Keira

[YouNoob]

Live tweets from Belstaffie here:

mobile.twitter.com/Belstaffie/status/1333716720176033793

@DisappearingGirl

The BBC news page has been updated again with a new headline and more info:

Puberty blockers: Under-16s 'unlikely' to be able to give informed consent
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-55144148

Also a great clip of Keira speaking.

Also am I right in thinking access to PBs will be limited for all under-18s, not just under-16s?

watching that clip HAS made me cry.

Keira you are amazing. Simply amazing. I wish you had the benefit of this judgement, thank you for protecting our children, bringing this case is a selfless act.

You are stunning and brave.

Thank you Keira and team, this is fantastic news! This gives me so much hope today.

Well done Keira, she speaks so clearly and eloquently in that clip

@DisappearingGirl

The BBC news page has been updated again with a new headline and more info:

Puberty blockers: Under-16s 'unlikely' to be able to give informed consent
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-55144148

Also a great clip of Keira speaking.

Also am I right in thinking access to PBs will be limited for all under-18s, not just under-16s?

Keira

Just watched that clip of Keira on the BBC article. for you, you wonderful woman, and thank you for doing this.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Point I saw on twitter:

Children can't consent, but can parents consent on behalf of their children?

I’ve seen an interesting (but not necessarily accurate!) comment on this from a trans person who had their puberty blocked in Germany:

Archive link to reddit comment: archive.md/FphB3

From the ruling:

Although the general law would permit parent(s) to consent on behalf of their child, GIDS has never administered, nor can it conceive of any situation where it would be appropriate to administer blockers on a patient without their consent. The Service Specification confirms that this is the case.

Presumably you can’t have parents consent on behalf of a child because there are no objective tests for gender dysphoria, and it’s all about the patients own sense of self? And this is an experimental treatment with no evidence base?

Like, a parent can consent to cancer treatment for their child, but only because the disease itself is objectively diagnosable and the success or failure of a treatment is thus measurable (even if the treatment is still in the experimental stage).

If parental consent became the deciding factor between PB or no PB for gender dysphoria, wouldn’t it be at risk of abuse by parents who are homophobic or have other harmful reasons to make these kinds of decisions?
What about those in the care of the state? We already know that cross sex identity is more commonly seen amongst children in the looked after system.

I really get the impression that the BBC and other news sources are struggling to comprehend this judgement. It's alien to the party line that has been toed for so many months (most oppressed, to ask for evidence is transphobic, suicide etc...)

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Point I saw on twitter:

Children can't consent, but can parents consent on behalf of their children?

No because experimenting on children is unethical and not allowed, so to speak. It is in the judgement somewhere.

Well done Keira and everyone else involved.
So relieved to see this.
It has to be right that children cant consent to treatment when even the clinicians dont fully understand the long term impacts.
Polly Carmichael interview on newsnight where she kept admitting she didnt know the answers was shocking and disgusting.
I want to see heads roll over this.
Sky news have just covered it with a balanced view with a happy transboy and the mother.
I hope they will be happy but its worth noting that the person looked younger than Keira and was very obviously autistic.

@sultanasofa

I really get the impression that the BBC and other news sources are struggling to comprehend this judgement. It's alien to the party line that has been toed for so many months (most oppressed, to ask for evidence is transphobic, suicide etc...)

It really does get parroted out all over the place. I listened to the new Louis Theroux podcast last night with Michaela Cole and I was so disappointed to hear her (albeit very briefly in the context of a much wider discussion) refer to transgender people as the most oppressed demographic.

Given the outcome of today's case, I hope it's not too long before schools review their transgender policies advocating puberty blockers.

From a local secondary:

Gender Dysphoria
This is a clinical condition that can present from a very early age and can only
be diagnosed by a medical expert. A person diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria may require
treatment, e.g. hormone blockers to delay puberty, before being prescribed hormones of
their desired gender. A transgender person may live their life without being, or needing to be
diagnosed as having Gender Dysphoria

Lui Asquith, from trans children's charity Mermaids, said the ruling was a "devastating blow" and "a potential catastrophe for trans young people across the country".

The charity said: "We believe very strongly that every young person has the right to make their own decisions about their body and that should not differ because somebody is trans."

this is a major problem. Children are prevented from 'making decisions about their body' by law for a very good reason. They can't get a tattoo, they can't consent to sex, they can't get cosmetic surgery, they can't drink alcohol. Why is a children's charity suggesting that laws to protect children from making bad decisions and coercion by adults are not universally applicable?

Regardless of 'trans' - why should they be allowed to make permanent modifications to their body?

@gardenbird48

hope not cross post. I wonder what this means for the fox beating QC's action for the 14 year old child - didn't they want puberty blockers?

