Community Care thinks Keira Bell judgement went too far

[stumbledin]

The voices of those who have benefited from puberty blockers were not apparent in the recent case. It is critical social workers listen to children with gender dysphoria to ensure they get the right support
www.communitycare.co.uk/2021/01/15/judgment-puberty-blockers-case-obscure-benefits-transition-children/

What is the Trans Awareness in Social Work Project?

I would have thought that if the Tavistock had any children that had benefited from the use of puberty blockers, that they would have been front and centre of their case. And yet, no sign. If they'd had been able to produce the evidence at trial, perhaps the outcome would have been different. It was their big chance. Even their report that appeared shortly didn't have the data to support - either because they didn't collect it or because it wasn't there, who knows.

The response to the appeal went through this. Yes, those voices were heard: The Tavistock (as the experts on this) presented this evidence and patients happy with their treatment.

The judges (three of them, objectively, working from the Tavistock experts' data) concluded that this does not make the downsides go away, or make the practice right, justifiable or acceptable in its current form.

That community care feel it does... well I'd need them to explain how their experience and legal qualifications outweigh those of the judges, and that they have thoroughly examined and processed the same information on all parts of this, including the negative perspectives, to the same extent that the judges did, before what they have to say is anything more than an opinion.

And they may not be aware, but they're demonstrating again the blindness and arrogance, which may be unintentional, but is present in what I've read from every group and person who has said the judgement in this is wrong. They are never able to engage with all parts of the situation, they are never able to even acknowledge the huge, very serious issues that they don't agree with, never mind engage with and come up with a detailed response to them. It's demonstrated over and over; even the adults captured in this situation cannot show unbiased, informed awareness of all sides of the issues and acknowledgement of the risks, downsides and poor outcomes in some cases. And yet they argue that children can do what even they cannot.

Hand picked testimonials are not science. The Tavi did produce a few kids and adults who raved about the puberty blockers they'd been given. But their own paper shows on average no improvement in psychological functioning.

The voices of those who have benefited from puberty blockers were not apparent in the recent case.

Another one who doesn't seem to have read the judgement properly. Maybe because it's longer than 140 characters or not in meme form...

It wouldn't make a difference if they'd had a hundred people in the court singing the praises of PB's. The case was about informed consent.

They even mention the concerning gaps of knowledge regarding PBs, yet are still sulking because they think that kids in an emotionally bad state should be allowed to consent to them regardless?

Despite this, it seems odd that there was no consideration that the right course of action was taken for those children because they went on to take cross-sex hormones. A lack of information about positive outcomes does not necessarily equate to a broad concept of harm.

www.kent.ac.uk/news/society/27147/enhancing-trans-awareness-in-social-work-education-and-training
I think the project may be this. It's nothing to do with medical treatment and is basically another let's listen to the children and ignore any other evidence staring you in the face.
Drawing on a multi-staged study involving interviews and focus groups with social work students, practitioners, trans service users and advocates for trans people; two training programmes have been developed to enhance transgender awareness in social work education and practice for social work students and practitioners.

Quite astonishing blindness. She said

The effect of puberty upon children with gender dysphoria (“GD”) can be traumatic.

Unchecked, this has permanent effects, and impedes medical and social gender transition in the future. Stigmatisation and problems with social integration are sadly a feature of life for many people who transition in adulthood.

Let's try this

The effect of puberty BLOCKERS upon children with TRANSIENT gender dysphoria (“GD”) can be traumatic.

Unchecked, this has permanent effects, and impedes medical and social gender MATURITY in the future. Stigmatisation and problems with social integration are sadly a feature of life for many people who TOOK PUBERTY BLOCKERS.

Keira's case was about the inability of a child to make an informed choice about which of the outcomes is best for them.

Clinicians haven't even bothered to try to investigate which children desist, which do not, which children benefit long term from physical interventions like hormones and surgery.

So of course each case will have to go to court.

It is rather troubling that a social worker is advocating for giving the most troubled children, she focuses on those in care, puberty blockers because she believes some children will benefit. No evidence of course. No mention of what about all the Keira's who are damaged. Bizarre.

Keiras. Rogue apostrophe.

