Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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
Whatwouldscullydo · 01/12/2020 13:25

mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/tavistock-judicial-review/
Theres always a basement..Hmm

TheChampagneGalop · 01/12/2020 13:26

Wonderful news! Finally!

northstars · 01/12/2020 13:26

This is absolutely wonderful and much-needed news amidst all the madness. Well done to Keira.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 01/12/2020 13:28

I thought the BBC news thing was quite good. Said PBs were experimental and long term effects on body and mind not known.

littlbrowndog · 01/12/2020 13:28

Sisterwendy 💐

Datun · 01/12/2020 13:28

Stephanie Davis Arai is, in person, a softly spoken, very gentle woman. With so much empathy, it just emanates from her.

Many TRAs have underestimated her.

Here is part of her statement. It's absolute nails.

"In response to our application to intervene we were instructed by the court to submit our full witness statement and evidence which had to be helpful to the court, relevant to the case and had not already been presented in any witness statements. Stonewall and Mermaids also applied to intervene and were similarly instructed. The court granted Transgender Trend permission to intervene on the basis that we had introduced new evidence that was potentially relevant to the case. The submissions from both Stonewall and Mermaids were judged on exactly the same grounds, and they were refused permission on the basis that they had either repeated evidence already before the court in witness statements, or that the evidence they submitted was irrelevant to the case. The evidence presented by Stonewall and Mermaids focused on issues such as bullying, hate crime and the human rights of the ‘transgender child’ to an identity; in other words, the activist rhetoric we are used to hearing from such groups.

The difference between our submissions was that our evidence was based on reality and facts, whereas the submissions from Stonewall and Mermaids were based on a political and ideological view of children as ‘transgender’. The most striking aspect of the court case was the complete absence of ideology and ideological language. Nobody claimed that some children have a ‘gender identity’ that doesn’t match the sex they were ‘assigned at birth’ to justify the use of blockers and hormones. In the absence of the ideology, the justification for this treatment falls apart. It was revealed that in the real world, there is no justification for serious medical intervention on children’s healthy bodies."

This is where the scandalous and duplicitous nature of this sorry episode, leaps off the page:

This raises serious issues about why these lobby groups have been allowed to influence our health service so radically, causing harm to so many children. The Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust is a Stonewall Diversity Champion, as is the Care Quality Commission who judged the Tavistock service ‘good’. A senior clinician at the GIDS was a member of Gendered Intelligence, a lobby group the GIDS has worked with. GIRES has produced training resources for the Royal College of General Practitioners. All these groups promote the ideology of ‘gender identity’, none are qualified doctors or clinicians.

Thank God for these serious, clever, determined, caring women. And thank God for Keira Bell.

www.transgendertrend.com/keira-bell-high-court-historic-judgment-protect-vulnerable-children/

yourhairiswinterfire · 01/12/2020 13:28

The judgement is worded "surprisingly" Smile so much on the side of common sense I am genuinely surprised and also may have shed a tear.

Me too. My hands started shaking really hard when I realised sanity had won, because we're so used to seeing people who should really know better (AmnestyIreland, ActionAidUK, NSPCC) throwing common sense out of the window to play along with make believe that I genuinely feared the courts would be no better. The verdict was just a huge fucking release of built up disbelief and frustration. A massive wave of relief because someone has listened and understood concerns at last.

I can't even begin to imagine how it felt for Keira and everyone else involved! They must be ecstatic.

MaudTheInvincible · 01/12/2020 13:29

BBC reporter highlighting the complexity and nuance of the ruling, and that clinicians proposing to prescribe PBs for patients over 16 may wish to request permission from the courts. I wonder if these clinicians will find that this has an effect on the terms of their liability insurance.

Effzeh · 01/12/2020 13:30

Yes, the number of 'surprising's in the judgment is very striking - it's judge-speak for 'WTF?'

Also the number of 'we note that', which is a judge's way of attaching a giant flashing red arrow to a data point that might otherwise escape notice.

OvaHere · 01/12/2020 13:32

The BBC report was good although I wished they had shown more of Keira's statement.

Collidascope · 01/12/2020 13:32

mobile.twitter.com/DavidPaisley/status/1333728909821612032

Have the Huffington Post deleted a tweet? I presume it was a tweet that put a very TRA-positive spin on the ruling given who is gleefully retweeting it to women saying Keira won.

1stDecember · 01/12/2020 13:32

Here's the PDF of the whole judgement:

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf

PronounssheRa · 01/12/2020 13:33

I remember following this case as it proceeded and being shocked at how unprofessional the Tavistock came across, the lack of data analysis, reviews and follow ups for what is experimental treatment on children. I'm glad the judges also found that 'surprising'

As for jolyon all he is managing to do is damage the reputation of the good law project, which is a shame. He should read the judgment he might learn something

sultanasofa · 01/12/2020 13:34

The thing that strikes me is that the judgement makes clear that the scope is limited to consent only, and they are not looking to explore or provide any guidance on the circumstances in which it would be appropriate (or not) to prescribe PBs.

