Use of Puberty Blockers to be reconsidered in Scotland

[Igneococcus]

From the Times:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2e7b902e-5203-11eb-ad71-ea6bb4a570af?shareToken=45c6baba2a6de2bc81161bf5ead1c8f9

It read to me like they will consider and claim to take seriously anything that cass comes up with, but are not planning to be influenced by the English High Court ruling. They are in "wait and see" mode, so presumably the treatment is all carrying on as normal for the moment - until the cass review reports later in the year?

Or is that a pessimistic reading? At least they acknowledge that at that point they will remove fingers from ears.

This was a very interesting and timely interview with one of the Doctor at the Sandyford Gender Clinic about treating children, yesterday (I think).

Some quite alarming things said, but also some tentative caution, perhaps?

www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/scotland-transgender-sandyford-clinic-19558298?

I wonder if this is a bit of a ruse. Perhaps using as diversion from the 'definition of woman' court case, or hoping the definition of woman of woman would cover this change.

I think there's a bit of this - they promised a review into the Scottish Prison Service's trans prisoner policy more than 2 years ago (I think - it was 2018?) and we're no nearer getting males out of the female estate. Scotgov & Humza Yousaf haven't even listened to an ex prison governor to hear her explain how this policy (brought in as a deliberate strategy of Scottish Trans Alliance to push trans inclusion elsewhere) has & is impacting female prisoners.

This 'review' is IMO a distraction that has no remit, no timescale & no indication that it's likely to change the current process (that they've backed already despite the Bell ruling).

The SNP cannot be trusted to even begin to tackle this. They have zero interest in doing so.

Hasn't the prison policy review just started? I seem to remember a thread on it.

Ah, maybe not.

www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/opaque-and-overdue-scottish-prison-service-trans-prisoner-policy-review

'At the time of writing [Dec 2020], the review process remains elusive. Indeed, at no stage have the SPS or Scottish Government formally announced that a review would take place, responding only to media queries, parliamentary questions or Freedom of Information requests. Nor are the terms of reference available. There are no routine statistics published on the number or placement of transgender prisoners, nor on how many prisoners transition before or after reception into prison. Meanwhile, few criminal justice practitioners or academics appear willing to speak out on what remains a heated issue.'

Maybe I'm thinking of the judicial review.

Supposedly but it was 'promised' as far back as 2018, and all I've picked up so far is a current or former employee of SPS submitting a report on interviews with a handful of trans prisoners on what they would prefer. Then claiming off the back of that report, that his work is going to be the catalyst of the future prison policy despite admitting to not having spoken to either female prisoners or female staff.

Something is going on but as we now know Scotgov's 'view' or 'policy' is that self declared TW are women in all circumstances unless there's a law prohibiting that extent of inclusion, how can anyone trust that they'll ever make a decision that differentiates between the rights of women, on the basis of sex, to privacy, dignity, safety & recovery from trauma & the wants of males who self ID a women to be validated by full unobstructed inclusion in all single sex areas?

There's an effort to park a lot of the contentious stuff til after the election when they'll then pick this back up & carry on.

Crossed posts.

Does anyone know where I can find the question posed to Jeane Freeman and her exact response? I’m assuming they must be transcribed somewhere by ScotGov?

Here you go, rogdmum:

' Question S5W-33706: Murdo Fraser, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 03/12/2020

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the decision in the case of R Quincy Bell and A v. Tavistock & Portman NHS Trust & others in the English High Court, what steps it will now take to review the provision of services for children with gender dysphoria, including the prescription of puberty blockers.

Answered by Jeane Freeman (07/01/2021):

Whilst the ruling from the High Court on 2 December has no formal status in Scotland we are examining it with intent. The law in Scotland on the capacity of young people to consent to medical treatment is different to that in England and Wales. Under the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991, a person under 16 can consent to a medical procedure or treatment where the qualified medical practitioner attending them considers they are capable of understanding the nature and possible consequences of that procedure or treatment.

NHS England has announced that Dr Hilary Cass OBE, former President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, will lead an independent review into gender identity services for children and young people. The review includes examination of the issues around the prescription of puberty blocking and cross-sex hormone drugs to young people. It is expected that the review will report its findings on those issues in early 2021 with wider findings to follow later in the year.

NHS Scotland and the National Gender Identity Clinical Network Scotland are working with services to best meet the needs of young people in Scotland. Though some of this work was paused as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we are now in a position where we can start to progress it once again. This will include work to review current pathways, improve waiting times and ensure that trans young people and all young people exploring their gender identity can access appropriate care in a timely manner.

We do not look to duplicate the work of the review in Scotland and will closely consider the findings of the review when they become available early next year.'

www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/28877.aspx?SearchType=Advance&ReferenceNumbers=S5W-33706&ResultsPerPage=10

Oh thank you!

Nae bother, hen.

”and ensure that trans young people and all young people exploring their gender identity can access appropriate care in a timely manner.”

OK, this is very interesting. Jeane Freeman has separated out two groups” “trans” young people. and “all young people exploring...”.

Personally I’d argue that none of these children/adolescents should be labelled as “trans” but ignoring that, does this mean Jeane recognises that there are young people for whom a path other than assessment for the medical route is appropriate?

I’m not wording that well as I believe all children with gender distress should have underlying issues dealt with first and be offered extensive talk (non affirming) therapy, but the fact that there appears to be a distinction made between groups of young people here is new, I think?

A tiny positive step?

