Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Keira

999 replies

YouNoob · 01/12/2020 10:25

Live tweets from Belstaffie here:

mobile.twitter.com/Belstaffie/status/1333716720176033793

OP posts:
Thread gallery
33
jeaux90 · 01/12/2020 12:46

@OvaHere her speech was just on Sky news. Nothing from the legal team.

Datun · 01/12/2020 12:46

I'm so happy! Thank God.

The importance of this cannot be underestimated. This will reverberate throughout every country administering puberty blockers.

The lack of evidence, and as transgender trend says, the entire absence of any of it being allowed to be based on an ideology, would appear to be directly responsible for the judges being 'surprised.'

Wait until the safeguarding lead points out in court how they were circumvented, deliberately, by those prescribing these drugs.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 01/12/2020 12:46
Shock

GenderGP has a team of experts in assessing capacity in patients under 13 seeking puberty blockers. Young people need to be involved in decisions about their care - both in receiving medication and also the effects of not having that medication.

twitter.com/GenderGP/status/1333747415933915140?s=19

archive.li/aTPMo

MuthaFunka61 · 01/12/2020 12:47

Brilliant news,fills me with joy and hope.

Well done all involved,you're all stars Flowers

yourhairiswinterfire · 01/12/2020 12:48

One of them tellingly talks about how they haven't contemplated having a sex life - which is then specifically referred to in the judgement. Can this man actually read?

Yes, I remember reading about that child in the live updates at the time. Kind of ruined it a bit for Tavi, because she said 'boys weren't even on her radar'. Proving Keira's point in a single sentence. How can they consent to possibly not being able to have a sexual relationship as an adult, when they know nothing about relationships, and hadn't even thought about them.

They did hear from kids on the 'other side', Mr Fox Beater. It really helped Keira's case mate 👍

RaspberryCoulis · 01/12/2020 12:49

Haven't been following this closely but caught the ruling on Twitter.

Well done Keira. Brave young woman who has stood up for the rights of so many other young people.

Datun · 01/12/2020 12:49

@EmpressWitchDoesntBurn

A very cross tweeter made the useful point that since puberty blockers need to be administered reasonably early to stop puberty, most kids will be put on them before hitting 16. So even if 16-year-olds are assumed to be able to consent, most of the kids who would have gone on blockers now won’t. Smile
Exactly.

Blocking puberty is not something that is going to continue.

Melroses · 01/12/2020 12:49

The approach of the defendant appears to have
been to work on the assumption that if they give enough information and discuss it
sufficiently often with the children, they will be able to achieve Gillick competency. As
we have explained above, we do not think that this assumption is correct.

You cannot educate children into Gillick Competence. It is to do with development and experience.

Puberty blockers interfere with this.

Datun · 01/12/2020 12:51

@Melroses

*The approach of the defendant appears to have been to work on the assumption that if they give enough information and discuss it sufficiently often with the children, they will be able to achieve Gillick competency. As we have explained above, we do not think that this assumption is correct.*

You cannot educate children into Gillick Competence. It is to do with development and experience.

Puberty blockers interfere with this.

It's bonkers, isn't it?

You're too young to consent to the drugs we want to give you and those drugs will keep you in exactly that state.

MammothMashup · 01/12/2020 12:51

its exactly.

A QC has just accidentally explained how to circumnavigate the system and is tweeting against a court judgement and dismissing them and the nhs.

Sicario · 01/12/2020 12:52

I've just finished reading the Judgment. It's pretty damning in its comments on complete lack of evidence and so much important data "not being available". GIDS has behaved like a secret sect and continues to do so.

MammothMashup · 01/12/2020 12:52

I say accidentally..

MaudTheInvincible · 01/12/2020 12:52

Wait until the safeguarding lead points out in court how they were circumvented, deliberately, by those prescribing these drugs.

Do you know when that case is likely to be heard? I haven't heard anything about it for ages.

Maerchentante · 01/12/2020 12:53

[quote ItsAllGoingToBeFine]Shock

GenderGP has a team of experts in assessing capacity in patients under 13 seeking puberty blockers. Young people need to be involved in decisions about their care - both in receiving medication and also the effects of not having that medication.

twitter.com/GenderGP/status/1333747415933915140?s=19

archive.li/aTPMo[/quote]
I saw HW advertising that GenderGP are the only private doctors for puberty blockers for under 18 in the UK. That came up for me under JMs tweets while viewing them in private mode.

Why can these people not be permanently banned? What they are doing is dangerous.

ShagMeRiggins · 01/12/2020 12:54

These are the same arrogant people that argue with biologists that the biologist doesn't know anything about biological sex, because some music DJ told them in a blog post that there are actually 3 sexes

I have to laugh, because otherwise I’d cry. It’s true that people think like this.

persistentwoman · 01/12/2020 12:54

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

BettyDuKeiraBellisMyShero · 01/12/2020 12:55

As they're not really in the UK, I dont know if UK law will apply.

