’t included in the legislation because of religious/cultural circumcision practices. Shame, as the lack of protection for male children from castration/penis removal seems rather glaring.