Mail on Sunday article showing testimony from Keira's case

[DialSquare]

More sunlight

The testimony that led High Court judge to ban child puberty blockers
mol.im/a/9130157

And the next sentence on from FannyCann’s quote above

'I believe this journey is hers to take and as is the job of any parent, I support and encourage her to be her best self.

The job of any parent is also to say no.

The euphemisms in the article... We are in a parallel universe.

Thanks Dial that article is absolutely blazing - the Mail on Sunday seems to feel like they are onto something so hopefully this will keep gaining momentum.

I like the fact that they included a link to an article about Abigail Shrier’s book and about the push to get it cancelled.

Why did the Mail need to go to court to be allowed to publish the testimony? Is this usual?

Asking children to choose a father for their embryos is beyond belief. The ethical and legal ramifications must be huge.

Is there a new Times article out today? If so, link, please? (I've read the older ones.)

There is a thread on it Malahaha but here is a sharetoken (I like to make the most of my subscription):

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6a2ab6b2-529f-11eb-b5cf-1d37166171d9?shareToken=ff1485cdd7341caad38ae21d33b8e388

Winesalot
I have found that the minimising of the risks to female teens and children are constantly downplayed though. Particularly by the male transitioners.

This. Every single time we get a male who identifies themselves as a woman on here, their attitudes to and about the effects of transitioning on girls revolts me.

MaudTheInvincible

Yes Maud. They always seem to have a friend or two or a group with no health issues. At all. Just always smooth sailing.

From what I have heard or read from detransitioners, there is never any room for discussing the negatives. So why would these females discuss it with a male. And likely just an internet buddy.

And never is it a ftm person who transitioned twenty years ago who is beginning to find the effects of testosterone transition . In fact, it seems quite a number didn’t even get told about vaginal atrophy in their consults let alone the possible muscle cramps after exercise, uterine cramps, incontinence etc etc.

What do you think about this? I does say 'planning' so may not happen, especially when they see the full papers.

University College London Hospital and Leeds Teaching Hospital, which both administer drugs for GIDS, are planning to apply to the Family Courts to allow parents to give consent to a child under 16 receiving puberty suppressants. If successful, doctors would not need a judge's permission.

Err....
So, an adult male is to ejaculate and fertilize the eggs of a prepubescent child?
How is that even legal?

University College London Hospital and Leeds Teaching Hospital...
Fucking Leeds!

@sandandso

That "Before puberty" section by the HFEA is horrific. Just the fact that it exists, and is supposedly addressing prepubescent children, as if they could be expected to understand it. I don't just mean "Gillick competency" level understanding, I mean literally parse and understand phrases like "stored testicular tissue". We are talking about primary school children.

I have noticed a general trend for children's health information to be addressed to the child (e.g. the Great Ormond Street website) and I can imagine the well-intentioned thinking behind that, but surely there has to be some recognition that children cannot be expected to take responsibility for their own medical care even when it's something quite straightforward, let alone these insane and abusive "treatments". I don't want to derail, but do posters who know more than I do about this area think there is a general trend to "empowering" children in their healthcare which might inadvertently be fuelling this stuff?

As a broad principle, I believe that giving children information about their health and involving them in decisions in an age appropriate way is a good thing. As parents we explain to children that medicines that taste horrible will help them to get over an infection or that immobilising a fracture will allow it to mend. We allow our children to ask questions and tell us of their concerns and may allow older children to make choices when appropriate.

What has happened with trans is that children are not given full information. Instead, they are given a lobby groups interpretation of why they are experiencing confusion and fear. They are not encouraged to look at other explanations or supported to wait and see.

And as has now been determined by the High Court, most children do not have capacity to consent to treatment when they are not mature enough to understand the consequences.

So I don't think we should worry about giving children information per se. What we must do is ensure that it is from reputable sources and that parents are not excluded.

Imagine having social power like that, its mindblowing for women to contemplate. We have not even managed to convince society that killing us is bad.

Yep, completely agree: www.femicidecensus.org

There is an inability to accept the idea that fifty-year-old men can't imagine what it feels like to be a fourteen-year-old girl in the people who show up here to harangue us about children's bodily autonomy, Winesalot. It has created a very negative impression on me.

