Jeremy Vine show is discussing Keira Bell's case today

[Destinysdaughter]

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

I agree gardenbird.

That will be the next issue.

Out of interest,,’ I wonder how many older ftm transitioners there are advocating for full transition in the younger ftm people? The high profile transmen I’ve come across seem to be advocating extreme caution and a large group pushing for medical transition availability for others are the mtf who have not undergone any significant procedures themselves.

I'd hoped that everyone involved had planned ahead in case they lost the case, but the more I hear from them, the more it looks like thy didn't anticipate this outcome at all.

Unforgivable incompetence if so. How many children are there currently that believe being on these blockers is 'saving their life?' Like gardenbird, I sincerely hope that there are councillors on standby ready to try and erase this damaging belief.

*Counsellors, not councillors. I do know the difference

NHS seems to have prepared for the outcome. They have issued instructions, major reviews and court permission to continue or to stop treatment if not able to go to court. I wonder how many cases will not go through to court, my guess is putting someone with autism in front of a judge is not going to look good.

I doubt GIDs will file many court applications amongst the younger group. Possibly parents will want to file though - I think Mermaids were looking into whether that will be possible?
Possibly GIDS will apply for quite a few who are currently 15 and already on treatment? Especially if they are already close to 16
I doubt clinicians will want to file for many new referrals, I suppose they will want to clear their way through everyone that is already on blockers first and then weigh up how easy/hard it’s been, using them as a guide for who is likely to be considered competent in future?

I suppose a lot of what happens next will depend on the clinicians’ insurance providers!

I wonder how many older ftm transitioners there are advocating for full transition in the younger ftm people?

Some of the high profile ftm do advise waiting until 18, unless they have their life wedded to advocating for transitioners that is. It is always very telling where our regular male posters' interests lie when they tell us that these ftm transitioners are in the 'not to be given any platform' list.

It is almost like these posters cannot see their glaring misogyny in believing that ftm transitioners have no opinion worth listening to on female transition relevant to the current cohort of female transitioners. Just like they think women who have had gender disphoria as teens who have grown up without transitioning would have something of relevance to say. And just like they never acknowledge that their's is a unique male perspective from decades ago and not probably relevant to teenaged girls today.... But hey ho.. self awareness is a grand thing eh?

I'd hoped that everyone involved had planned ahead in case they lost the case, but the more I hear from them, the more it looks like thy didn't anticipate this outcome at all.

The Good Law Project will be looking to intervene in an appeal (if leave to appeal is granted) before the Court of Appeal while they chose not to intervene in the case before the High Court, despite knowing the High Court case was ongoing. In addition, from what JM says, they will be looking to introduce new evidence.

It looks like an attempt to re-litigate the case because they think the defendants didn't do a good enough job before the High Court. This will be interesting.

I don't think it would be a bad idea if they did appeal. The more sunlight the better.

It's perfectly obvious to anyone that a 10-year-old has no clue about what to expect from an orgasm or lack of one, or never having an erection or what permanent sterility is going to feel like when they are 20, 30, 40. Or in the case of men, far older.

Even in a profound mood of positively transcendental creativity, I could not come up with a set of words that a 10-year-old could possibly say to convince a judge that they knew what they were talking about.

Wheeling out adults who regret they don't pass, isn't it.

It looks like an attempt to re-litigate the case because they think the defendants didn't do a good enough job before the High Court. This will be interesting.

Jesus! I suppose this is the sort of thing you can expect when you base your clinical practice on wishes and thin air.

In addition, from what JM says, they will be looking to introduce new evidence.

I look forward to seeing this then. Because surely the NHS experts would have access to every bit of evidence that is worth having and presented it. Or, is it that JM presents anecdotal evidence in such a way that the court might consider it new????

Either way, if it is that powerful it is well worth making public (and again, not sure why it has not been...).

So he wants to be an intervenor, in the same way that transgender trend was, and Stonewall and mermaids attempted to be? In an appeal?

If he has some pertinent information, I absolutely think he should submit it. Everyone wants the best for these kids.

my guess is putting someone with autism in front of a judge is not going to look good.

I saw this Tweet earlier about autism and gender (if screenshot attaches). I shudder at wondering how many children have been 'transed' for having autism, especially as autism is underdiagnosed in girls, and there being a 4000% rise in the referral of girls. And also the fact that Tavistock didn't seem to have any available data on how many of their patients had autism

Totally. I’ve long suspected binders are fulfilling some sort of sensory processing function. Bit like a weighted blanket, but for issues relating to newly grown breasts. Combined with the function of making you less noticeable to predatory adult men or eagle eyed peers, of course.

*So he wants to be an intervenor, in the same way that transgender trend was, and Stonewall and mermaids attempted to be? In an appeal?

If he has some pertinent information, I absolutely think he should submit it. Everyone wants the best for these kids.*

You can intervene in an appeal, assuming you have relevant information/perspective of course.

I didn't read his tweet as indicating that he had new info though. I rather assumed the 'International Scientific Consensus' he referred to was the consensus around the approach to treatment- ie that puberty blockers are ok. I suspect part of the approach is going to be to say that the approach in the judgment puts the UK very much at odds with that consensus. I'm not convinced it's an approach that will get very far.