However even when the judgement is limited to ability to consent only, the lack of any robust data to guide management of young people who are 'exploring their gender' or experiencing gender dysphoria in under 18s emerges again and again.

I hope that the Cass review takes a similarly-evidenced based approach.

justanotherneighinparadise · 01/12/2020 13:34

@BettyDuKeiraBellisMyShero

Huffpost have updated their original article. Looks a lot more realistic now Wink
Interesting!!!
MammothMashup · 01/12/2020 13:35

That's wonderful Datun

Collidascope · 01/12/2020 13:35

Yeah, Huff Post looking a bit red-faced.

Keira
northstars · 01/12/2020 13:35

I googled the case and am finding some of the coverage very odd. Several headlines saying things like “High court rules children under 16 CAN take puberty blockers as long as they understand the consequences”?? Surely that’s the opposite of what the courts have ruled Hmm

MammothMashup · 01/12/2020 13:37

On radio 4 now.

persistentwoman · 01/12/2020 13:37

[quote Datun]Stephanie Davis Arai is, in person, a softly spoken, very gentle woman. With so much empathy, it just emanates from her.

Many TRAs have underestimated her.

Here is part of her statement. It's absolute nails.

"In response to our application to intervene we were instructed by the court to submit our full witness statement and evidence which had to be helpful to the court, relevant to the case and had not already been presented in any witness statements. Stonewall and Mermaids also applied to intervene and were similarly instructed. The court granted Transgender Trend permission to intervene on the basis that we had introduced new evidence that was potentially relevant to the case. The submissions from both Stonewall and Mermaids were judged on exactly the same grounds, and they were refused permission on the basis that they had either repeated evidence already before the court in witness statements, or that the evidence they submitted was irrelevant to the case. The evidence presented by Stonewall and Mermaids focused on issues such as bullying, hate crime and the human rights of the ‘transgender child’ to an identity; in other words, the activist rhetoric we are used to hearing from such groups.

The difference between our submissions was that our evidence was based on reality and facts, whereas the submissions from Stonewall and Mermaids were based on a political and ideological view of children as ‘transgender’. The most striking aspect of the court case was the complete absence of ideology and ideological language. Nobody claimed that some children have a ‘gender identity’ that doesn’t match the sex they were ‘assigned at birth’ to justify the use of blockers and hormones. In the absence of the ideology, the justification for this treatment falls apart. It was revealed that in the real world, there is no justification for serious medical intervention on children’s healthy bodies."

This is where the scandalous and duplicitous nature of this sorry episode, leaps off the page:

This raises serious issues about why these lobby groups have been allowed to influence our health service so radically, causing harm to so many children. The Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust is a Stonewall Diversity Champion, as is the Care Quality Commission who judged the Tavistock service ‘good’. A senior clinician at the GIDS was a member of Gendered Intelligence, a lobby group the GIDS has worked with. GIRES has produced training resources for the Royal College of General Practitioners. All these groups promote the ideology of ‘gender identity’, none are qualified doctors or clinicians.

Thank God for these serious, clever, determined, caring women. And thank God for Keira Bell.

www.transgendertrend.com/keira-bell-high-court-historic-judgment-protect-vulnerable-children/[/quote]
Fantastic post Datun And yes to everything you say about Stephanie and Transgender Trend. Working quietly and respectfully in the background always centring children and their needs.

lostintheday · 01/12/2020 13:37

Yes, the number of 'surprising's in the judgment is very striking - it's judge-speak for 'WTF?'

Yes. It is exactly the sort of language I use in a professional context too.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 01/12/2020 13:38

@northstars

I googled the case and am finding some of the coverage very odd. Several headlines saying things like “High court rules children under 16 CAN take puberty blockers as long as they understand the consequences”?? Surely that’s the opposite of what the courts have ruled Hmm
Arguably the court did say that. But they also said it was vanishingly unlikely that U16s could understand the consequences.
SchadenfreudePersonified · 01/12/2020 13:38

This reply has been deleted

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

9years · 01/12/2020 13:39

Flowersfor Keira and for SisterWendy

Thank you to the diggers, FWR, the legal team, Mrs A et al. I am very grateful for this.

OvaHere · 01/12/2020 13:40

I googled the case and am finding some of the coverage very odd. Several headlines saying things like “High court rules children under 16 CAN take puberty blockers as long as they understand the consequences”?? Surely that’s the opposite of what the courts have ruled hmm

I think some outlets jumped in early without fully understanding the judgement.

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.