NEW: Grounds in support of intervention in the Bell v Tavistock JR appeal published

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

twitter.com/RadFemLawyer/status/1354002497753538562?s=19

This is going to fascinating to follow.

GIRES, Stonewall, Brooks and the Endocrine society are intervening.

There's some very tortuous language in the first few paras which seems to be aiming at GIDS distancing themselves from responsibility by emphasising that the endocrinologists make the prescribing decisions.

That's very weaselly because, despite obviously being true on one level, the endocrinologists are making prescribing decisions based on purely medical factors - the actual driving factor for the prescription is the recommendation of GIDS and is based on psychological criteria which endocrinologists are by definition not in a position to assess.

Which again pushes the responsibility back onto the children.

The whole thing is pretty awful really,

Stonewall and Gires seem to be suggesting that gender distressed kids are really savants and indigo kids.

Ridiculous to argue that GD kids can understand consequences better than non GD kids, when the Bell of the Bell v Tavistock is living proof that even kids who feel very sure can end up regretting their choices and that the Tavistock (nor any other gender service) can reliably sort the future desisters and detransitioners from the persisters.

Will the judges be allowed to see the CQC report and the crappy Tavi puberty blockers study, the one that was mysteriously published immediate after the Bell ruling, despite GIDS insistence that none of the data was available during the actual hearing?

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1354050011856822273

Apparently the Endocrinology Society intervening alongside the GLP is not in the UK.

There is a UK one but it's not them.

is based on psychological criteria which endocrinologists are by definition not in a position to assess.

A couple of endocrinologists like Will Malone have given interviews which sound like they've had this stuff imposed from the top.

In this (Stella O'Malley & Sasha Ayad) he talks about going to endocrinology conferences where they'd routinely have debates on new methods of treatment. It was standard practice at these conferences that they literally would have debates - they'd get people up to give the pro- and anti- positions in front of audiences.

Guess which new treatment there was no debate on?

A speaker (from WPATH?) just came in to say "these are the new terms for gender stuff, and this is how you're going to treat these people from now on".

It seems like WPATH is basically the "idea laundering" outfit - a sort of external consultant or think tank that basically says "don't worry about thinking about this stuff - do what we say and then if it goes wrong, you can just say it's our fault".

The Tavistock partially justifies their behaviour on "well, we have to do what WPATH says, cos that's what our NHS commissioning contract says we have to do.". And the NHS commisioners say "well, we just follow international best practice as defined by WPATH".

And WPATH will, when it comes down to it say, "ah well, those 'Standards of Care' were really just guidelines. Obviously, as we're not an actual medical body, we couldn't possibly tell you what to do, and we can't be held responsible for any particular medical treatments going on, it's your responsibility."

Hard to know how many will face consequences in this big circular finger-pointing session.

It's widely suspected that the reasons the evidence they need does exist are that it would have been very difficult to gather evidence ethically, and in any case doing so would have required a complete change in the way they were doing things and their philosophy, and that they didn't want to generate this evidence because they were worried it would show that their clinical approach was harmful.

@OvaHere

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1354050011856822273

Apparently the Endocrinology Society intervening alongside the GLP is not in the UK.

I saw that, very odd. From Twit thread:

The Endocrine Society is a "global community" but it is very US focused in its membership, meetings and advocacy

Their position on transgender health has a particular focus on making sure US insurance companies will pay out for it

The ES are keen on saying gender dysphoria is not a mental health disorder ....

they talk about brain scans and a lot about intersex conditions

Does the Endocrine Society, based in Washington DC really represent the voices of UK doctors involved in assessing children w gender dysphoria?

Is the Good Law Project's fighting fund and intervention driven by the involvement of powerful US interests?

Guessing it's like the orange one's evidence of voter fraud in US elections. Exists in the mind rather than reality but because the mind it exists in is special, it's worth burning down the house for.

Doesn't Ms S Gr*en belong to WPATH? She was IT manager for a CAB branch before running 🧜‍♀️.

Their position on transgender health has a particular focus on making sure US insurance companies will pay out for it

I guess that makes sense, for US endocrinologists? If they're operating in a commercial-type environment, then obviously the amount of work available for correcting endocrine disorders - restoring normal function - is limited, and largely constant.

Having a new, growing market for people who want to change their hormones to be different from normal would be tempting.

I'm normally quite skeptical about this being driven by "big pharma", but if there is one group who really does stand to benefit, it would be endocrinologists in a market-driven health system.

