Joint statement from Barnardo’s, NSPCC, National Children’s Bureau and The Children’s Society about gender clinic judicial review

[Toomie]

I've just seen that Barnados along with NSPCC and others have released this joint statement.


www.barnardos.org.uk/news/joint-statement-barnardos-nspcc-national-childrens-bureau-and-childrens-society-about-gender

[Griefmonster]

I will hold my hands up and say I have not fully understood the distinction between being considered of age to assess capacity and to be assumed of having capacity. But this information here is the kind I have seen before refer to age 12: www.amershamhealthcentre.co.uk/pages/Treating-Children-and-Disclosing-Information-to-Parents

I am not disagreeing that the much bigger issue is appropriate pathways, context, discussions and support. None of which are there currently. I was trying to provide a different take on the statement. Maybe too optimistic. I understand and agree with the deep concerns of what is happening with children. It is my main source of concern with trans ideology.

[Lazt]

Apologies for my language - I realise now I used words that could been deemed offensive.

What was also in that post was a thank you to all you well informed posters for so eloquently highlighting the issues.

[Datun]

You would think they might recognise that children who desist or want to desist need support but no they dont. Its appalling it really is and I also think it's a blatant attempt to influence the outcome

So do I. They have demonstrated their lack of neutrality by not even waiting to hear what Keira Bell has to say. Or indeed The Tavistock, with the leveraging of raped children in their defence.

Such clarity in those posts RedToothBrush.

Those children's charities have absolutely nothing to say to children who are demonstrably negatively affected by the ideology.

Why aren't they calling for more research, more investigation into the effects of puberty blockers, stats from the Tavi and studies into detransitioners.

Like everything else about this issue, sunlight is key. They have shown their hand, and it's shocking that they can't even see it.

[Kit19]

thats my big concern Archery

by signing this joint statement NSPCC, Barnados, Childrens Society and Children's Bureau have left children who are struggling with this issue nowhere to go at all.

They're effectively saying 'we stand with the Tavi against YP who are questioning the choices they made'

You would think they might recognise that children who desist or want to desist need support but no they dont. Its appalling it really is and I also think it's a blatant attempt to influence the outcome

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

hard to counter

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

RedToothBrush
Absolutely. I have teenagers and you realise that they pick up a lot of ideas from peers and SM and you are lucky if the sense check them with you.

If pressure groups are actively seeking to engage with young people and push the argument in a particular direction then it can be pernicious and harm to counter.

One positive is that the Judges are unlikely to read this statement as judges would normally actively avoid reading any commentary on a case they are sitting on.

[ArcheryAnnie]

I was in discussion with the NSPCC for a long time (I'm an ex=member) when they first signed up to this nonsense some years ago. They admitted to me in writing then that they didn't have any in-house expertise - they'd just C&P's the bollocks that unfit organisations like Mermaids had sent them, with no adequate oversight.

They don't care that this throws girl survivors under the bus. When a girl survivor is being forced to be on display to male bodies, who is she supposed to appeal to for help now? Because the NSPCC has declared here that she's of no interest to them.

[RedToothBrush]

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

I don’t think the statement was wise or well written. The concept of Gillick competence should be respected. However, the issue for me is that of informed consent - how can a child give informed consent to consequences that are beyond their comprehension and experience. How can medical staff explain the risks when the risks are unknown - puberty blockers are no longer thought to be totally reversible - how can a child be expected to give consent to uncertain lifelong impairment of intellect, damage to bones etc.

How can a child make an informed decision without undue pressure when the internet culture says that anyone who questions children being given puberty blockers or cross sex hormones for safeguarding reasons is 'backward and non-progressive' and bigoted.

How can it be without undue pressure when internet forums and chat rooms are telling them how to bypass safeguarding by giving all the 'correct answers'. Or when child safeguarding charities are taking a political line which advocates and encourages the use of experimental drugs on children which hasn't been studied and we already know has appalling side effects in some cases.

How can it be without undue pressure where the marketing and media (think itvs mermaids influenced program) sets up an unchallenged narrative of 'stunning and brave' against the evil forces of the world. (note the infantile echo of the superhero v the world).

When the culture kids are emersed in is so black and white it inhibits their ability to make informed decisions.

We have people who used to work at the Tavistock raising massive questions about the influence of parents in this too.

[RedToothBrush]

The age 12 comes from the defence from the Tavistock making reference to some 12 year olds having sex with other 12/13 year olds so we can't assume that all 12 year olds are 'ew sex' as was suggested by the team challenging the Tavi.

Its an extremely bizarre defence given the age of consent laws. It is suggesting that these shagging 12 and 13 year olds are doing so with fully developed adult understanding of what they are doing and what the consequences are (which we know is not bloody true) and that this means they understand what an adult sexual relationship is and with no thought process as to whether these children acting in this manner might be doing so because they are MORE rather than less vulnerable. Kids from stable backgrounds are far less likely to get pregnant at age 12 and 13. We do sadly know some of the many reasons why this is the case.