GenderGP issue private paper prescriptions for ‘patients’ to take to U.K. pharmacies (they used to have an online pharmacy partner based in Liverpool but they’ve been visited by the regulator recently and are now only fulfilling GenderGP
prescriptions for adults www.pharmacyregulation.org/news/concerns-relating-clearchemist)

As a private prescription is really just a letter, and these drugs are rarely used in minors, it should be pretty easy for the pharmacy regulator to issue instructions not to fulfil anything that looks this dodgy. They are bloody expensive drugs, too (unlike hormones).

sultanasofa · 01/12/2020 12:56

This extract, although lengthy, speaks to the obfuscation around why puberty blockers are prescribed (the reason stated publicly vs reality), and also that there is no evidence to support the oft-quoted benefit.

There is some dispute as to the purpose of prescribing PBs. According to Dr Carmichael, the primary purpose of PBs is to give the young person time to think about their gender identity. This is a phrase which is repeated on a number of the GIDS and Trust information documents. The Health Research Authority carried out an investigation into the Early Intervention Study in 2019. Its report was somewhat critical of the description of the purpose and said:
“ 'The research team described the purpose of pubertal suppression as ‘to induce a sex hormone-neutral environment to provide young people with space to decide whether to progress further with gender reassignment treatment as an adult.’ This phrase appears to have caused confusion as it has been interpreted by some that the puberty suppression was for use in any children presenting to the clinic, that there would be no change in the course of any gender identity dysphoria during this time, and that the child could then choose to progress to cross-sex hormone treatment or to stop treatment with subsequent onset of puberty in the birth gender. It has been noted that the participants in this study and other research involving early puberty suppression have progressed to cross-sex hormones. This has raised concerns that the treatment might be responsible for generating persistence, rather than ‘creating space to decide’.
It would have reduced confusion if the purpose of the treatment had been described as being offered specifically to children demonstrating a strong and persistent gender identity dysphoria at an early stage in puberty, such that the suppression of puberty would allow subsequent cross-sex hormone treatment without the need to surgically reverse or otherwise mask the unwanted physical effects of puberty in the birth gender. The present study was not designed to investigate the implications on persistence or desistence of offering puberty suppression to a wider range of patients, it was limited to a group that had already demonstrated persistence and were actively requesting puberty blockers.”

Professor Butler said that PBs: “may have some help or advantage in the support of transgender adolescents in some aspects of mental health functioning, in particular with reducing the risk of reduction of suicidal ideation and actual suicidal actions themselves.”

See further the reference at para 73 below to the paper presented by Dr Carmichael and Professor Viner in 2014, referring to the Early Intervention Study and the limited evidence of psychological benefit.

FurryGiraffe · 01/12/2020 12:56

As a lawyer, I can't remember the last time I read a judgment in which the judges found so many things to be 'surprising', which is judge-speak for 'absolutely mindblowing'.

The judgment didn't tell me anything I didn't know about PBs, but seeing the complete absence of evidence for this 'treatment', laid out in black and white, really is quite something.

SophocIestheFox · 01/12/2020 12:57

Great news.

I’m aghast that any reputable charity, having looked at the lack of evidence brought by the Tavi, could then be so insistent that the judgement is wrong 😳 how can you not know how many of these children are autistic? How?!

They’re supposed to champion excellent care for their user base! And time and again, they demonstrate that they don’t care about facts, evidence, clinical judgement...

I was listening to Marcus Evans on the Adult Human Female podcast this morning (it’s from a while back), and he was excellent, thoroughly recommend. Talk about evidence based, person centred treatment- he is so calm, factual, rational, convincing. It was a great warm up to hearing this judgement.

Well done Keira, well done Flowers

SchadenfreudePersonified · 01/12/2020 12:57

This is WONDERFUL news - what an ordeal it has been for her!

I could cry with sheer joy and relief!

THANK YOU KEIRA!

THANK YOU! - and all of your team - you played a blinder! And to the judge, too - THANK YOU for not kow-towing to idiocy and political "wokeness">

OvaHere · 01/12/2020 12:58

@OvaHere her speech was just on Sky news. Nothing from the legal team.

Thanks

MammothMashup · 01/12/2020 12:58

Wait till judges read into what's going on in charities around this.

🤯

fruitbat987 · 01/12/2020 12:59

i'm wondering how mermaids can still continue to receive funding from organisations like the lottery, after this judgment?

Datun · 01/12/2020 12:59

@MaudTheInvincible

Wait until the safeguarding lead points out in court how they were circumvented, deliberately, by those prescribing these drugs.

Do you know when that case is likely to be heard? I haven't heard anything about it for ages.

No, it seems to have gone a bit quiet. But this ruling will, I imagine, highlight it again.

If it's money that's a problem, I hope the person starts a crowd fund, because I'm sure she will get a lot of diggers.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread