Sunday Times today covering Keira's case

[McDuffy]

Trans clinics face puberty-blocker ban for under-17s

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dd78a746-317a-11eb-9ce2-e80c572086aa?shareToken=649822141870d95ec1c0ad2644c39940

I'm slightly concerned at all the carefully written comments under the article that were accurate and have been deleted....someone is not happy and desperate to censor people in every way possible.

I dont know why but I was concerned about the Times publishing this article in advance of what may be said.

Not just tempting fate but somehow alert the trans activists in some way.

Not of course that I would suggest any High Court Judge could be nobbled!

Any how, fingers crossed for 1st December or whenever.

Whatever the outcome will be, this is such a crucial case for children and young people and I’m really grateful to Keira Bell and team for bringing it
The pro experimental-child-medicating lobby are going to spreading a lot of lies about this case undermining Gillick competence around abortion and contraception if Keira wins it.
But Gillick (and Axon) was never intended to cover seriously and potentially permanently physically altering, normal brain and body maturation-blocking, risky, experimental physical ‘treatments’. And no legal cases support giving kids potentially irreversible physical ‘treatment’ without any evidence of benefit and without proper psychological investigation.

I'm so nervous about this but excited too. I can't really get over Keira's bravery. The case has exposed so much, already. I wouldn't let any child of mine go anywhere near that clinic, however much they were in need of professional input. I wouldn't have said that a few years ago.

The pro experimental-child-medicating lobby are going to spreading a lot of lies about this case undermining Gillick competence around abortion and contraception if Keira wins it

I heard a lot of this whilst the case was being heard (IIRC they even got 'Gillick' trending on Twitter.)

It just seemed so desperate, trying to put people off supporting Keira because we'd be supporting taking the rights away from other girls. Lots of armchair lawyers who know everything about nothing.

After listening to the updates in court, I'll be sickened if Keira doesn't win. Loads of red flags in the defence, I couldn't really believe what I was reading.

(It just seemed so desperate, trying to put people off supporting Keira because we'd be supporting taking the rights away from other girls. Lots of armchair lawyers who know everything about nothing.*

Not just armchair lawyers. An actual QC was saying the same thing.

Christ, really? Was it the fox batterer?

@stumbledin

I dont know why but I was concerned about the Times publishing this article in advance of what may be said.

Not just tempting fate but somehow alert the trans activists in some way.

Not of course that I would suggest any High Court Judge could be nobbled!

Any how, fingers crossed for 1st December or whenever.

I think it's far too late to nobble the judges!

The judge in Maya's case had been effectively "nobbled" in advance, by, I strongly suspect, being part of a culture / group of judges having been subjected to gender ideology training or being around others who have. His judgement was bizarre and didn't reflect the evidence heard, in my opinion.

This is a higher court though. I would expect the judges in Keira's case to have a higher bar for the evidence (no pun intended) and not to be so easily captured. (I hope!). From what I understand, GIDS really didn't provide any actual clinical evidence to support their practice. If Keira, Mrs A and Sue Evans don't win, it will mean the judiciary are more captured than we thought as - as far as I can tell - there's no reason for them to side with GIDS other than ideology.

I suspect Maya's case will win at appeal and people will look back in amazement in the future that an actual judge went along with this crap.

@EndemicPanda

How does reporting work in these cases? Does the legal team of the person bringing the case get a heads-up about the ruling which they can then use for advanced reporting on a “may happen” basis, so as not to pre-empt the official ruling? Or is this article speculative?

It's speculative. The lawyers involved in the case will get the judgment a few days in advance which they'll check for errors and provide comments back to the judges, but it will be "embargoed" and so it would be contempt of court to indicate to anyone else (including Kiera!) whether the case had been won or lost.

You can usually tell the client 24 hours prior IME. Sometimes the draft judgment will say not to, but that's really rare. You need to be able to discuss it to take instructions on whether to seek permission to appeal, for example. You can't do that on the hoof (especially remotely). But Keira absolutely cannot let anything slip- and she knows there are a lot of real dick heads watching.

