Guardian on Tavistock case

[HDDD]

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/oct/07/court-hears-children-cannot-consent-to-puberty-blockers
Keira has a deep voice and a beard for life?
And men and women in their 30s can't get vasectomies and hysterectomies because GPs say they are too young to make those decisions.
Baffling.

And men and women in their 30s can't get vasectomies and hysterectomies because GPs say they are too young to make those decisions.

I hope that Keira's barrister makes that point. He does seem to have made some good points so far, e.g.:

The idea that young people were fully able to give consent was “simply a fairy tale”, he said. “Nobody could sensibly think that a child of 13 or under who cannot in law give valid consent to sexual acts could possibly give informed consent to treatment of dubious benefits … and lifelong consequences.”

Hyam said the case was focused on whether children could give informed consent to treatment and whether the information given to them is appropriate. “Young and short on relevant life experience, we say there is just no way they can make informed decision about the loss of sexual function,” he said. “It’s just not credible.”

Insane isn't it? Illegal to tattoo under 18s too. Can't get a little star tattooed on your wrist but can have life changing surgery and medical sterilisation.

Isn’t there anything that can be done for the hair and voice? I see people getting facial ‘feminisation’ surgery, boobs, hair face removal on the basis that this is critical, yet women can’t get facial hair removed?

I think the effects of testosterone on women/ girls is stronger, as it were, than oestrogen on men.

I suppose hair could be got rid of permanently but I don't think much can be done about the voice. Not sure about other things eg vaginal atrophy, osteoperosis

It seems blindingly obvious that an under 18 should not be able to consent to something that is not reversible. It's flabbergasting. I wish Keira well and hope that this action saves others.

When I watched a detrans video, it was the voice that was the most shocking, somehow. I don't think it can be reversed, except through voice training to talk at a higher register.

When I asked to be sterilised at 27 with three children I was laughed out of the GPs office ‘because I would change my mind’

Someone else I know who did manage to get approval (in the 90s) had to get written permission from her husband.

But prepubescent children and it’s a viable option? Madness.

Interesting that the Tavistock is arguing that puberty blockers are reversible when the NHS now acknowledges that they are not. The Tavistock are also still claiming they are 'well researched' despite not having published their own research findings!

How can they say they researched at all? It’s embarrassing how little they actually know about their ‘clients’

The lawyer is either very clever or opening a can of worms with the age of consent comparison.

I think his argument is interesting because it opens the door to the idea that medical transition prior to 18 could be construed as abuse, rather than medical negligence.

I suspect that is why there has been a push on the part of interested parties to write childhood transition as a "life-saving" intervention.

I had a conversation today with a friend about a mutual friend who's just been sterilised after having her second child and who was asked repeatedly and patronisingly whether or not she was 'really sure' she wanted to go ahead. And this was a woman in her 30s...

You can't even vote in this country until you are 18, yet apparently you can make a rational decision to transition whilst at secondary school?!? It's bewildering.

That's a good balanced article from the Guardian. Happy to see the case being reported here.

Far from there being minimal evidence of the benefit of puberty blockers, their use was “the most widely accepted and preferred clinical approach in specialised transgender clinics across the world”, she said.

This is a non sequitur. Just because lots of people around the world do it, doesn’t prove there is evidence, it just proves that lots of people around the world do it despite the lack of evidence.

pmk

I have not read this closely but it basically seems to be saying it's like banning riding a bike.

mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/live-updates-tavistock-judicial-review/

From that Mermaids page: "If this case were successful, it would prevent trans young people from being able to make their own medical choices (advised by NHS clinicians), heralding a new era of minority discrimination in England and Wales. It would treat trans young people and their rights differently from their peers, simply because they are trans."

Impressive distortion of the truth - at the moment it's only trans young people who get treated without any regard for their long term interests. Everybody else, there's oversight, research, evidence, review ...

I can't believe the Tavi admitted today that they only have some anecdotal evidence that some children, after leaving GIDS for the adult clinic, rejected cross-sex hormones.

How can they do this to these children, suspend them in eternal 12-year-old-brain-and-body, then wave them off at 17-18 without any follow-up to see if they did the right thing?

They keep saying "young trans people." They're really trying to avoid calling them what they are - children.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6762379/Former-governor-says-fears-hurrying-children-transgender-path.html

Brilliant article last year featuring Marcus Evans.