Whittle, the law professor, misinterprets the Bell ruling

[Clymene]

Surely whittle must know the law? I find this a bit confusing - either Stephen is deliberately misinterpreting the judgment or doesn't understand it. I'm not sure which is worse.

Tavistock said that they don't accept parental consent if the child can't consent, so Stephen Whittle has tweeted that he thinks the clinic need to rethink that approach

I think if I were paying several thousand pounds for my child to be educated by whittle, I'd be less than impressed that interpreting a judgement seems to be a bit of a struggle.

Whittle seems to have got the wrong end of the stick entirely.

Also the original tweeter - "barely hanging on" "a global pandemic". Where is the parent calming the situation down for their child instead of utter hyperbole? Also - it isn't a global pandemic. There aren't similar rises in trans identified kids in the Yemen (or tonnes of other countries) are there. This is social contagion.

This is part of a submission by the NHS made in the Keira Bell case:

“36. There is a fundamental misunderstanding in your letter, which states that parents can consent to pubertal suspension on behalf of a child who is not capable of doing so. This is not the case for this service, as is clear from the above. 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.”

@Tootsweets23 I read that tweet as referring to the COVID pandemic, not a trans one

Whittle in 2009:

"The legislation covers young people through various protections, but the problem is that “gender reassignment” is an absolutely inappropriate term to use in relation to young people. If someone rings me up about their 11-year-old with cross-gendered behaviour, and the school wants them out, what should I do? Should I say, “Let me speak to the 11-year-old,” and then explain that the child wants a sex change? Thirteen and 14-year-olds who make that statement get entwined in a huge, goal-driven medical process that does not let them get out, yet we know that 80 per cent. of young people who manifest very cross-gendered behaviour will not grow up to be trans but will grow up to be gay or lesbian."

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/equality/090602/pm/90602s01.htm

Why does Whittle write in the same way that a pissed up teenager texts?

The top tweet here caught my eye. Imagine making a promise like that to your kid, ffs And then wondering why they're so fragile...

I feel like I'm on a completely different planet to them sometimes, I really do.

Ah @bumpertobumper my mistake.

That other tweet though. Part of this is about really poor parenting.

When I started working in schools the first thing I learned was never promise kids anything unless you’re 100% sure you can deliver it.

(Well, it was probably don’t leave your keys in the door when you go in a cupboard, but that has less relevance here.)

*Just to clarify, I meant that Whittle's twitter timeline reads like a pissed teenager, I wasn't referring to that statement in Roz's post

Some of these parents are absolutely batshit. I don't know why Whittle is encouraging them. It doesn't seem very kind or fair and it's certainly not in the best interests of their child.

I remember reading a couple of stories about 'trans kids' where the male-born child in question is quite convinced they'll be 'a real girl' and able to have babies one day.

Did think wtf the parents are thinking to set them up for such a realisation later on.

Gillick / fraser Competence has only ever been legally tested in situations where a competent child agrees to treatment that their parents refuse.

Parents are legally able to provide consent for treatment for a child (age under 18 in England) against that child's wishes, however unless it was a life or death situation. It would probably require a court order to force non emergency treatment on a competent non consenting child, against their will.

@yourhairiswinterfire

*Just to clarify, I meant that Whittle's twitter timeline reads like a pissed teenager, I wasn't referring to that statement in Roz's post

Whittle appears to have many different personas. My 'favourite' is the one who came on here to argue that mixed sex accommodation on Girlguiding trips is not a problem as long as emergency contraception is available...

Also the original tweeter - "barely hanging on" "a global pandemic". Where is the parent calming the situation down for their child instead of utter hyperbole? Also - it isn't a global pandemic. There aren't similar rises in trans identified kids in the Yemen (or tonnes of other countries) are there. This is social contagion.

Why doesn't it ever occur to these morons that if there wasn't a global pandemic of trans kids desperately needing treatment five years ago, then you have to ask why there is one now. Where have all the trans kids come from? Don't these people ever use their brains?

It's remarkable how many *legal commentators" seem not to have actually read the judgement.

My 'favourite' is the one who came on here to argue that mixed sex accommodation on Girlguiding trips is not a problem as long as emergency contraception is available...

What the actual fuck??

Why doesn't it ever occur to these morons that if there wasn't a global pandemic of trans kids desperately needing treatment five years ago, then you have to ask why there is one now. Where have all the trans kids come from?

Oh, that's apparently because it's more socially accepted now than ever before and no one needs to hide their trans status anymore. Whilst simultaneously being the most dangerous, transphobic time for trans people to be alive 🤯

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.

Good. All the judgement is doing is making sure they do that properly, isn't it?

Whittle suggesting that puberty should be blocked without the patient's fully informed consent is appalling.

I really hope this is the beginning of the end of all the harms that are being done to young people in the name of trans

Whittle suggesting that puberty should be blocked without the patient's fully informed consent is appalling.

Not sure what Whittle doesn't understand about a judge saying that children cannot consent. Why does whittle think a parent would force blockers on an unconsenting child?

Unless, and this is what I suspect, whittle thinks that a legally unconsenting child can really be a consenting child.

The bottom line is that a pre-pubertal child or one just on the brink of puberty cannot know what orgasm is. Therefore they cannot meaningfully consent to a course of drug treatment that means they will never be able to experience it. I don't see any way past that one. 🤷🏼‍♀️

And I cannot comprehend how adults who presumably do have full sexual function - parents, doctors - can knowingly and deliberately deny that whole side of life to children who don't grasp what they're missing out on. It's not just the inevitable sterilisation, though heaven knows that's bad enough.

102. Like Ms Morris, Mr McKendrick said the current practice was not to proceed only on parental consent. However, he did argue that if the child’s consent was rendered invalid, the treatment would continue to be lawful if the parents had consented.

Mr McKendrick QC was counsel for the first and second interveners:
(1) UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
(2) LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST

@FixTheBone

Gillick / fraser Competence has only ever been legally tested in situations where a competent child agrees to treatment that their parents refuse.

The above isn't quite true. It has also been tested, for example, where both child and parents refused treatment. A couple of very well known examples include the children of Jehovah's Witnesses that refused blood transfusions.

It would probably require a court order to force non emergency treatment on a competent non consenting child, against their will.

There have been any number of cases where this has happened, ie that a court order was required - so it's not just "probably", it's definitely. It's even happened in a number of life threatening situations as well where both the child and the parent have refused any treatment but the hospital then went to the court which ordered that treatment take place as the child was deemed to be not Gillick competent and regardless of the parents not agreeing to the treatment either.