Sue Evans's court case against GIDS

[archery2]

I have written about this twice but both of the threads have disappeared. The second time I tried hard not to offend Mumsnet - even asking them simply to remove the wrongspeak in order to save me the fag of retyping the message again.

Well anyway: Sue Evans and an anonymous mother of an autistic 15 year old girl are taking GIDS to court over their puberty blocker treatment. Their ultimate goal is to convince the court that the blocker should only be implemented when a court has given its permission - ie it would be a case by case thing of going through the courts.

I'm probably going to mess up now, but taking the NHS to court is expensive and they are seeking financial contributions via a well-known income-seeking website that sounds a bit like Cloud-Trust-Hiss

I thought links to crowd funders were allowed in the right forum section and then you can link to your mumsnet fundraiser thread in this thread to spread the word ?

Might be worth a try ? That said we are all able to google 'sue evans gids crowdfunding' and find the right link from there.

Ask MNTowers to help, I am sure there is a fundraiser section.

I am sure they don't allow links to fundraisers like this. I don't see why they can't be discussed though.

I've helped with the hole but it needs more digging.

Google crowd justice and the name of the person

Such an important case

Thanks for telling us about this. Reading the information on the crowdfunding page is heartbreak. First do no harm.

Thanks for alerting us to this, OP - have donated.

Thanks OP for your patience and persistence.

If it hadn't been for your previous threads I wouldn't have been aware of this important action.

I believe Transgender Trend's Twitter feed would make for a helpful read too. Just sayin' MN...

Shocking that this goes on in 21st century medicine. The NHS has meant to have been focused on evidence based practice for several decades, and then there's the ethical issues around informed consent and gillick competency, or lack of!

It's almost unbelievable that the NHS is letting so much ideology and political lobbying into clinical practice. But I suppose that is part of the problem, it is so unbelievable that most of the general public won't believe is when told it's going on.

I have donated.

Have dug also.

Where's my spade? Does the kids sand spade count? It only cost a few quid - but as Tesco will tell you - every little helps!

Excellent to see so many donations coming in.

Thanks for the heads up. Bookmarked the hole for my next spade delivery date.

Thank you so much for supporting this.

Thanks for highlighting. I wasn't aware of this & will now donate.

• I thought links to crowd funders were allowed in the right forum section and then you can link to your mumsnet fundraiser thread in this thread to spread the word ?

Might be worth a try ? That said we are all able to google 'sue evans gids crowdfunding' and find the right link from there.

Ask MNTowers to help, I am sure there is a fundraiser section.*

I don't believe there is - you're thinking of petitions, perhaps?
There's probably good reason not to allow links to crowdfunders - if they were allowed I expect AIBU would be awash with them.

Some background from last Saturdays Times ( for some reason I can't get a sharetoken link for the main piece but I can for the comment one.)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tavistock-clinic-my-daughter-cant-understand-the-risk-says-mother-jr59vz0ck

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-the-tavistock-clinic-and-hormone-blocking-drugs-for-the-young-informed-consent-29qfkg0pj?shareToken=5d86bb57e8163365553dedf519218134

She was on This Morning - came up on YouTube as suggested last night - first time I’ve seen Holly and Phil being anything other than the Susie Green fan club (not that they actually said anything useful, presumably out of fear of the inevitable twitter mob).

Hark! Is that the sound of This Morning producers furiously back-pedalling I hear?

Gosh, she was good.

To give them proper credit, Phil and Holly gave her time to speak. No insistence on "balance" and judging from the odd glance, I think Holly gets it. Doesn't Holly have young children?

Well I don't think she was that good. She isn't actually answer questions, more she stuck to her script like a politician does - ask any question but get the answer she wants to give.

However, she did get in the point of the off-label use of the treatment and I appreciated her description of what that meant. But she missed the point about the treatment affecting fertility and I'm glad Holly brought it up as it then became clearer that teens and preteens may not be able to make lifelong decisions at a young age.

Bit wishy washy I'm afraid. Holly made more points. She didn't answer the question about how she would be attacked after appearing on the programme. Not even a rueful acknowledgement.

AND STOP BEGINNING EVERY UTTERANCE WITH "SO"!

I've just donated a £5 (minimum wage zero hours contract worker). I still haven't received any of the "American far right evangelical Christian" money that's supposed to be floating around so a fiver will have to do!

Thanks for the reminder - been on my 'to do' list for a while now & will take action.

I have used my shovel.

I thought she seemed professional, caring, nervous and honest.

She is not a campaigner, nor experienced in media. I thought her concern that children are not rushed into life changing decisions came across well.

If she had been more polished perhaps Holly and Phil might have been tougher on her, but instead they gave her time to speak, including a few prompts. I can't see that anyone new to the topic would consider anything she said as other than sensible.

I thought her approach was good. It invited Holly and Phil to try out being on her side, they were able to do that without discomfort, and they explored some of the talking points themselves. That will have gone down far better with the audience then with them watching someone apparently with an axe to grind. When the audience is clueless about a complicated issue, they often read it according to tone. And the tone they will have picked up is "reasonable".

As a bonus, the activists will have realised that attacking this particular discussion would be counterproductive.

She was a bit hesitant but definitely got some good points across in a very balanced way. I’ve donated as well as this is so important. I’m glad she mentioned the number of people detransitioning as I feel they are always the forgotten group in the media and more emphasis must be placed on the importance of not making decisions too early in assessment (we need to get rid of the affirmation approach!)

Thanks OP - will dig too.

Bumping this for the weekend crowd.