Going from '12 and 13 year olds have sex' to the massive leap of if 12 and 13 year olds have sex therefore they must understand sexuality and adult relationships is staggering and quite frankly rather disturbing as chattylion so well explains.

Imagine that these places were saying that we should be actively accepting children as young as 12 should be free to go to a doctor and have help and assistance with the fertility as they and their partner already wished to start a family (the consequences to their bodies ignored) because they were able to consent to having sex therefore are able to actively make a deliberate decision to start a family (as opposed to dealing with the consequences of having already fallen pregnant by accident).

The whole thing seems to be founded on this idea that 'some teenagers' can make life changing decisions of this nature.

Whereas when we look at the adult care pathways for fertility women are forced to get their partners involved in the decision and have them undertake medical procedures instead of them whereever possible. And even then a gp can actively simply go 'nope im not referring you. This isnt in your best interests' - making an assumption that the adult woman is somehow actively incapable of making the adult decision. The conflicting points here are not just bordering on mad they make no reasonable sense.

This comes back to children safeguarding charities favouring a line which assumes children 'know what they are doing' rather than first saying 'is this child vulnerable and perhaps they need more intervention and help with boundaries' and ultimately is there an underlying protection issue here.

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

I don’t think the statement was wise or well written. The concept of Gillick competence should be respected. However, the issue for me is that of informed consent - how can a child give informed consent to consequences that are beyond their comprehension and experience. How can medical staff explain the risks when the risks are unknown - puberty blockers are no longer thought to be totally reversible - how can a child be expected to give consent to uncertain lifelong impairment of intellect, damage to bones etc.

[ChattyLion]

we assume 12 year olds are competent to make decisions about their treatment in this country

No we don’t Griefmonster that’s not true at all. Can you point to legal norms and professional guidance that agree with what you’ve asserted there?

Questioning and safeguarding children does not undermine Gillick. The opposite.

[ChattyLion]

So, let’s get this straight, children’s charities seem to be perfectly content that a vulnerable and distressed group of kids, struggling with gender-related distress and possibly much else besides at the same time, will get pushed down a affirmation-only physical treatment route via NHS or private medicine?

Do these charities understand that gender identity services, publicly and privately funded, are provided essentially politically, beyond the norms of medicine in other areas?

That is- provided without a long term focus on exploring mental health issues that contribute to dysphoria (‘Watch and wait’). Provided with lower standards of child safeguarding and consent. With an inadequate evidence base to know if their ‘treatment’ has a chance of making the child feel better. Inadequate to know it won’t make them feel worse. With huge known physical costs-( to bone density, to IQ). With huge unresearched potential risks. With life-changing permanent effects.... and with no professional follow up?

These professionals trusted as apparent experts In gender don’t seem to provide any services for detransitioned people, to help them cope with the permanent effects of what they had ‘consented to’ as children and the way they have been ‘treated’. (How detransitioned people are ignored demonstrates the political nature of the affirmation-only approach- it’s as though the professionals and the lobby feel that detransitioned people are moral and political failures, to be excluded from a rainbows and glitter narrative which only allows for positive hopes for the future (not even actual proven outcomes!) to be presented).

Where is the abundant help and talking therapy support and affirmation of detransioned people’s views and experience?

The children’s charities have something right- these charities say we should support and listen to young people. Good. But apparently just not the desisted or detransitioned ones. OK then.

As anyone who actually has kids’ interests at heart will know, we should never just listen to a child unquestioningly, incuriously and then agree to act on and celebrate everything they say. Common sense tells us that’s not good for the child.
At some point, adult experience and responsibilities and risk assessment must come into play. Especially in a professional setting.

And there must be millions of scenarios these charities have faced where they’ve done exactly this, drawing appropriately on their professional experience and responsibilities. But apparently this is no longer appropriate for kids in distress, just because they say they are disturbed by gender issues (and potentially other things too)?
What has happened politically, to divert children’s organisations‘ advocacy away from key safeguarding tenets like that every child matters? How can they have simply re-drawn the concepts of ‘child’ and ‘adult’ like this? What is the ultimate conclusion of that for children? And for the survival of such organisations as safe and trusted advocates for children in society? We should be very worried.

[Dozer]

It IS about consent. Children, competent to take decisions or not, were not given information about the treatments’ risks and potential life long effects.

[NiceGerbil]

That's great!

Although you and them are a bit ahead of the game with the whole children getting hormone therapy thing. If that's something that's important to you to change, in the UK, there are a myriad of orgs you can get behind to fight for it!

[pheebumbalatti]

Seems like a reasonably balanced and well thought out statement to me. Don't see what the problem is.

[Vinosaurus]

I felt like I was reading an essay that a 15 yr old got bored of writing and gave up half way through.

