Jo Maugham

[GoodbyePorpoiseSpit]

I follow Jo on Twitter and feel that the GoodLaw project is a needed and good thing when it comes to holding ministers/gov spending to account. He seems to take refuge in the rule of law and facts .... so, so WHY after the recent ruling on puberty blockers is he tweeting and retweeting Trans folk who are sharing (in emotive and extra detail) their experience post ruling. What his deal?? What’s his skin in the game? Looked through some old tweets and he really seems to have come down hard against women’s rights.
Ca anyone explain his deal here?

That sheep thing is fascinating.

It really is. I find the simplicity of the memory test interesting. If the PBs did this in sheep, there must be an underreporting of these side effects. How much of the negative mental health of these children and teens is contributed by these drugs? Yes, of course these children have MH issues, but how much of the lack of improvement in MH is directly related to cognitive issues from the drugs.

But the denial continues. Unless it is exactly a long running study based on trans people, nothing will be considered sound enough evidence. Yet, as has been said, who is willing to put distressed children through as a control group.

But the denial continues. Unless it is exactly a long running study based on trans people, nothing will be considered sound enough evidence

Even when its done by "approved " people its still not good enough if it doesn't say whats wanted. I mean when the BBC or guardian cant put a positive spin on it then you know its bad...

Oliver Burkeman had a very funny tweet about Maugham.

(The phrase is "tilting at windmills", in case anyone's wondering.)

Ooh. Naughty nauticant
What did you say to earn a deletion within 15 minutes?

@Winesalot

I think Malcolm Clark has it.

twitter.com/twisterfilm/status/1338994912902123524?s=21

I hadn’t read about the PB sheep trials.

That thread is superbly written (and the results of the sheep trial disturbing)

A kitchen in a shade of green which was a bit marmite. Still undecided.

Malcolm Clark is bang on.

It's also fascinating because Maugham has unwittingly demonstrated his own ignorance. Most of us who know even a little bit about medical science are aware of the importance of animal trials. Every medical drug is tested on animals before it's tested on humans. And the reason for that is because there are enough similarities in the way that certain animals react to drugs and the way humans react to make it worth doing.

Maugham seems to be suggesting that the way forward is to test puberty blockers on hundreds of human children and then wait a few years to see whether they have any adverse effects. If he can't see the problem with that then he is either very dim or deranged.

He is also treating the court with utter contempt, holding their process up to ridicule ('taking evidence from an expert in sheep? WHAT FOOLS!') apparently without doing the most cursory research to discover the sound reasoning behind it.

This not a good professional look.

I posted a link to a windmill FannyCann.

Are windmills offensive now?

@RoyalCorgi

Malcolm Clark is bang on.

It's also fascinating because Maugham has unwittingly demonstrated his own ignorance. Most of us who know even a little bit about medical science are aware of the importance of animal trials. Every medical drug is tested on animals before it's tested on humans. And the reason for that is because there are enough similarities in the way that certain animals react to drugs and the way humans react to make it worth doing.

Maugham seems to be suggesting that the way forward is to test puberty blockers on hundreds of human children and then wait a few years to see whether they have any adverse effects. If he can't see the problem with that then he is either very dim or deranged.

I think both JM and others overestimate his intelligence. He really comes across as dim on twitter.

If Jolyon’s upset that they’re using data from using PB on sheep not humans, it’ll blow his mind when he finds out the ‘science’ behind there being no human biological sex is based on clownfish and slugs...

@NonHypotheticalLurkingParent

If Jolyon’s upset that they’re using data from using PB on sheep not humans, it’ll blow his mind when he finds out the ‘science’ behind there being no human biological sex is based on clownfish and slugs...

I am so over the discussion of sex is spectrum and ‘clownfish’ and hermaphroditism. I cannot imagine what those with DSDs feel about it. I put those who believe in this spectrum and those believing science will one day allow people to miraculously change sex (without a transporter beam to reset your molecules to how you want them on demand) in the same light as a person tilting at over large fans attached to a large wooden structure.

@NonHypotheticalLurkingParent

If Jolyon’s upset that they’re using data from using PB on sheep not humans, it’ll blow his mind when he finds out the ‘science’ behind there being no human biological sex is based on clownfish and slugs...

Indeed!

[quote EwwSprouts]"a better understanding" my take on his comments eg
"Jolyon Maugham QC, the Good Law Project’s founder. “Because these questions that the court has decided around…are not questions in relation to which judges have any expertise, right? The notion that a treatment should be denied by judges...just seemed like madness.”
www.vice.com/en/article/qjp3ab/it-will-be-difficult-but-we-have-to-try-the-lawyers-fighting-for-trans-rights-in-the-uk[/quote]
That shows he has absolutely no understanding of the case at all.

