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?

I find it very worrying that so many people seem to think 13 year olds should be interested in sex. Yes, some are, some are curious, some very much want nothing to do with it.

I feel like this is somehow linked to the availability and normalisation of porn as a healthy way for kids to learn about sex but can't really articulate it. Its as though we've lost sight that kids are not just mini adults, but in fact distinctly psychologically different and indeed very much vulnerable.

That childs testimony is showing off one of the main problems with the whole thing IMO. That age, not many care about future children or relationships and such.

And then put them on puberty blockers and they're unlikely to develop in the same way as their peers with regards to relationships anyway.

I think there might be something in that Molten. So much projection involved.

Yes, some are, some are curious, some very much want nothing to do with it.

When teaching year 7 reproduction in science (age 11and 12) many find the idea of sex absolutely disgusting. It is completely normal, and developmentally appropriate to not understand the sexual arousal at that age.

Update from Jolyon:

There is much in that decision that the trans community is justified in feeling angry about. However, there are three points, in particular, that seem to me to be worth noting.

The first is that (unless overturned) it will leave the United Kingdom as an international outlier on the use of puberty blockers. The World Health Organisation, for example, talks of the need to depathologise trans health: "trans-related and gender diverse identities are not conditions of mental ill health, and classifying them as such can cause enormous stigma" and goes on to add that "Inclusion of gender incongruence in the ICD should ensure transgender people’s access to gender-affirming health care."

The second is that a case about the approach adopted by a particular institution - and one viewed with some suspicion by the trans community because of its continuing pathologising of gender incongruence - was used by the Court as a trial of a particular treatment. This seems to me to answer the wrong question - with hugely damaging consequences for those who benefitted from that treatment.

The third - and I want to say this very clearly - is that it was profoundly and especially wrong of the Court to do this in a case in which no trans voices were heard. The Tavistock took evidence from a number of trans young people to seek to defend its position. But they were denied all independent voice by a series of case management decisions made by the Court. No advocate on behalf of a trans young person - the only group affected by the decision - was permitted to address the Court. In light of the first two points, I believe this state of affairs was shameful

Jo M keep repeating there were no trans voices heard. Did he not read where they were presented? This is quite a jump.

it will leave the United Kingdom as an international outlier on the use of puberty blockers

The ruling doesn't apply to Scotland or NI (iirc) so really it is only Eng and Wales who are the international outlier. And that is not (in itself) a bad thing. "Everyone else is doing it" is a spectacularly bad reason for doing something - as I learnt in my teen years through my mother's repeated use of the phrase "if everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you?!".

they were denied all independent voice by a series of case management decisions made by the Court

Surely that is an outright lie. The court did hear the voices of some trans children. What they refused to do was to hear the voice of the same trans child twice.

trans-related and gender diverse identities are not conditions of mental ill health

I'm sorry, but they're really getting on my nerves. They can't say it's nothing to do with mental health and then bang on about high suicide rates. Suicidal feelings are a major indication of a mental health crisis.

And also the fact that it's not a medical issue at all, it's an identity one. So why is the NHS paying for it then??

So interesting that JM can't make the distinction between the trans community and children. What was the concluding paragraph in that excellent Observer leader?

Children are not pawns to be deployed in adult debates about identity. Bell’s bravery has paved the way for a child-centred judgment that gives them the protection they deserve

Depressing to see adults with evident intelligence doing precisely this.

Suicidal feelings are a major indication of a mental health crisis.
And also the fact that it's not a medical issue at all, it's an identity one. So why is the NHS paying for it then??

Schrodinger's cat all over again. Being trans is simultaneously a mental health problem leading to suicide ideation, a medical issue needing drugs/surgery and an innate sense of self, so questioning it is tantamount to conversion therapy.

archery2 and I seem to be skirting around the same point. I don't want to be banned so will say no more.

The first is we must ignore UK law and do what others do.

The second is we must ignore the parties to the High Court case and imagine some other hypothetical parties who were behaving differently.

The third is we must ignore the evidence that was actually put forward by the defendants and considered by the judges.

This is startling stuff from a QC.

I'm incredibly proud of the UK judiciary for making these courageous, evidence-based judgements.

The rest of the world is watching. I doubt the impact will be limited to England and Wales.

