Keira

[YouNoob]

Live tweets from Belstaffie here:

mobile.twitter.com/Belstaffie/status/1333716720176033793

ItsAllGoingToBeFine I was wondering that about Scotland. I really hope that the judgement and reasoning is followed in Scotland too but I don’t think it will be. Sadly, I think the SNP govt will see it as a way to draw more distance from England.

I used to have a lot of time for Evan Davis until all this kicked off. I don't think I ever really realised how incredibly biased some BBC journalists are until all this kicked off, probably because they were never reporting on anything I had particular knowledge of.

But the partisan way this has been treated - not just by him but by the corporation as a whole - has really opened my eyes to how unfit for purpose the BBC is and how far it is failing in its remit to be impartial and objective.

Sorry, bit of a tangent!

@Typesofcatalogue

You don’t think it’s an odd omission?

No. Young people are often drawn to transition due to homophobia / misogyny. Pretty sure not many are drawn to transition due to transphobia.

Why would it be? Keira was talking about the prejudices that have caused harm to her personally and other reidentified women like her, not making a general list of all isms and phobias.

Exactly.

Ok.

@KatySun

ItsAllGoingToBeFine I was wondering that about Scotland. I really hope that the judgement and reasoning is followed in Scotland too but I don’t think it will be. Sadly, I think the SNP govt will see it as a way to draw more distance from England.

I'm a bit concerned that may be the case too

@Sexnotgender

Why would it be? Keira was talking about the prejudices that have caused harm to her personally and other reidentified women like her, not making a general list of all isms and phobias.

Exactly.

Puberty blockers or not there will still be young people who identify as trans. Just like she once did.

@napody

Fantastic couple of articles. Janice Turner telling Keira's story is heartbreaking.

Janice is superb.

My realisation came Clymene when Evan Davis handled one gender identity story with incredible partiality and despite making a formal complaint, and then escalating that, I was fought to a halt by the BBC process batting away sound and detailed reasoning with "Have you thought perhaps that he was just being a Devil's Advocate? If you want to continue you're going to need something new in your complaint".

Puberty blockers or not there will still be young people who identify as trans. Just like she once did.

True. But now far fewer will start on medical pathway between the ages of 10-16 giving them a far greater likelihood of desisting.

@nauticant

My realisation came Clymene when Evan Davis handled one gender identity story with incredible partiality and despite making a formal complaint, and then escalating that, I was fought to a halt by the BBC process batting away sound and detailed reasoning with "Have you thought perhaps that he was just being a Devil's Advocate? If you want to continue you're going to need something new in your complaint".

And that's the other thing - their complaints process is not fit for purpose. Trying to escalate to Ofcom is exhausting.

Puberty blockers or not there will still be young people who identify as trans. Just like she once did

Yes but she has recognised she was not trans but a butch lesbian. Trans ideology is considered homophobic because it promotes to gay children that they were born in the wrong body because they often don't fit with gender stereotypes.

Should say considered by some to be homophobic.

I came across this article today, it is interesting.
quillette.com/2019/09/24/no-one-is-born-in-the-wrong-body/

I reluctantly walked away when I realised that my complaint would need to be escalated to a quasi-legal realm and would consume vast amounts of time and energy with the BBC being able to pull the rug from under me at any point Clymene.

@Typesofcatalogue

Lovely to hear Keira Bell plea for less homophobia, less misogyny,

Interestingly not ‘and less transphobia’.

Indeed.

Given that the NHS is only using experimental drugs on children who say they are transgender, that they are inhibiting the sex life of children who say they are transgender, that they are making infertile children who say they are transgender that they are not supplying any kind of evidence, statistics or studies to help children who say they are transgender.

That they aren't going after, prosecuting, suing or arresting adults who say those children are transgender.

Is that what you mean?

The Janice Turner article is really good.

Phenomenal news. Congrats to all those involved and to those who got their spades out.

The need to go to the Court Of Protection is brilliant. As someone who frequently is involved with their proceedings I can affirm that the Judges are formidable when it comes to issues of consent. Whilst my work is with assessing capacity in adults, the principles are the same (& in fact the wording of what a young person would need to demonstrate in order to be considered to be able to consent are a nod to this). However, I think this may be a bit of a moot point because in order to demonstrate an understanding of the issue, you have to have all of the information available to you. At present, this could not even go before the court as we do not know what the implications of taking PBs are, therefore it falls at the first hurdle. You simply cannot proceed on ifs, buts and maybes, that would not satisfy the threshold.

Cracking judgment!

I’d say Kiera has done quite a lot in the fight for trans rights tbh, regardless of whether anyone thinks she should have said “less transphobia” too.