Their seems to be some criticising Keira now as apparently her solicitor is a well known anti abortionist and may have taken up the case because of overlap with Gillick.

Yeah, they did that during the trial too.

They're clutching at straws.

Barristers aren't allowed to be political. I mean, it's a shame about the Barrister's views, but the whole point of the judicial system is they're meant to represent people regardless of their views.

Otherwise, you're saying basically that all defence lawyers agree with criminals (for those who are guilty).

Can someone explain why they're setting the age barrier at 17 and not 18?

They do everything they can to try to smear anyone connected with protecting women's rights / child safeguarding. It's because they have no coherent arguments / reasons so if #nodebate and bullying don't work then smears and inuendo are used. Just as happens on this board at the moment.

@Impatiens

Can someone explain why they're setting the age barrier at 17 and not 18?

They're asking the judges to look at both under 17s (so, up to 16) and also 17 and 18 year olds.

Three judges at the divisional court will rule on whether children aged 16 and under can give informed consent for being injected with puberty-blocking drugs or cross-sex hormones. Bell’s lawyers argued that children of that age have too little experience of life to understand the potential consequences. The court will also decide if children aged up to 18 can give consent.

I'm guessing but I would imagine different arguments were made for the different ages due to their age and also perhaps due to how the law relates kids who are 16 or under differently from 17 and 18 year olds.

The emphasis on under 17s may be the Times's.

I suppose the court may ban under 17s but not 17+, that's one possible outcome.

Have everything crossed for you Keira and team.
Thank you again for your perseverance and courage.

The Tavistock argued that expert clinicians should be able to make calls on the basis of thorough assessments

And I'm sure everyone here would agree, thorough assessments would be a very good idea!

I've been stunned at how casually teenagers have been waved through what are supposed to be serious safeguarding processes.

Love and best wishes to Keira and her team.

"Barristers aren't allowed to be political."

Of course they are! Some are even in Parliament.

@eurochick

"Barristers aren't allowed to be political."

Of course they are! Some are even in Parliament.

Apologies, a bad choice of words!

I meant their own politics or views about a subject are not meant to impact proceedings in court. They have to be impartial.

Keira is remarkable.

I am so grateful for her bravery.

The comparison between a child stopping a life changing event where the outcomes are known (pregnancy) and consenting to a life changing event where the outcomes are uncertain and potentially horrendous (drugs and surgery for dysphoria) is bonkers.

"Would you like to not have a baby at 14?" "Ooh well I can imagine what a baby is and what that would be like."

Would you like to take these drugs which may mean you can never have an orgasm or an adult sex life, be infertile, have crumbling bones and a higher risk of a range of horrible diseases but we don't actually know?".
"Hmmm what's an adult sex life when it's at home?"

There was an article in the Mailonline yesterday "Transgender clinics face being banned from giving puberty-blockers to under 17s if 'detransitioned' campaigner wins High Court war against NHS Trust that gave her hormone drugs as a teenager" which links to an interview Keira gave to BBC Online and has a good amount of detail, quoting her about how she went through the process and what she thinks about it.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8997937/Transgender-clinics-face-puberty-blocker-ban-17s-detransitioned-campaigner-wins-case.html

The Mailonline is a popular site and has a wide circulation including in the USA and Australia.

The fox killer on twitter is saying that Keira's case is about fully-reversible puberty blockers and not the partially-reversible cross sex hormones that she regrets taking. I'd have thought a QC would be up to date with the facts - particularly this from the NHS website: "Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria.
Although the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.
It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children's bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations."

Someone upthread mentioned the change of direction in Sweden. In Finland the care guidelines are also very different to in this country, and do not follow wpath. There is a campaign to get them translated into English. I think the campaign is based in Canada.

My thoughts are with Keira, Mrs A, and all who have given their time and energy to this case. I can't imagine how stressful it must have been.

Good luck for tomorrow. Whatever the outcome, it has brought so much into the sunlight.