the fox killers latest tweets

[Helmetbymidnight]

To those who describe themselves as 'gender-critical feminists' - along with them I decry the use of the expression TERF as a slur - and who oppose the modest work that the Tavistock is able to do given its budgetary constraints, I say: be careful what you wish for.

And my question is this; if those under 18 are not capable of consenting to taking puberty blockers, what does that mean for their ability to consent to having an abortion?
If he wins against the Tavistock will Paul, and the Christian Right, stop there? Really?

so now our access to abortion is being threatened if we dont comply to tra narrative? we are guilty by association? this guy is a piece of work, isnt he?

[sourdoughismyreligion]

If science ever conclusively demonstrates that abortion is likely to cause infertility, sexual dysfunction, impairment of brain development and a high risk of cancer, stroke and other serious illnesses then yes, women should be told that.

The fox killer is so desperate to make up for his 'error' in giving money to a women's rights campaign that he's willing to sell his soul and spout any and all absurdities to prove he knows the error of his ways. It's pitiful and embrarassing to see an educated and intelligent person degrade himself in this way.

[Binterested]

A lot of misogynistic men have a problem with abortion

Christopher Hitchens was one such.

[Binterested]

These men get to be beloved of the woke bros but actually hate or simply just ignore women. We are nothing to them but a receptacle for the sex they want. And if we’re not that then we’re nothing.

[BaronessBrighterThanYou]

Why is he so vocal about this?

He has realised that he can be mean to women - he doesn't like women.

[sashagabadon]

@Thelnebriati

It's strange that Maugham doesn't know that it's established in law that many things a person can consent to are yet considered illegal if they cause injury. Does he really not know this?

A lot of misogynistic men have a problem with abortion and at the same time are completely ignorant of the risks of pregnancy.
They see women as ''made for the task'', and can't grasp that an underage girls body is not ready to gestate and give birth, even if she is able to ovulate and menstruate.
I've literally had men argue 'but she's old enough to have periods' as an argument against abortion even for children.

If a girl is too young to consent to sex, she is too young to have a baby.

agreed
I think people generally not just men underplay the physical exertion and risks to the female body during pregnancy and childbirth.

A 15 year old being made to give birth could ruin / injure her body terribly. An abortion is by far the lesser of the two options.

It's the same argument for surrogacy - as if what the surrogate mother does is not that much, completely playing down the risks to her health /life

I think the TRA argument is that puberty blockers etc is a lesser harm than potential suicide as though those are the only two options.
It is why they push the suicide narrative so much and don't like it when it is debunked as it removes this lesser harm argument. "better a live son than a dead daughter " argument

[rabbitwoman]

I don't have any sophisticated legal training, but forgive me, Self ID is not law yet, is it? So it is much easier to challenge the legal principles behind legislation that has not yet been made law?

And the right to an abortion IS law, yes? So a much harder battle to have the law abolished? Though maybe not much harder considering the state of women's rights at the moment....

[rabbitwoman]

I mean, I am not a lawyer or nuffink, just a woman who has checked her privilege a lot the last week after bring told to, and found it does include free speech and a vote after all, phew!!!

[RoyalCorgi]

I doubt very much if Maugham cares about whether what he's tweeting is true or not. Obviously there's a massive difference between preventing a pre-pubertal child taking harmful, off-label puberty blockers and allowing an adolescent girl to have an abortion that is, as PPs have said, likely to save her from the physical harm and mental trauma involved in carrying and birthing a child.

No, as far as Maugham is concerned, this is just a handy stick with which to beat feminists. I think it's unfortunate that feminist campaigns have engaged a Christian anti-abortion lawyer to act for them when they could have chosen a feminist lawyer. The TRAs will use it to "prove" that feminists are in league with right-wing evangelicals in the US. This is something that Fair Cop and the rest could have seen coming.

[TreestumpsAndTrampolines]

It is why they push the suicide narrative so much and don't like it when it is debunked as it removes this lesser harm argument. "better a live son than a dead daughter " argument

This is exactly it - for example, the pill we know has side effects, some of them potentially serious, but it's a lot less dangerous than pregnancy for most women. If a woman is older, more overweight, or smokes, then that balance of risk changes, and doctors feel that the pill is too dangerous to prescribe and they are encouraged to use other methods of contraception.

Puberty blockers are so dangerous, that the only way they can tilt the balance of risk to them is by saying the alternative is death.

Just look at the other uses for them, only used in the most absolutely serious of cases, where the condition being treated is considered worse than the puberty blockers.

It's horrific. Downplaying the side effects of the blockers, up-playing the risks of self-harm and suicide. Completely against all ethical standards.

[HH160bpm]

As other posters have said adult women are deemed incapable of consent to sterilisation. Why is a specific group of teenagers deemed capable of consent to sterilisation? That’s the parallel and it is not equal.

Mentioning abortion is using dead cat strategy. There are existing protocols for discussing and preserving future fertility for children who require life saving treatments. Are they used when prescribing blockers and cross sex hormones?

[SarahTancredi]

Why is a specific group of teenagers deemed capable of consent to sterilisation? That’s the parallel and it is not equal

Kids as young as 2 know their gender but 13 year olds are lead by bigoted parents of they dont believe in gender and want to fight for their sex based rights.