Threads like this are always useful to share a court judgement pointing out how children are abused when social workers listen to lobby groups rather than following safeguarding procedures. Child J was subject to repeated emotional abuse by his very well unwell mother and Mr Justice Hayden severely criticised social workers for being in thrall to the trans ideology rather than focusing on the welfare of the child.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/2430.html

A range of agencies raised concerns about J's welfare but were dismissed by social workers who failed to consider concerns from agencies working with the child who didn't believe that this boy was a girl. One of the conclusions that the judge drew was this:

Not only are the conclusions of the report irreconcilable with the core information within it but it is striking that the Local Authority had moved into wholesale acceptance that J should be regarded as a girl. Once again, I make no apology for repeating the fact that J was still only 4 years of age. The conclusions of the report speak of J by use of the feminine pronoun. There was no independent or supportive evidence that J identified as a girl at all, indeed there was a body of material that suggested the contrary. The cry for investigation went unheeded

He went on to comment that
The two remaining passages of the conclusion make very disheartening reading indeed. They combine both naivety and professional arrogance. Concerns were dismissed on the basis that it was the other agencies who 'did not have a full understanding of gender non-conforming children'. In fact it was Ms Jenkins and her senior managers whose understanding was lacking.

That report makes depressing reading, particularly as articles like this in CC suggests that some social workers are still intent on following the demands of lobby groups rather than safeguarding children. It's worth taking a read of the judgement if you have the time.

But why is Keira's voice of so little interest?

Even if you were convinced that blockers would help children, mostly, why wouldn't you try to ensure that there was nobody who received treatment and regretted it?

She was a "trans child", she lived this, why does nobody ever listen to her?

The author of that article seems to be a lecturer of social work at Kent Uni. It concerns me that someone with a background of social work takes such a dismissive view on Keira's case.

Link to her profile on Kent uni's website:

www.kent.ac.uk/social-policy-sociology-social-research/people/1466/www.kent.ac.uk/social-policy-sociology-social-research/people/1466/taylor-leanne

The High Court’s consideration that puberty blockers are a stepping-stone to irreversible medical transition by way of cross-sex hormones also needs some thought. This was based on international evidence (see page 57 of the Bell v Tavistock judgment) suggesting the majority of those prescribed PBs did go on to further medical interventions and treatment. The Tavistock was unable to give these figures to the court for a variety of reasons.

Pretty sure it was just due to one reason - the complete lack of competence at the Tavistock.

Despite this, it seems odd that there was no consideration that the right course of action was taken for those children because they went on to take cross-sex hormones. A lack of information about positive outcomes does not necessarily equate to a broad concept of harm.

The court weren't trying to decide if puberty blockers are a good idea or not. The question before the court was purely one of whether children can consent to the consequences of the treatment. I'm so frustrated with how many people don't get this point.

See robin moira white in that piece

It’s a dreadful piece. Not balanced at all and not addressing the issues.

Those of us old enough to remember the 1980s and 90s will remember the Satanic panic. Social workers fell wholesale for an obviously dodgy theory that much abuse of children was prompted by Satanist beliefs. Children were removed from their parents and some were never returned, on flimsy evidence.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/oct/21/comment.children

From Wikipedia: The objects seized during the raids were later returned; they included a videotape of the TV show Blackadder, a detective novel by Ngaio Marsh, and a model aeroplane made by one of the children from two pieces of wood, which was identified by social workers as a "wooden cross". The minister was asked to sign for the return of "three masks, two hoods, one black cloak", but refused to sign until the inventory was altered to "three nativity masks, two academic hoods, one priest's robe".

It was here in the Scottish islands. Still causing damage today gasp

Also the false memories cults

Yes, I've just seen an article in The National from an unnamed contributor (odd in itself) which seems to me to be perilously close to libel, as the writer clearly believes the Orkney allegations were all true. I'd take a lot of convincing about that.

@ThePonderer

But why is Keira's voice of so little interest?

Even if you were convinced that blockers would help children, mostly, why wouldn't you try to ensure that there was nobody who received treatment and regretted it?

She was a "trans child", she lived this, why does nobody ever listen to her?

It reminds me of the recently resurfaced video of Ian Hislop arguing with Priti Patel about the death penalty (video in link).

www.indy100.com/news/priti-patel-resurfaced-clip-death-penalty-ian-hislop-question-time-video-home-secretary-9020006

"But what about the innocent people"

"Well of course there are a few"

"But they'll be dead"

"Ah, but..."

"They will still be dead though"

I'm paraphrasing here but that's the gist of their argument.

The legal decisions about children and life changing treatment are a similarly serious subject hence how seriously the High Court took it. It's not good enough to claim they might only get it wrong some of the time or hand wave away the cost of that happening.