Jeremy Vine show is discussing Keira Bell's case today

[Destinysdaughter]

Will be on at around 1 on R2. Should be interesting...

Susie has to believe this though, the alternative is for her to confront the decisions she made for her own child. She isn't a doctor or an expert, just an ideologue.

I can't see SG ever backing down , I can't imagine it is possible for her to do so in light of her own situation.

And that's the root of much of this nonsense, extrapolating from one's own personal experience to the wider world with no evidence, facts, reliable data etc.

How Mermaids was ever allowed to get beyond being a support group to the horror that it is now with the ear of government and institutions is a shocking disgrace.

@MichelleofzeResistance

If I remember rightly, whistleblowers have mentioned concerns that the Tavistock was overly involved with and influenced by advocacy groups with a lot of passion but no medical expertise? Questions are going to have to be asked about how professional boundaries were maintained, and whether any issues here contributed to the mess the Tavistock finds themselves in.

Will that be addressed by Hilary Cass's review do you think? I very much hope so.

Related to that, does anyone know where I can find David Bell's report on the Tavi?

@terryleather

Susie has to believe this though, the alternative is for her to confront the decisions she made for her own child. She isn't a doctor or an expert, just an ideologue.

I can't see SG ever backing down , I can't imagine it is possible for her to do so in light of her own situation.

And that's the root of much of this nonsense, extrapolating from one's own personal experience to the wider world with no evidence, facts, reliable data etc.

How Mermaids was ever allowed to get beyond being a support group to the horror that it is now with the ear of government and institutions is a shocking disgrace.

If you look at how these organisations operate it's usually on the basis of "this is my personal journey that I am going to tell you all about and then gaslight your school/organisation/charity into removing all sex based rights and language and undermine your safeguarding policies. I will charge you many ££££ for this session and remember 'be kind' trumps safeguarding and rights!"

Related to that, does anyone know where I can find David Bell's report on the Tavi?

According to the Guardian‘S story on Marcus Evans, it was ‘internal’ - I don’t believe it’s ever been published/leaked:

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/23/child-transgender-service-governor-quits-chaos

Dr Bell is currently fundraising on crowd justice, with few details as to why, so maybe he is planning to blow the wheels off?

That pretty much sums it all up persistentwoman !

As an aside, I've been thinking about the parallel with this and the White Fragility author Robin Diangelo who has managed to take her own personal issues around race and extrapolate from them an entire theory that covers every other white person and spin it into a huge money making empire ($12,000 for a lecture anyone...?) to boot...

this is my personal journey I'm going to tell you about..

I read an account of a Mother ringing the Mermaids helpline with concerns about their child. Suzie answered the phone, told the caller all about her experience with Jackie leaving them both in tears.

Thank goodness the Samaritans don't operate like that.

The cases of both Freddie McConnell and Keira Bell have shown that in the UK courts, the rights and wellbeing of the child always take precedence.

Even where the judges would rather align our laws with those of the more liberal European states, and make it clear in their judgements that they'd rather this were the case, when applying UK legal precedent the wellbeing, rights and needs of the child still trump the wants of adults.

SG is evidently too lacking in insight to get a handle on this. In her newsnight appearance she only refers to the feelings of adults. The children don't get a mention. The TRAs have been so used to stampeding over the rights of women - not only with total impunity but with women taking the shit for daring to say 'no' that they now think they can do it to children as well.

These two recent judgements have shown them that they can't. And now even Jeremy Vine's turned lukewarm. No wonder Twitter's going ape.

The case was also discussed on Woman’s Hour today. It was all very negative and didn’t really give a very balanced view of the case which surprised me as they were interviewing Deborah Cohen who has reported on this for Newsnight. There was a lot of ‘assigned sex at birth’ and talk about those children who were going through the process were now in limbo. Not much discussion about the downsides to puberty blockers or lack of research.

@terryleather

That pretty much sums it all up persistentwoman !

As an aside, I've been thinking about the parallel with this and the White Fragility author Robin Diangelo who has managed to take her own personal issues around race and extrapolate from them an entire theory that covers every other white person and spin it into a huge money making empire ($12,000 for a lecture anyone...?) to boot...

Many, many years ago I worked for a non profit (nothing to do with social justice) that was entirely built around the CEO's personal journey.

Whilst I don't think it could be said they were doing any harm (although I'm not sure there was much evidence of useful outcomes either), everything about how the org was run was centred around their vision and their mission. They were quite tyrannical to work for at times.

Which leaves you wondering: is she speaking about a judgement she hasn't actually read? It can't be that she has evidence that the judgement is wrong because Mermaids put forward the evidence they had and the judge's job was to look at all relevant evidence to do this establishing of facts.

Given how little preparation went into what they apparently submitted to the court, I'm pretty sure she hasn't read it.

It's unbelievable. People who are the type to turn up to a sales meeting and wing it, rather than actually knowing their subject and being prepared, but rather than wasting money on dodgy products, they're medicalising and mutilating vulnerable children.

@PronounssheRa

Just caught the end of Susie Green - she is not giving up on her belief that puberty blockers prevent suicide and are not different in this context to when used for precoscious pubery

Susie has to believe this though, the alternative is for her to confront the decisions she made for her own child. She isn't a doctor or an expert, just an ideologue.

This is what I was about to say.

