Keira Bell and Mrs A vs. Tavistock - Court of Appeal hearing 23 & 24 June 2021

[FindTheTruth]

The appeal hearing will be live streamed this Wednesday 23 & Thursday 24 June, 10:30am

Background

1. The High Court decided in Mrs A and Keira Bell’s favour on 1st December 2020 that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are experimental treatments which cannot be given to children in most cases without application to the court. Full details of the original case:

www.transgendertrend.com/keira-bell-high-court-historic-judgment-protect-vulnerable-children/

1. The High Court decided in the case of AB on 26 March 2021 thatPARENTScan consent to their children receiving puberty blocking treatment when their children lack the capacity to consent.

1. Court of Appeal 23 & 24 June 2021 Keira Bell and Mrs A’s legal team is dealing with legal submissions from 7 intervenors who want to see the judgement of the Divisional Court overturned. “A significant task in defending the judgement of the Divisional Court. We are facing very well resourced opponents – the Tavistock being funded by the State and the other intervenors”.

But what actually ia the point of puberty blockers?

This is my controversial view, but after years of reading I'd decided they have an hidden purpose of firmly embedding gender dysphoria into a child.

@NecessaryScene

There seems to be a total abdication of responsibility at multiple levels.

The endocrinologists (who know about hormones) administer the drugs because the psychotherapists (who don't know about hormones) at GIDS tell them to. They ignore what they know about hormones.

The people at GIDS (who know about psychology) treat the condition with drugs because their service provision tells them to do what WPATH says. They ignore what they know about psychology.

The service provision tells them to follow WPATH guidelines because WPATH (who seem to be a trans cosmetic surgeon org, not a proper health org) have set themselves up as the experts on "trans health" - by just putting in their name, and the NHS has just taken that off the shelf.

Why the NHS feels they have to have "service provisions" following external rules, rather than just directly having in-house expertise, is just utter idiocy due to privatisation.

And at the beginning, we have schools such as my son's referring LGBTU (U=unsure) kids on to Allsorts after shiny happy assemblies on being trans, who deny that they have any influence on the kids.

And Allsorts in turn deny they are influencing the kids, they refer them on to the "experts" who are GIDS.

At every point, it's a conveyor belt, with the children being chivvied along, with no adults taking any responsibility for leading them down this path at any point.

And now, it looks like the fucking judges are trying to wriggle out of making a decision on this and looking for a technical loop hole.

Fuckery.

I really feel for Keira right now.

Agree @nauticant, it's a whole bunch of red flags.

@FloraFox you said eloquently what I was trying to say!

I think the government (much as though it complained about JR's around the time of Brexit) is very pleased they are alive and well. Many of these controversial issues can be argued in the court and then in the court of public opinion to see which way the wind is blowing

Oooh Gender GP getting an airing

Ref to Helen Webberley's practice.

Just that 99% of those on PBs went on to the hormones ...

Except that the Tavi's QC here has been talking about 28% of children stopping treatment, which he's citing as evidence it's not inevitable. Where's this number come from?

@nauticant

But what actually ia the point of puberty blockers?

This is my controversial view, but after years of reading I'd decided they have an hidden purpose of firmly embedding gender dysphoria into a child.

Officially, giving them "time to think".

In reality, delaying puberty until a child is legally old enough to take hormones.

It might also be suggested that, politically, it's important for the idea of trans children to exist, to bolster the idea of "born this way" which help the demands of lobbyists be accepted.

It helps this agenda if young people are kept in an immature state of mind and body. Puberty is the cure for gender dysphoria for a lot of kids. So, blockers keep kids trans, is the bottom line.

That's not GID's motivation, but it's the effect of what they're doing.

I agree with all of that.

I've just joined the live link. Who's this talking now?

It's counsel for Transgender Trend.

@nauticant

It's counsel for Transgender Trend.

Thanks :)

I have no idea what the Counsel for Tavi is saying in his response now, it sounds rather like just let children of any age who say they have GD consent because they can they don't need to know or understand the long term effects, it's all lovely because GD

That's that then. Off to consider their judgment.

End of submissions. Judges are now going to consider their decision. Reading between the lines they don't expect it to be soon, in judge-speak it'll be "a little while". I think it's going to be a messy decision but will ultimately use "nothing unlawful in a judicial review sense" as a get-out.

As I said above, the big question for me is whether they're going to criticise the Tavistock and them relying on a flaky and highly unsatisfactory evidence base.

Shouldn't forget the Cass Review - if that recommends ceasing the use of PBs then it will be hard to justify continuing.

It's incredibly hard to understand the mindset behind this. IF it was conclusively proved that PBs really were the only thing that prevented a mass of suicides you might accept they were necessary but STILL expect that people would regard them as a last resort and regret their necessity. It's the utter nonsense about their enabling a child to be their "true self" that is so offensive and horrible.

I've seen people on social media now arguing that every child should be offered PBs so they can "choose" their gender as they get older. I don't imagine society will go that far but it's dreadful to think we've got to this stage.

I don't really know what to expect.

It hasn't sounded good but IANAL. I followed along the first Forstater court case thinking that Judge Taylor wasn't impressed by the defence arguments and look what happened there.

One thing repeated over the past two days and seemingly echoed by the judges is that in order to move forward in safeguarding, there will need to be specific legal actions, probably not judicial reviews, against medical institutions by individuals harmed by those institutions in respect of the harm they suffered.

Or the government could choose to intervene with legislation although they'd probably prefer to chew off one of their own legs to escape that trap.

there will need to be specific legal actions, probably not judicial reviews, against medical institutions by individuals harmed by those institutions in respect of the harm they suffered.

Which presumably would have been (and still is) a path open to Keira Bell, and was what a lot of us thought would happen - detransitioners suing for damages, and enough to make institutions to do better to stop the lawsuits.

But to me the judicial review seemed more altruistic and straightforward to get the remedy desired rapidly in the UK - more care with future patients.

But if they want Keira and others to start suing GIDS, then we can support that...

In the US, suing is the only route (but I gather a lot considering it there have been hit by statutes of limitation. If you detransition 2 years after transitioning, then it's too long since the original procedure to claim anything was wrong with it!)

In the US, suing is the only route (but I gather a lot considering it there have been hit by statutes of limitation. If you detransition 2 years after transitioning, then it's too long since the original procedure to claim anything was wrong with it!) I also understand the Insurance companies in the US are reluctant to fund trans healthcare without people signing away any right to bring a legal claim. I think Joe Biden wanted a change but I'm not sure how far that has progressed.

Sueing someone can get very personal though can't it? You can end up having the other side do a bit of a character assasination which is a lot to ask of already vulnerable people.

A JR seemed like it was a better course of action to remedy the situation for others and avoid accusations of doing it for personal financial gain. Which I'm sure Keira and others would be accused of if they sued.

If this goes to the Supreme Court my hand is in my pocket.

The other thing that was mentioned was that this isn't an enquiry. How does one get an enquiry? Petition the government?

The Cass Review website says “ The review will not immediately consider issues around informed consent as these are the subject of an ongoing judicial review. However, any implications that might arise from the legal ruling could be considered by the review if appropriate or necessary.”

So that suggests if the AC rules the original JR was misconceived or whatever terminology it might use, the matter will still be considered as part of the review. Which might end up being the right place for it after all (though doesn’t help those who have already been through GIDS)

Decision today? 🤞🤞🤞

One of the judges said it will be "in a little while" colouringindoors. It's a couple of months away at least.