They never do make up their minds

[HH160bpm]

It’s always worth mentioning that post puberty transgender medical treatment is different for male and female patients. Blockers are generally not continued for female patients regardless of surgery.
They are continued for male patients who have not had their testicles removed because without them the androgens do their job and add height, change bone structure, change facial bone structure, body hair etc etc. It’s the blockers that prevent the undesired physical masculinising of the patient in the absence of testicular removal.

My own theory is this is why there are fewer male detransistioners. They are unlikely to go through the pubertal brain development that stopping blockers allows. I’d be interested in a study that showed whether detranistioners were on a different medical/surgical regime that impacts androgen function.

[JemimaShore]

He's an awful man, and has shown appalling lack of judgement here.

I can't believe that he's now chosen "medicalising children" as the hill he's prepared to die on. There is no merit at all in the comparison with abortion rights in the UK.

twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1274595631940722689

[vivariumvivariumsvivaria]

That is really interesting, HH.

People who take blockers can miss the window of puberty - so, are they forever juvenile and therefore unable to give informed consent?

Are we condemning people to a life of immature thinking?

I am genuinely worried about these kids and the pseudo-adults they become.

[Helmetbymidnight]

hes blocked anyone who disagrees with him- thats so cowardly.

[HH160bpm]

Studies of brain and body development during and post puberty are very clear about the brain impacts.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5612369/

[NotTerfNorCis]

I've seen how trans rights has become increasingly welded to women's rights. In America, the same ruling that allowed doctors not to hand out puberty blockers also allowed them to refuse to carry out abortions. TRAs were able to sell this as 'feminists MUST support genderism'.

[OvaHere]

No, as far as Maugham is concerned, this is just a handy stick with which to beat feminists. I think it's unfortunate that feminist campaigns have engaged a Christian anti-abortion lawyer to act for them when they could have chosen a feminist lawyer. The TRAs will use it to "prove" that feminists are in league with right-wing evangelicals in the US. This is something that Fair Cop and the rest could have seen coming.

It's not quite that simple. Trying to get a 'progressive' firm to take on these cases is incredibly difficult. It's the same in the US and Canada and why the Connecticut athletes and the Sikh women defending against Yaniv were forced to to use conservative law firms to defend themselves.

Women and girls have a right to legal representation but so many legal firms seem not to recognise that. If we refused all the help we are offered then that leaves us with no recourse to litigation.

SinclairLaw and Paul Conrathe have also taken on a case against the government for discrimination against the elderly and disabled in relation to Covid care home deaths. Does that also mean those people are 'far right' by association?

[HH160bpm]

TRAs seem pretty incapable of proving anything tbh. Great at hyperbole, feelings, distorting data and taking offence to anything that doesn’t centre them though. Unfortunately they have had great success in positive media representation and stealth regulatory capture with these techniques.

Anyone questioning let alone challenging them is automatically the evil enemy of the most oppressed. The public are fed with images of blossoming pretty children or attractive transwomen who are assumed to be attracted to men and have been so terribly unhappy at being male they have had genital surgery. This means anyone pushing back against trans rights has the media appeal of a right wing homophobic child hating kicker of puppies.

[BatShite]

Seen this being used a lot recently. If you disagree with kids being put on dangerous drugs long term because they play with the wrong toys, you clearly do not care about abortion.

Not sure what having an abortion has to do with chemo drugs being given to kids like but..ok.

Saying kids cannot consent to this..will not arm abortion rights, they are very different things.

Seems more of the usual trying to make out GC feminists are actually right wing Westboro types tbh

[HH160bpm]

Trans rights are parasitically attached to every existing cause they can hijack. Black lives matter, women’s rights, sex education, the right of children to consent to medical care, gay rights, disabled rights, mental health campaigns, period poverty, prostitution. Where they can’t hijack it they undermine it or attack it if they think there might be a conflict like FGM. It’s very clever and an incredibly effective use of propaganda. I’m surprised elder care hasn’t been colonised, maybe it has.

[Binterested]

No because elder care is not really a woke cause and it’s mainly women doing it anyway so not worth camping on that territory. You never see OJ speak about elder care - it’s not one the woke bros like to signal about.

[Helmetbymidnight]

Trans rights are parasitically attached to every existing cause they can hijack

yup everyone is talking about new inclusivity measures in publishing - and its trans, trans, trans.

[twoHopes]

And my question is this; if those under 18 are not capable of consenting to taking puberty blockers, what does that mean for their ability to consent to having an abortion?

What an incredibly nonsensical argument. You could just as well say "if children can consent to puberty blockers then what does that mean for their ability to consent to sex?".

"Be careful what you wish for" - is quite clearly, as PP have said, a thinly disguised threat. Unfortunately for the Kimono QC we're not stupid enough for it to work. I give this tweet a C minus - must try harder.

[Mermoose]

because of Maugham's tweets, I was just reading about UK laws affecting medical treatment and I came across this, which I understand is in UK law at the moment:
"Another safeguard was added by the Bolitho case, where a requirement was added that a course of action, even if supported by a responsible body of medical professionals, must also be capable of “withstanding logical analysis”."
(theconversation.com/why-the-saatchi-bill-has-been-flawed-from-the-outset-49404)

I don't understand how the Tavistock is acting in accordance with this? Gender identity can't be logically explained, unless you take the Blanchard typology, which doesn't support affirmation for kids.