I think that was mostly focussed on waiting times?

I think we can all agree that we’d like gender distressed children and adolescents to get mental health evaluation via psycho social services in a timely manner. If GIDS can no longer follow affirmation only nor refer minors for endocrinological intervention, then there is no reason to not fully support the their aims.

Well, apart from objecting on the grounds of not wanting to be involved with a man who is abusive to animals (by his own admission).

Sorry haven't had time to read all this thread, so this may have already been said, but this is a partial victory.

Definite that 14s and under cant consent

Unlikely that 16/15 can consent - so likely to get court approval

GIDs would not proceed on parental consent only.

Nothing in the report I heard about 17+ which I took to mean court were saying / implying that 17 and over are competent to consent.

So really pleased for young women / girls - but still worry that what you think and understand at 17 is the basis to take a decision that would impact another 60 to 70 years of life.

A legal academic having a special interest in non-binary identities explains why we haven't understood the decision and why the judge is mistaken in introducing a "new legal principal":

wordpress.aber.ac.uk/law-and-criminology/2020/12/01/bell-v-tavistock-a-quick-explainer/

So impressed by that clip of Keira.

Requesting
less homophobia
less misogyny
more mental health support
more tolerance
more professionalism

a real beacon for how the Hippocratic Oath should be applied

Well done Keira!! What a warrior. You have made the world a better place and I hope you feel all the love and gratitude people have for you and what you've done.

re 17 and over - I agree this is still too young but would puberty blockers even be prescribed much for this age group? Was this legal action ever going to have an effect on treatments for 17 year olds? It's a partial victory in the sense that it's only one brick being pulled out of the whole horrific edifice - albeit one of the most important bricks. But the way I'm understanding it, is that it's a complete victory in terms of what Keira, Mrs A and her legal team set out to achieve.

David Paisley's Twitter feed is amusing, btw. He RT'd the now-deleted HuffPo Comical Ali impression, and received a bunch of "TERFs are so stoopid lol they think they won" responses. Then the next thing he RT'd is Mermaids doing their best Chicken Little, and the Greek chorus has switched to handwringing.

A legal academic having a special interest in non-binary identities explains why we haven't understood the decision and why the judge is mistaken in introducing a "new legal principal"

Yikes! And the same error is repeated multiple times, so it's not just a typo. It really does seem like one of the reasons genderism has become so powerful and influential is that it provides opportunities for ambitious but academically untalented people to climb the academic career ladder.

Adding my thanks. I hope they’ll let us know if the hole still needs some backfill

David Paisley's Twitter feed is amusing, btw. He RT'd the now-deleted HuffPo Comical Ali impression, and received a bunch of "TERFs are so stoopid lol they think they won" responses. Then the next thing he RT'd is Mermaids doing their best Chicken Little, and the Greek chorus has switched to handwringing.

I think Katy Montgomerie did the same. Lots of positive stuff now deleted, and currently a load of misery and calling gender critical people evil.

Though the mainstream media's initial reporting of the outcome was, to put it kindly, confused. While I understand that there's a lot of legal jargon, surely the fact that Bell won, got her costs largely covered, and that the Tavistock were looking to appeal were all indicators that "puberty blockers for under-16s are fine as long as they understand it" headlines weren't really appropriate.
I mean, would the Tavistock be appealing that? Wouldn't they maintain that the kids put in there drugs already knew the implications so all good?
Ah well.

@stumbledin

Sorry haven't had time to read all this thread, so this may have already been said, but this is a partial victory.

Definite that 14s and under cant consent

Unlikely that 16/15 can consent - so likely to get court approval

GIDs would not proceed on parental consent only.

Nothing in the report I heard about 17+ which I took to mean court were saying / implying that 17 and over are competent to consent.

So really pleased for young women / girls - but still worry that what you think and understand at 17 is the basis to take a decision that would impact another 60 to 70 years of life.

The ruling seems to suggest that the lack of evidence based medicine here is still problematic.

It puts the emphasis very much back in anyone providing these services to do a lot better on this score or they will STILL be at risk of liability in the future if it does turn out that this treatment is harmful.

*Put on these

The news caused my partner to have a nosebleed and palpitations, recalling all the negative effects on their psyche puberty had on them. That a judge with no background has the say on whether children can now have puberty blockers is no different than the paramedics hired by CAPITA who decide whether my Autism qualifies me for PIP.

The news caused my partner to have a nosebleed and palpitations,

I, like others on FWR, was bemused throughout the case that GIDS had failed to follow patients, gather evidence of efficacy, produce peer reviewed research, analyse comorbidities... It appears the court were equally “surprised”