Psychologically, SG cannot back down even by a mm. Because to back down would be to take responsibility for the enormity of what she did to her child on her child's 16th birthday. Surely that realisation would destroy anyone, mentally. So SG's psyche won't let her go there.

Is it possible that SG is doubling down because they're going to appeal? I guess if you're going to appeal then you can't exactly start admitting you might have been wrong after all...

I'm sure that's possible carla. But as has been repeatedly pointed out - if there was all this world beating international evidence the surely Mermaids / Stonewall would have produced it for the JR. GIDs were repeatedly asked about evidence yet were completely unable to produce any

As an aside - it's rather wonderful to see all these organisations reaping the consequences of their #nodebate you transphobes. The tragedy is that vulnerable children have been the casualties.

Susie is so completely wrong to say Precocious Puberty and Gender Distressed children are having the same treatment. The drugs are the same, sure, but you can take paracetamol for a headache or a fever, but that doesn’t mean a headache and a fever are comparable.

There is pretty much no overlap at all between the PP and GD patient groups.

Kids with PP are on blockers at earlier age, and often for less time (the document I read yesterday says they are usually taken off them by ten, so they still have a slightly earlier puberty than most kids). They then ALWAYS go on to a natal sex puberty (and some have lasting side effects, including PCOS). These children are not held back beyond the developmental stages of their peers.

Not all kids with PP have blockers anyway, and the parameters as to what counts as precocious is under discussion (it’s 8 for girls presently, but is likely to be pushed back to 7). Underlying causes of PP have to be investigated, including seriously life threatening conditions, such as brain tumours.

GD kids only start AFTER the age the PP kids come off, and then RARELY go through a natal sex puberty. So rarely, that we have no idea if they have lasting side effects or not. If they start at 10, they could be on the drugs for 6 years. During this time their peer group will overtake them in body, intellectual and emotional development.

Where is the point in ‘buying time’ if the kid’s brain development is paused? They are no more mature, no more ready to make a life altering decision than they were when the drug was administered.

It’s just gobbledygook to say these two scenarios are the same.

@carlaCox

Is it possible that SG is doubling down because they're going to appeal? I guess if you're going to appeal then you can't exactly start admitting you might have been wrong after all...

Foxy Kimono has already redirected his crowdfunder towards an appeal.

At least she didn’t mention self harming and suicide.

Still implied though... use of the words "life-saving" next to puberty blockers.

Foxy Kimono has already redirected his crowdfunder towards an appeal.

Didn't he begrudgingly admit yesterday that it would be nigh on impossible to win an appeal?

@yourhairiswinterfire

Foxy Kimono has already redirected his crowdfunder towards an appeal.

Didn't he begrudgingly admit yesterday that it would be nigh on impossible to win an appeal?

He did but today:

We at @GoodLawProject are taking advice from several leading QCs in relation to yesterday's decision of the High Court which we believe to be legally, scientifically and morally flawed.

We have identified two separate legal interventions which we expect to make to secure that the international scientific consensus that exists around the treatment of trans young people is applied in the United Kingdom.

We will make announcements in relation to those actions as soon as we sensibly can. We are acting with the benefit of advice from the leading public and healthcare lawyers in the United Kingdom.

We will publish advice shortly from a Queen's Counsel on whether loving parents who access care for their gender incongruent children in line with accepted international treatment norms are at risk of having their children taken into care following yesterday's decision.

twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1334116708450246656?s=19

Is Foxy Kimono fundraising for the NHS costs of the appeal? How does that work? I'm blocked.

the international scientific consensus that exists around the treatment of trans young people is applied in the United Kingdom

What planet is he on? What scientific consensus?!

Foxy Kimono has already redirected his crowdfunder towards an appeal.

This is his current pinned tweet. Aside from the fact testimonies from children on a gender affirmation pathway were submitted (as can be read in the judgement) why is he suggesting their were no orgs representing their interests? What does he think the Tavistock is?

But surely the whole point of the detailed judgement
is that it was not just about Trans

It was in fact about the Gillick principles of informed consent
not being properly applied
and how they should be applied in future

it links to cases like Charlie Gard
where the wishes of the parent
were weighed up by the court of Protection
against the good of the child
because the child is too young to give informed consent
to any life changing procedure
that is not rock solid proven to benefit them

eg Chemo is OK - the evidence base is huge
but going overseas for exploratory treatments
of any kind
is not

Thanks Fine.

which we believe to be legally, scientifically and morally flawed

Of course you bloody believe that Mr Fox Beater, of course you do.

Didn't the judge, in a sense, just tell Tavistock that they have to abide by the current law? That they'd been applying Gillick incorrectly? Is the law unlawful now, or...?

I'm getting a headache

has already redirected his crowdfunder towards an appeal

The judge was requested by a Tavistock patient to review if they were working with practice and procedure within the law. The conclusions from facts and evidence presented by the Tavistock themselves is that no, they are not. And yes, they must adapt their practice now.

Appeal against what?

It's quite worrying that several very involved and well known figures seem convinced that they know better, should have been consulted by the judge to veto any possible conclusions drawn, and have some ownership or even authority over what should happen within the Tavistock - who are the experts who presented the evidence assessed by the judgement.

Also fairly sure that if there was international scientific consensus demonstrating beyond all doubt that the Tavistock were doing the exact right thing, the Tavistock would have submitted that in their evidence to the judge.

I doubt the judge just missed that, and nobody thought to tell them.