Here is a very clear explanation from Marina Wheeler QC of 1 Crown Row:

ukhumanrightsblog.com/2020/12/04/puberty-blocking-can-a-child-consent

From Wheeler’s page on her Chamber’s website:

she undertook large volumes of work for Central Government Departments and Agencies, including the Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Justice and Home Office, predominantly involving prisons, mental health, armed conflict, and radicalisation, as well as employment work. Her local government work has involved child protection and adult social care, usually with a privacy or human rights element. She has also frequently worked for the NHS in employment disputes and the reconfiguration of hospital services, involving the adequacy of consultation, alleged breaches of legitimate expectation and the Public Sector Equality Duty.

Jollyon does tax law. He’s brilliant at it, apparently, but I would imagine a QC with an impressive background in human rights and working at the Court of Protection has a far better understanding of Bell v Tavistock than a tax specialist.

The notion that a treatment should be denied by judges...just seemed like madness.”

I'm pretty sure it's not the first time this has ever happened.

I'm pretty sure it's not the first time this has ever happened

First time theres probably been a need to deflect from the fact that those responsible for submitting the opposing viewpoint backed up with medical evidence , failed to fulfil their obligations...

A drop in IQ has also been observed in children who have been treated with hormone blockers.

www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00528/full

Comparing the periods of follow-up, a reduction on Global IQ (GIQ) during pubertal suppression was observed. (see table)

Additionally, a global IQ decrease (WISC-III) was reported in a longitudinal follow-up of girls with central precocious puberty (Schuerger and Witt, 1989) treated with GnRHa. Finally, a third study correlated verbal skill impairment to pubertal suppression in a GD group (Costa et al., 2015).

The notion that a treatment should be denied by judges...just seemed like madness

He must not have read the Tavistock paper either, because it's a stretch calling this a treatment. What exactly is it treating when the Tavistock's own study showed mental health doesn't improve with taking PB's? So it doesn't help gender dysphoria, and puberty itself isn't a disease requiring treatment...so I'd love to hear Jolly explain what the exact purpose of PBs are now.

What does Maugham think the Courts of Protection actually do then?

Here’s an example: www.clydeco.com/en/insights/2019/08/serious-medical-treatment-court-of-protection-emph

This was issued by a judge earlier this year.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2020/2.html

The law is a very complex beast, especially in the U.K. where devolution means it can differ from E&W to Scotland and NI.

This complexity is why solicitors and barristers have specialist areas. Jollyon is out of his depth here (and I fully expect an expert on medical law or child protection or human rights would know shit all about tax!)

Sorry if I've missed it, but has JM commented on the findings of the Tavistock study yet?

It does seem to be more common that the court of protection is giving the go-ahead to treatments for a child against the wishes of the parents. Rather than having to give the go-ahead even if both the parents and doctors agree.

In all cases the court is looking at the interests of the child. It is not inconceivable that both the parents and the doctors could be wrong. And this judgment has NOT said that PB treatment is totally barred - they've said if you want to do this you're going to have to bring it up to the court of protection, where they will decide on a case-by-case basis. The JR was not convinced that children could understand the risks versus benefits of the treatment, given that the doctors themselves don't seem to understand them! If there is new general evidence, they can bring it up in such a case, presumably.

That situation roughly corresponds to the current legal situation for lobotomies - they're permitted but individual cases must be brought up to a panel for review.

As the judgment said, this does appear to be a unique case - in other cases we've had treatments with clear aims and well-known benefits and well-understood risks. (Abortions, blood transfusions, proper emergency amputations)

Normally doctors aren't trying to put children through experimental treatments. Just possibly the activists should consider that maybe the court has reached an unusual judgment because the doctors are doing something unusual...

the doctors are doing something unusual

And of course the reason they brought the JR in the first place, and thousands of us supported it,and it was then permitted was that we thought the doctors are doing something unusual.

And it seems we weren't wrong, according to three judges.

But I guess in some people's world view we just bring these cases because we're bigots and bigots just do bigotty things. Thousands of us in big bigotty groups just raising money to be bigotty. And then the biggotted judges just do their bigotty thing cause transphobia.

Yes, that makes perfect sense...

No wonder the shrieking is getting louder. From their point of view the conspiracy necessary to support their viewpoint is getting bigger and bigger. The situation just looks more and more outlandish from their point of view. Now even the high court is in on it! Gadzooks!

Here’s some GMC guidance re: consent and the under 18s:

www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/0-18-years/making-decisions

I know the vast majority of GIDs prescribing has been outside of proper experimental research but I thought this bit was interesting

39 You must not put pressure on children, young people or their parents to consent to research in the expectation of therapeutic, financial or any other benefit.

Surely the push towards prescribing puberty blocking meds by assorted trans advocacy orgs, genderdoctors and individual gender identity activists, without an evidence base to justify that push is ‘pressure to consent in the expectation of therapeutic benefit’?