The point at which I think the judgment is most vulnerable to appeal is in the connection between capacity to consent to PBs and to consent to CSH and that you need understanding of the latter to consent to the former. I think the court is absolutely right to take the approach it is, but it is very unusual to connect the consent for one treatment to understanding of another in this way.

Those two tweets are absolutely it in a nutshell for young people with autism.

I've taught many children with asd now, including a couple who were very gender non conforming (and one who was referred to the Tavistock in the days where it seems to have been sane.)

The number of children who can only wear certain clothes due to sensory stuff or are desperate to wear the clothes they "can't" (the boys wearing or 'in to' anything remotely stereotypical for girls) is huge.

A large number have absolutely no interest in wearing or doing what their peers do.

It's much harder for the children who are more aware of themselves in comparison to peers, who are also the children who are likely to not be diagnosed till much later if at all, and struggle on in mainstream school. And so be around more peers who are exploring increasingly complex styles and identities and social communication nuances.

To me it's so very obvious, reading about and listening to Temple Grandin really helps understand this perspective as she talks about her clothes and interests and simply not having any interest in peer trends.

But to say any of that, is according to Joe Butler on the NAS website, transphobic.

I think the court is absolutely right to take the approach it is, but it is very unusual to connect the consent for one treatment to understanding of another in this way.

Presumably it's because almost 100% of children who go on puberty blockers end up on cross sex hormones.

And there doesn't seem to be any evidence to say that blockers don't just suspend the child in time mentally as well as physically?

Totally. I’ve long suspected binders are fulfilling some sort of sensory processing function.

For crying out loud, you'd think it was basic, wouldn't you?

I think the court is absolutely right to take the approach it is, but it is very unusual to connect the consent for one treatment to understanding of another in this way.
But is that not in part due to the fact that the Data management at The Tavistock was so poor that they could not prove that the two could be decoupled.

If there had been clear evidence that
x number of children were referred
x/n were deemed to need no medical treatment
x/m were started on puberty blockers
of the y who started that path
y/t progressed to sex change
y/w stopped the puberty blockers and reverted to normal puberty

and that after five years
z had undertaken surgery
r had transitioned without surgery
s had wished to detransition
with the data tracked each year for each patient

that is called responsible taxpayer funded medical treatment
it did not happen at the Tavistock

@BettyDuKeiraBellisMyShero that is absolutely brilliantly put

But is that not in part due to the fact that the Data management at The Tavistock was so poor that they could not prove that the two could be decoupled.

I'm not sure how the evidence presented by the Tavistock was interpreted by the court:

Ms Swarbrick had carried out an analysis of a random sample of 312 of 1648 files of patients discharged from GIDS from 1st March 2019 to 4th March 2020. Dr Carmichael summarised this as:

“...based on a random sample of those referred to GIDS who had been discharged or had a closing summary from GIDS in 19-20 (analysis B) 16% of patients (49 individuals) had accessed the endocrinology service during their time with GIDS. Of those 16%, 55% (27 individuals) were subsequently approved for or accessed cross-sex hormones during their time with GIDS. This number represents 8.7% of all the patients discharged from GIDS that year. We also know that of the 49 patients who were referred to endocrinology for GnRHa whilst at GIDS, two did not commence GnRHa treatment, and a further five were discharged from GIDS without being referred on to another gender service.”

59. We find it surprising that GIDS did not obtain full data showing the figures and the proportion of those on puberty blockers who remain within GIDS and move on to cross-sex hormones. Although neither Dr Carmichael nor Professor Butler could give the equivalent figures in the United Kingdom to those from the Netherlands, the language used in their witness statements suggests that a similarly high proportion of children and young people in the United Kingdom move from PBs onto CSH.

Lq yes that's exactly what should Tavistock data should look like.

Wish bloody Jo Maughan would stick to trying to hold the government to account

@persistentwoman

Just wanted to add that I am certain that children at GIDS and on waiting lists are devastated today. Of course, they won't see this as extra layers of protection because they are so far down this rabbit hole and are surrounded by adults unthinkingly affirming them and shrieking about suicide that being told they have to wait or have decisions reviewed is an anathema. My heart goes out to them - they are the casualties of what has happened. Sold a series of lies, experimented on medically and having no access to thoughtful exploratory therapy. We can only hope that the adults surrounding them find the wisdom to metaphorically hold these children and enable them to deal with what must be a crushing disappointment. The performance of Green and Mermaids today suggests that this wisdom is sadly lacking.

Completely agree with this. The organisations who are supposed to be prioritising these children are really not helping them, and not engaging at all with the substance of the ruling, or asking the questions which need asking. Any child who was mentally preparing for the treatment which has now been removed as an option will be really upset & worried. They need adults being bensible and calm.

nauticant / colouring
My day job is as an internal controls auditor
and I know that in data sets as small as that from the Tavistock, sampling is less useful than full analysis.

If the Tavistock were not keeping data in the form I suggest
(particularly the 5 year follow up)
they were negligent

If the Tavistock have the data and hid it from the court on the basis of Peer Review Delays
they were grossly negligent

MD in Private Eye has banged on for years that gaps in data collection are always an alarm bell

It is astonishing that the CQC did not raise this as a basic data handling issue years ago.