[NiceGerbil]

Well I found this

'. Establish whether the children is already sexually active and in what circumstances is the sexual activity occurring and with whom.

a child cannot consent to sex with an adult of 18 years and older
a child aged 12 and under cannot consent to sexual activity
a child cannot consent to sex with an adult in a position of authority

1. The doctor should attempt to exclude rape through exploitation. These four questions have 89% sensitivity and 100% specificity for identifying young people at high risk of child sexual exploitation (CSE)

Have you ever stayed out overnight or longer without permission from your parent(s) or guardian?
How old is your partner or the person(s) you have sex with? (Is the age difference 4 or more years?)
Does your partner stop you from doing things you want to do?
Thinking about where you go to hang out, or to have sex. Do you feel unsafe there or are your parent(s) or guardian worried about your safety?

1. If there is potential that a sexual crime is being committed against a child a referral to the police is a professional obligation.

When there is significant risk of sexual exploitation it is likely that the doctor will need to break patient confidentiality and disclose information without informing the child/patient.
The doctor must take steps to ensure the police have been contacted about this potential crime and should notify the police even if the patient/witness says they have already been informed.

1. "Fraser Guidance" then dictates that a doctor can prescribe contraception if:

The girl (although under the age of 16 years of age) will understand his advice.
They cannot persuade her to inform her parents or to allow him to inform the parents that she is seeking contraceptive advice.
She is very likely to continue having sexual intercourse with or without contraceptive treatment.
She receives contraceptive advice or treatment her physical or mental health or both are likely to suffer.
Her best interests require him to give her contraceptive advice, treatment or both without the parental consent.'

[NiceGerbil]

Also note it's all about girls having sex with men.

Not about boys having sex with men...

Also

'My point is - we assume 12 year olds are competent to make decisions about their treatment in this country'

I don't think we do.

I had a lot of treatment as a child and it was down to my parents. I was in the conversation but it was their decision. Or at least. I mean I wouldn't have disagreed, they know best, right?

Is it really aok for a 12 yo to go alone to a GP in the UK and get the pill for contraceptive purposes and no one takes any action? 12?

Before 13 it's always rape in law.

[NiceGerbil]

Sorry skipped some posts.

Redtoothbrush in England and Wales sex with an under 13 child is a no excuses crime.

This age of 12, where does it come from? In this conversation.

Very few 12 yo are taking oral contraception and of those who are the vast majority will be taking it for non contraceptive reasons eg period issues.

I have friends who went and got the pill at 14. But 14 is not 12.

And getting the pill is not a confirmation you are mature enough to consent to sex. It's a least harm approach for teens who are having sex.

This whole sexual consent/ contraception thing is a total wonky diversion.

The fact that children are having sex young is not a good thing, with 12yo it is legally a crime no matter what, most will be vulnerable in one or many ways.. etc etc

And the fact is that most children this age taking oral contraception are doing it for other medical reasons.

Is this a race to the bottom? 12 yo in law cannot consent to sex. 13-15 there is leeway in the law for similar age consensual relationships. Ok.

Most global orgs say age of consent should be 16 by the way- we are out of step. Just as an aside.

To use the fact that in theory 12 yo girls can get the pill as an argument that they should be able to do whatever is a shit argument.

The more normal reaction to 12yo girls having sex is what is going on here is she ok who is the man is he waiting outside are her parents up to no good does she need help....

(Unless you're a police officer/ social worker in Rotherham etc who ran with the child prostitutes line).

This defence is extremely distributing.

[RedToothBrush]

Just reading up on adult female sterilsation.

Your GP can refuse to carry out the procedure or refuse to refer you for it if they do not believe it's in your best interests.

And whilst its not a legal requirement, the nhs care pathway states that your male partner should consider a vasectomy before you will even be considered for sterilisation and you must have counselling and consider other forms of long term contraception. And its not normally funded by the nhs anyway.

But 12 year girls olds having sex...

Yeah ok. Im sold on the argument here.

[Datun]

This is not about consent to treatment. It is about legal competence to make a decision about your own treatment.

A treatment which is experimental. And a treatment for which they have no statistics in terms of outcome.

They've been promoting the treatment as reversible. It's not. It has documented lasting side-effects.

[thinkingaboutLangCleg]

I fear that they're digging in now. — they’re too deeply involved to admit they were wrong, even for the sake of the children. Shameful.

[Griefmonster]

This is not about consent to treatment. It is about legal competence to make a decision about your own treatment.

My point is - we assume 12 year olds are competent to make decisions about their treatment in this country. These charities agree with that legal position. Which means a 16 year oldCAN be considered competent to make a decision about their treatment. I don't know enough about the specifics of this case but I have assumed from the statement that there is a concern that there is a broader principle "up for grabs" in this case. I am in no doubt that no 16 year old should be given an option to chop off their breasts, but my point is the onus is on the health service to have more appropriate pathways open to people with gender dysphoria from the outset. But once you have a medical pathway that is available to children and a practice that a child from age 12 can chose to go go down that pathway... There is a risk with the case (I assume, I don't know) that it is opening up gillick competence for debate.