In respect of any application to the Family Courts, my understanding is that the threshold of evidence required is much lower. Things don't have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt just on balance of likelihood/ probability. For example, the courts can hold a Finding Of Fact to decide who injured a child, even where a criminal prosecution isn't possible. Also that there is the threshold if having suffered significant harm or being at risk of suffering significant harm.
So what I am wondering is whether what applies in family / care proceedings would apply to consideration of puberty blockers? Because if so I would be hopeful the court would take a risk averse approach. Can anyone with actual/ better legal know how advise if I'm on the right lines please?
I also know the family courts have removed a child from its mother and placed with father because they felt mum was influencing the child's wish to be trans, the case was well reported I think and mermaids criticised.

Slightly off topic, but...

If trans women are women the. Why do they need puberty blockers to become women?

@NonCisWoman

Slightly off topic, but...

If trans women are women the. Why do they need puberty blockers to become women?

pst...whispers, coz they is men

Family courts are lower courts, they would have to abide by the rulings of the higher court. If a family applied to the court to enable their child to take puberty blocks and cross sex hormones, the local authority would have to intervene in protection of the child. At least I think that's how it would work but given that Family court priority is protection of the child, it is unlikely a case would succeed given KB case

Latest from Keira which refers to Family Courtd:

"
Update on Protect gender dysphoric children from experimental treatment

Hi everyone,

Again thank you all for your generous donations. We hit the initial target in two days! I know how important this case is for all of us. Earlier in the week on Wednesday 6th Jan my lawyers lodged papers with the Court of Appeal against the Tavistocks request of an appeal. We await the Court of Appeals decision.

My lawyers have also been informed by the UCLH Trust and Leeds Hospital that they are considering applying to the Family Division of the High Court for a declaration that it would be lawful for them to provide puberty blockers to children who can’t consent on the basis of parental consent. We have asked that we are notified if they make any application so we can intervene in the proceedings. We are very concerned that this could undermine the protective role of the Court by continuing to expose children to experimental and harmful medical treatment. It is alarming that the Hospitals would be actively considering a way to avoid scrutiny by the Court.

I will be back with updates once I hear."

[quote Igneococcus]There is a thread on it Malahaha but here is a sharetoken (I like to make the most of my subscription):

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6a2ab6b2-529f-11eb-b5cf-1d37166171d9?shareToken=ff1485cdd7341caad38ae21d33b8e388[/quote]
Thanks @Igneococcus

With regards to adult males fertilising female children's eggs......theoretically, couldn't the man decide to 'have' the baby (via surrogate) thus making a child, a mother?
How would a situation like this be handled? If children can't consent to sex, surely they don't get parental rights to refuse the embryo being 'used'?

My lawyers have also been informed by the UCLH Trust and Leeds Hospital that they are considering applying to the Family Division of the High Court for a declaration that it would be lawful for them to provide puberty blockers to children who can’t consent on the basis of parental consent.

Am finding this really difficult to come to terms with. All sorts of thoughts going through my head. How can publicly funded bodies feel they have the right to use taxpayers money (and when the NHS is constantly bleating about lack of funds) to pursue something against another publicly funded body (the Law) which is in effect what it would be. I am utterly gobsmacked that our Health Service now feels it has the power to become a campaigner. Someone put me straight.

I am going to be writing to Matt Hancock and Sir Simon Stephens and anyone else I can find. Surely this hasn't happened before? If it hasn't happened before, wouldn't this be a rather dangerous precedent. It would mean that public bodies could just apply to a family court if they didn't like a particular judgement. Would think Jolyon QC may have a hand in this?

Very confusing???

Absolutely Highame - why would one taxpayer funded organisation not have to accept the ruling of another? Maybe it is a good thing though if this is tested to destruction (we would want to be able to challenge further if it had gone the other way) but worrying if the family court has a lower threshold for under and consent - they do seem to be rather opaque.

I don’t really understand what they mean by this though:
declaration that it would be lawful for them to provide puberty blockers to children who can’t consent on the basis of parental consent

Does it mean that the family court could rule that consent can be given by the parent where the child cannot? I still don’t understand how there can be any informed consent where the information required for the ‘informed’ doesn’t exist.

The other thing I don’t understand is that presumably NICE has to have approved the use and financing of these drugs for this purpose.

They are usually very strict - we hear of sad stories where cancer patients can’t access treatment and die because it hasn’t been FULLY tested or FULLY approved through NICEs rather slow process and certainly people have had all sorts of trouble getting them to agree that the benefits of the drugs are worth the cost (I’m sure I’ve heard of people dying or having to fundraise when this happens).

So I wonder what has happened here? How have the doctors obtained permission to use these drugs for this purpose? Have NICE been knobbled?