@sashagabadon

I think Twitter just does this to people. It is a destructive medium. I think if you get lots of followers and positive attention over something (e.g being a Twitter remainer fighting the good fight) it becomes addictive and all encompassing and you start to get delusions of grandeur about your thought on all sorts of other matters too and when that goes away (and you actually become a bit of a Twitter meme due to an unrelated thing you do) it is devastating and you want an issue that will give you authority / respect again and Jo has decided this is the issue. I never really get the demograph argument generally, that there is a divide between younger and older people on the any debate and over time the younger viewpoint will win out. Labour activists use it for lots of their arguments but what they forget is that young people grow up and become older people and views change and so that perfect demograph of younger people taking their exact viewpoints in everything into their middle/ old ages just does not really happen.

I'm noticing this about a certain consultant doctor on Twitter with a massive following. He seems to be going somewhat the way of the Harrop in terms of his tone and attitude towards women who disagree with him.

He battered an animal to death with a cricket bat. He’s a twat.

To borrow from Joel v Morison, it looks like Maugham is "on a Harrop of his own".

But the court did hear first hand from a trans person. Keira Bell. Her life, her experience as a trans teen.

Always worth remembering Diva

@sultanasofa

I'm incredibly proud of the UK judiciary for making these courageous, evidence-based judgements.

The rest of the world is watching. I doubt the impact will be limited to England and Wales.

I'm no idea about laws, but I've been wondering - if it goes to Appeal, does it mean the jurisdiction of any conclusion must apply to the whole of UK?

No advocate on behalf of a trans young person - the only group affected by the decision - was permitted to address the Court.

It's almost as if JM has a particular advocate in mind, an advocate for whom JM has boundless admiration. Perhaps a crusading advocate who does not fear the limelight?

@PopperUppleton

But the court did hear first hand from a trans person. Keira Bell. Her life, her experience as a trans teen.

But she’s the wrong sort of trans person popper 😆

JM is really sounding pretty unhinged about all this. The experiences of ‘trans children’ were heard, they just didn’t get to stand in court & say it, they were submitted in writing

It’s a perfect example of hubris & an echo chamber mentality. I would love to see him argue this in court, it would be brilliant to watch him try the “you’ve been sooo unfair & mean” approach in a court of law

The World Health Organisation, for example, talks of the need to depathologise trans health: "trans-related and gender diverse identities are not conditions of mental ill health, and classifying them as such can cause enormous stigma

the WHO that said they were advised on the redefinition of transgender condition by some helpful trans activists.

I thought there was a big push to destigmatise mental health issues? Surely claiming that calling something a mental health is stigmatising will be a self-fulfilling prophesy?

"trans-related and gender diverse identities are not conditions of mental ill health, and classifying them as such can cause enormous stigma"

Well maybe if we can just get bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, any form of depression etc unclassified as mental ill health we’ll have solved the problem of MH stigma, eh? (Rolls eyes, knocks self out).

The World Health Organisation, for example, talks of the need to depathologise trans health: "trans-related and gender diverse identities are not conditions of mental ill health, and classifying them as such can cause enormous stigma" and goes on to add that "Inclusion of gender incongruence in the ICD should ensure transgender people’s access to gender-affirming health care."

I think this is the central problem - there isn't agreement on what is being treated.

The WHO paragraph above only makes sense if you follow the 'born in the wrong body' narrative - if there is nothing wrong with the brain there must be something wrong with the body. In turn 'wrong body' only makes sense if either you believe in a gendered soul, or you believe that particular traits can only belong to a male or a female - the choice is religion or sexism.

Any other explanations e.g. gender dysphoria that might have been triggered by a variety of causes, and that might not be permanent, must be rejected if you have to reject a mental health diagnosis. In a society where schools have been told that gender must be affirmed, how does a doctor talk about other factors like mental health, autism and trauma?

It seems odd in 2020 that stigma should be a reason to deny the existence of a mental health link, but here we are. I think the only conclusion can be that sometimes it is good to be an outlier. However, its not difficult to see why GIDS is in a mess. Who needs Mermaids to apply pressure when the BBC and Netflix are happy to tell children that football is for boys, girls don't wear blue, and a doctor can give you a new body?

No advocate on behalf of a trans young person - the only group affected by the decision - was permitted to address the Court.

His language is very imprecise for a lawyer. The people affected by the decision are people who are patients at GIDs, whether they identify as trans, de-transitioners or neither.