But someone somewhere has to present the evidence base. I think the legal system has defeated more advanced blame-avoiding arguments than "we don't prescribe it, the endocrinologists do" and "we just prescribe it as requested" before. I can't see how this stands up.

(I think many mums have defeated more advanced blame-avoiding arguments than that. Send them both to their rooms.)

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

Doesn't Ms S Gr*en belong to WPATH? She was IT manager for a CAB branch before running 🧜‍♀️.

wpath.org/member/3308

You just need to pay them some money
www.wpath.org/MembershipInfo

If they keep screaming and proving themselves how ridiculous they are, surely it can’t be long before the rest of the world wakes up to this idiocy?

I am surprised at all the interveners, and the promise not to repeat evidence or to take up more than an hour of the courts time (if I read that correctly). It seems like they see themselves as the cavalry coming over the hill to save the day.

29th, so Friday. I should think they would be likely to intervene but am stuck as to why? I can see what they're saying but it doesn't look any better than when Stonewall tried to intervene initially.

I hope they are allowed to intervene. I'd love to see their arguments examined in a court of law.

This is going to fascinating to follow.

It really is.

Very much looking forward to seeing how this case is heard.

@highame

I am surprised at all the interveners, and the promise not to repeat evidence or to take up more than an hour of the courts time (if I read that correctly). It seems like they see themselves as the cavalry coming over the hill to save the day.

29th, so Friday. I should think they would be likely to intervene but am stuck as to why? I can see what they're saying but it doesn't look any better than when Stonewall tried to intervene initially.

If they're the cavalry, in 'trans' terms it could be another Little Bighorn. (If you'll pardon the expression).

@NotBadConsidering

I’m not a legal person, but they seem to be claiming that Gillick allows kids to do whatever they want to do. It says Gillick recommends a child centred approach that recognises children develop at different rates. Therefore they would have to admit that there are children with gender confusion that are not as fully developed.

And if these children are able to consent according to them, then they should have no problem meeting the eight criteria set out in the original judgment.

And to me, it’s laughable that they are going to base this on a challenge regarding Gillick, and somehow Stonewall et al are experts on children consenting to treatment?

There was a relevant judgement on Gillick on 18 January 2021, which referenced Keira's case and which speaks directly to this point. The ruling states that even the consent of a child who has demonstrated Gillick competence can be overruled by the court if the treatment may pose serious risks to the child's health or life.

www.hilldickinson.com/insights/articles/conventional-wisdom-prevails-refusal-consent-medical-treatment-gillick-competent

(In this case, the child refused consent and was overruled, but the court stated this also applied where a child has consented to a treatment the court then considers to pose a risk to the child's health.) If I'm reading this right, this will strengthen Keira's case at appeal.

Good grief - this tweet from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Is this twitter thread going rogue or is this their actual position
twitter.com/RCObsGyn/status/1354024000838627331?s=19
We support @StonewallUK and the @GoodLawProject in their intervention. We remain concerned about the potential effect the Court’s judgement will have on children and young people’s access to sexual and reproductive healthcare.

@bellinisurge

Guessing it's like the orange one's evidence of voter fraud in US elections. Exists in the mind rather than reality but because the mind it exists in is special, it's worth burning down the house for.

Yes, it seems so.

There are some great posts on this thread

bloody hell, did anyone in these organisations actually read the judgement?

29 January is only a directions hearing. It'll be a while before the sides are in court arguing their case.

twitter.com/NoXYinXXprisons/status/1351669294346723337

Charlie I agree. Perhaps our erstwhile band of interveeners haven't kept up with what's going on in the courts

As for anything to do with the NHS, it's been rogue for some time imnobody wonder when it'll get back to doing it's job

I'm very confused about this assertion in the grounds to intervene that being 'well-informed' is the same as being 'competent', in the Gillick sense. You can have as much information as you like, if you don't have the emotional, intellectual, experience-based framework to contextualise that information, and if you haven't yet developed the tools to weigh up choices and make decisions, you cannot be competent. It's a really important category error. Gillick surely is predicated on the idea that it is these abilities that develop over time, they can't be 'educated' or 'enforced', they are developmental. In the same way that we wouldn't expect a four month old to walk, no matter how many different ways we try to teach them. They simply don't have the capacity to do it yet.

Good to see all their arguments out in the open for others to see

This astounds me, surely just one young person regretting the irreversible surgeries and hormone treatments performed on them as a child is enough to cast doubt on the whole process. Let alone the hundreds all over Twitter regretting what was 'done to them'. How do these people even sleep at night.