What does ‘examining it with intent’ actually mean? I personally am choosing not to get too excited with this as it could just be ‘aye, we’ll have a look at it but do our own thing’. I’m so aware that they will be being endlessly lobbied by the likes of LGBT Youth Scotland to not go the same way as England and Wales. The Sandyford has given no indication that it wants anything to change in its treatment options.

That the question was asked, I’m grateful for; that it wasn’t dismissed out of hand, gives me a little hope; that the Forensic Act amendment was voted for by the SNP I was gobsmacked at and very grateful.

I’m keeping everything crossed that examining with intent means they’re prepared to listen to those outside of Stonewall, LGBTYS etc... and perhaps realise that their hitching of their wagon to the trans cause may lose them votes from huge swathes of women voters who are feeling totally sidelined and dismissed.

Thanks for that Arabella!

Here is where NS says she will leave it up to clinicians.

What's more of a worry is that Sandyford aren't recording basic info such as the sex of children under their current process, and I'm guessing have even less data gathered for review & analysis that you'd expect from such a clinic. Not differentiating the different experiences & reasons why boys & girls are 'exploring their gender' is such a massive gap & it's wilful ignorance on their part. At least GIDS records that detail.

Jeanne Freeman is due to leave at the next election, in May.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-53896876

Whenever I read articles like this I despair at the public scrutiny/scaremongering over well trialled pharmaceuticals like the COVID vaccine, versus the public disinterest in 'legitimised' childhood drug experimentation

That the question was asked, I’m grateful for; that it wasn’t dismissed out of hand, gives me a little hope; that the Forensic Act amendment was voted for by the SNP I was gobsmacked at and very grateful.

The SNP only voted through the Lamont amendment on the Forensics Bill because the whips realised that there were enough Tories, SLab and SNP rebels going to vote for it that it would get through, and the public opinion on it was outrage that the SNP were going to deny rape victims their one sole wish, so they had to change course last-minute.

The SNP (majority) didn't vote for it because they cared abouvictims, it was because they were quite literally backed into a corner and it was their only option. They were desperate, truly desperate to keep it as gender. They pulled every lever they could to do so. But women won, it was a remarkable achievement.

Many excellent comments under the article in The Times - overwhelming support mixed with scepticism about the actual “intent” of ScotGov/SNP.

Lots of names new to me (maybe because of the Scottish focus) but as always the excellent Jo March having her say. Just one example:

”Absolutely. The conviction that one is 'actually' the opposite sex starts from the idea that gender stereotypes, not sex, determine whether you are a boy or a girl. It creates gender dysphoria, and presents the 'solution' as social transitioning.

Once a child starts to have others unquestioningly 'affirm' that they are the opposite sex, then it's a shorter step towards having to change the body to fit the delusion.

The way that Stonewall, Scottish Trans Alliance, Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence are still talking about puberty blockers - as if they were safe, reversible and the only way to prevent suicidality - despite all the evidence, means they should be nowhere near children, teachers or school Counsellors.”

Thanks for the Share Token, OP.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2e7b902e-5203-11eb-ad71-ea6bb4a570af?shareToken=45c6baba2a6de2bc81161bf5ead1c8f9

I actually forked out for a subscription to The Times a couple of years ago, just to comment on these articles. There seems to have been a marked change since the Keira Bell judgement (correct me if I’m wrong). The usual suspects complaining about “transphobia”, “most marginalised”, and spouting made up statistics and mermaid-science have a very much lower profile now.

A year ago I could be spending the best part of a weekend refuting screeds of that nonsense on just one article. Now the Comments are dominated by hordes of people hammering home the message and sharing really useful information. If I was psychic I’d be tempted to say that I could sense the presence of legions of Mumsnetters

^*”Absolutely. The conviction that one is 'actually' the opposite sex starts from the idea that gender stereotypes, not sex, determine whether you are a boy or a girl. It creates gender dysphoria, and presents the 'solution' as social transitioning.

Once a child starts to have others unquestioningly 'affirm' that they are the opposite sex, then it's a shorter step towards having to change the body to fit the delusion.*^

Brilliantly put Jo!

The SNP (majority) didn't vote for it because they cared abouvictims, it was because they were quite literally backed into a corner and it was their only option. They were desperate, truly desperate to keep it as gender. They pulled every lever they could to do so. But women won, it was a remarkable achievement.

This 👆

They threw everything at it. They even got the Scotgov funded Rape Crisis to go all in & send a briefing to every MSP to give them 'reasons' to justify voting against it, despite having given evidence to the committee saying “The lack of access to a female doctor is what causes the most trauma.” That's how far the SNP/Scotgov went to secure this - getting Rape Crisis Scotland to trash their own credibility to brief against the survivors group they worked with.

They threw everything at it. They even got the Scotgov funded Rape Crisis to go all in & send a briefing to every MSP to give them 'reasons' to justify voting against it, despite having given evidence to the committee saying “The lack of access to a female doctor is what causes the most trauma.” That's how far the SNP/Scotgov went to secure this - getting Rape Crisis Scotland to trash their own credibility to brief against the survivors group they worked with.

And we now know part of that was that Scot Gov were trying to make sure there was no legislation that prohibited TW being treated as women.

I am still so angry about what Rape Crisis Scotland did. Well, what Brindley did.

I have heard inklings that Jeane Freeman is somewhat sympathetic to women's point of view on these matters. Interesting that she's also taken this slightly more cautiously to the Sandyford than Sturgeon's "carry on sterilising children" approach.