She’s established, via a high court ruling, that children identifying as trans have the right to the exact same standard of care and protection as all other children being given medical treatment. Truly a victory for those who actually care about the rights of trans identifying children.

Thank you so much Keira x

Three cracking articles, and the Times readers are nailing the issues in the comments.

Two things standing out looking at the reactions tonight. One is that Transgender Trend really nailed it in their statement: those against this ruling have nothing but emotion. No facts, no stats, emotion creates reality and thus a court pointing out that this is unacceptable treatment of children in a number of ways.... is wrong, because (names for emotions.) I've never seen it more clearly illustrated.

The other is to notice that many adults who follow this political ideology and are against this ruling seem to be showing in their comments tonight a doubtful ability to take on board or understand a balanced view and make an informed choice, since there's seems to be an inability or refusal to look at or engage with unwanted facts that are the other side of their preferred view, never mind weigh them up properly. And if adults can't do it, how can they justify children trying to do it?

This is a massive result. Huge congratulations to Keira, Ms A, Susie Evans and their legal team. This is such an important ruling.

I am really shocked at what the Tavistock have been doing tbh. Yes, this is about basic Gillick competence, but there's something even more shocking underneath.

In evaluating Gillick competence, a clinician needs to assess whether a child can understand, retain and weigh information presented to them, in order to come to a decision. However, this assumes that the clinician is trustworthy and providing reliable and accurate information.

That clearly, clearly hasn't been happening. Rather than presenting the risks, the total lack of any evidence of the benefits of blockers, or the mounting evidence of harm, the Tavistock (like, the people we expect to be the fucking experts here) have, for reasons known only to them, been presenting blockers as a fully reversible "pause" button. Despite a total lack of evidence to indicate that this is true.

If a doctor tells a child that a magic medicine has no side effects, will solve all their problems, make allv their wishes come true (and give them a free unicorn), would we be surprised if the child accepted to take the medicine? Probably not.

But given that puberty blockers are not a magic medicine and actually appear to make everything worse, why (no, really, why?) were clinicians - who we trust to provide honest, accurate information - misrepresenting the effect of blockers so much?

I suspect that the answer is institutional capture and pressure from lobby groups, but lobby groups are not experts. They are. They have comprehensively failed in their duty of care towards incredibly vulnerable individuals, resulting in irreversible damage to hundreds of children because they didn't have the courage to stand up to a bullshit ideology. They ignored and sidelined their safeguarding lead as they did so. And had the audacity to claim the moral high ground at the same time. This is not how psychologists and psychiatrists running a national service should be behaving. I'm completely astounded at their total incompetence.

@ChloeCrocodile

I’d say Kiera has done quite a lot in the fight for trans rights tbh, regardless of whether anyone thinks she should have said “less transphobia” too.

She’s established, via a high court ruling, that children identifying as trans have the right to the exact same standard of care and protection as all other children being given medical treatment. Truly a victory for those who actually care about the rights of trans identifying children.

Exactly

One is that Transgender Trend really nailed it in their statement: those against this ruling have nothing but emotion. No facts, no stats, emotion creates reality and thus a court pointing out that this is unacceptable treatment of children in a number of ways.... is wrong, because (names for emotions.) I've never seen it more clearly illustrated.

Me neither. Obviously, I know all the arguments, we all do. But watching all these charities and lobby groups utterly fail, from A-Z, to come up with a single, solitary argument other than, uh, meeean, is still shocking.

@DiggingTheDigging

Phenomenal news. Congrats to all those involved and to those who got their spades out.

The need to go to the Court Of Protection is brilliant. As someone who frequently is involved with their proceedings I can affirm that the Judges are formidable when it comes to issues of consent. Whilst my work is with assessing capacity in adults, the principles are the same (& in fact the wording of what a young person would need to demonstrate in order to be considered to be able to consent are a nod to this). However, I think this may be a bit of a moot point because in order to demonstrate an understanding of the issue, you have to have all of the information available to you. At present, this could not even go before the court as we do not know what the implications of taking PBs are, therefore it falls at the first hurdle. You simply cannot proceed on ifs, buts and maybes, that would not satisfy the threshold.

Cracking judgment!

This and InvisibleDragon your posts are really interesting. I was groping towards this earlier when reading the judgement: 'secondly, is the information adequate?' They didn't really have to rule on this as they concluded that no amount of information is likely to be meaningful enough for a child to give informed consent. BUT they hinted with talk of experimental procedures that adequate information isnt being given. Therefore does that mean adults can't give informed consent at present too? Given that the 'informed' bit needs adequate accurate information which isn't available? Are they telling adults that long term effects are unclear?

Really sorry for my inability to explain this clearly.