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”.

At the heart of it, is the court's duty to protect vulnerable children - that is an ancient jurisdiction.

This.

We have a number of laws in place to do just that because children are not deemed to be sufficiently capable and the view is taken that they sometimes need protecting from themselves (not sure if I've worded that right) and yet when it comes to this area those considerations are thrown out of the window and sacrificed on the altar of gender ideology.

How can a 12 year old be considered to have the cognitive capacity to make such a life altering decision that will likely render them infertile, have a limited or non existent sex life, reduction in bone density and the resulting problems that will come from that in later life, permanently alter them physically and potentially mentally and yet not be deemed sufficiently cognitively capable to have a tattoo, vote, get married, drink alcohol, smoke, consent to sex?

This is a child a child still at school, still developing, still learning, still vulnerable fgs.

Outhere - yes its very tricky and sorry for starting the derail! I'm bothered by the idea that your average person can get angry and make an unwise decision but if you have a mental disorder then professionals start to look at this with the eyes of the mca. We seem sometimes to be right back at the case if the man with the gangrene leg and schizophrenia - can't make any decisions about his physical health by nature of having a condition rather than the specifics of the decision. I know the intent is meant to be much more nuanced but I think the power imbalances are so great that it easily ends up with a similar result.

It might be something for a separate thread sometime as I do thinknit is a feminist issue. It is often young women with trauma histories who this is used against.

It is so clear to me - it should be to anyone who works with children - that kids really do not understand this or what transgender is supposed to mean.

I was talking to a class today about LGBTQ icons, I had been given a list of celebrities including cara delavigne. The picture was of her in her top hat and tails from Harry and Megan's wedding and they all insisted she was transgender because she was wearing a man's suit...

I googled a picture of princess Diana wearing the same sort of suit and they all insisted that made her trans....

They see Harry Styles as trans because he wears dresses and skirts and blouses. I showed them pictures of David Bowie, mick jagger, John lennon wearing dresses and they just insisted that made them trans.

When I showed them photos of Duran Duran, Adam ant, they would not believe that not only were they men, who wore make up and frilly silk shirts, but that they were straight men, the heart throbs all the girls fancied in the 1980s.

They recognise Martin kemp from spandeau ballet because he's on telly with his son Roman and were stunned - because he was obviously trans in the 1980s.

And i am a bit nervous that one of them might report me..... What on Earth is going on? Who is teaching our children this!?

That's so scary Rabbit.

.... Yes, its even more worrying when 16yr olds tell me its transphobic not to fancy trans people....

Show this to the kids rabbitwoman*, it'll blow their minds:

You'd get the sack mind, but it would be a laugh.

• yeah I know, it's from a Right-leaning organisation having religious affliliations

There's an idea, I think, that this is something they understand and that we never can. I was bemused to see the write up next to Harry Styles, about his 'groundbreaking' work to promote inclusion in the music industry - like noone ever did before him.

Don't get me wrong, I love Harry and his style and would love to encourage anyone to dress and express themselves however they want, but it's like no man ever wore nail polish before.

Good grief Rabbit
How can people confuse clothes with biology. It's so bizarre.
People wearing flamboyant clothes mostly makes me roll my eyes and dismiss them as either attention seekers or vain. Which is a rather obvious conclusion for anyone in the pop world.

Today, at work, there were posters of a colleague who is leaving. She was dressed not unlike this, but with a sparkly skirt and bikini top. I definitely didn't think she was a sunflower. Or even had a sunflower gene.

I suppose, if being trans is just a vague feeling that cannot really be defined, the only way of really being able to tell externally is how you dress? But there's no distinction, then, between 'gender expression' and fashion.

And it would be fine, really fine, if it weren't for the fact that at least some of them might end up like Keira bell because of it, and at least some of them like laurel Hubbard!

Yikes rabbitwoman how old were the kids??

There's a really good article by Katie Alcock about children's understanding of sex constancy here:
medium.com/@katieja/young-children-reality-sex-and-gender-3421f4f165f1

She cites research that by the age of 10 children usually understand that what your wearing doesn't literally change your sex. This video of 2 girls and some Barbie dolls is a good illustration:

Were your class older than this? They sound like teens?

Oh, I don't think they were confused about whether or not someone was male or female.

They were confused over whether or not someone was 'trans'. Wearing certain clothes makes someone 'trans'.

And of course, this is concerning if being 'trans' confers the same rights as someone who is that sex. Harry Styles wearing a skirt makes him 'trans', therefore gives him the same rights as a woman.

Of course, they might have been winding me up......

.... then I imagine the next step for these kids might be;

I like wearing eyeliner / I don't like wearing dresses. I am also unhappy. So I must be unhappy because I am trans therefore there is a pill I can take which will make me the opposite sex and therefore that will make me happy....

And someone somewhere is telling them this is correct....

I see ... So effectively they are identifying someone as trans if their clothes don't match their biological sex?

I don't want to derail this thread too much, but this is really dumb because there is the simultaneous argument that biological sex doesn't exist. And the cognitive dissonance that you can't possibly know someone's pronouns until they've told you.

Funnily enough, since the MF judgement I’ve seen it said “we never said biological sex wasn’t real”. Rewriting history to suit the current narrative.

That's the frightening thing Invisible how can a belief system such as gender identity have got so far when all the arguments are so flawed. I know this has been said so many times for so many years but it's still staggering when presented

DS reads very masculine, but has long hair. He says kids at his school ask if he is trans because of his hair. They also want to know what sexuality he is. He says he says "I'm 12" as he doesn't know.

I don't remember sexuality being a big deal in year 7 when I was young.

Oh yes, I don't want to derail the thread.

Just, couple this with the immediate affirmation model being pushed by Stonewall and GIDS et al, with the fact that even trying to explain that wanting to dress a certain way does not make you transgender is being framed as conversion therapy, and in very simple terms that's how you get a generation of Keira bells.

Not that I think sexuality is a big deal! But as LGB is presented alongside trans, it seems to be an exercise in getting kids to label themselves asap, rather than leaving them to experiment and work it out for themselves with time and as their minds and relationships mature.

... hopefully, in 10 years time, it will be Keira bell in that list of LGBT icons, not Harry Styles....

(although I love Harry and his style he is neither G, or T, or probably not even B. And he's not the first man to wear a dress....)

rabbitwoman so in their view David Beckham in his sarong was trans? Basing it all on clothes, hair and make up is an incredibly restrictive view. It's what I've always said that this agenda is the total opposite of progressive and liberal, the real worry as you rightly point out is the irreparable damage this causes when they insist they are trans and start down the medication route with adults cheering them on.

That is alarming rabbit. Who has misled them this way?

It’s pretty impossible for gender non-conforming teens to just be themselves then. The peer pressure must be overwhelming.

@RedDogsBeg

At the heart of it, is the court's duty to protect vulnerable children - that is an ancient jurisdiction.

This.

We have a number of laws in place to do just that because children are not deemed to be sufficiently capable and the view is taken that they sometimes need protecting from themselves (not sure if I've worded that right) and yet when it comes to this area those considerations are thrown out of the window and sacrificed on the altar of gender ideology.

How can a 12 year old be considered to have the cognitive capacity to make such a life altering decision that will likely render them infertile, have a limited or non existent sex life, reduction in bone density and the resulting problems that will come from that in later life, permanently alter them physically and potentially mentally and yet not be deemed sufficiently cognitively capable to have a tattoo, vote, get married, drink alcohol, smoke, consent to sex?

This is a child a child still at school, still developing, still learning, still vulnerable fgs.

This is the heart of it for me - no 12 year old, no matter how bright and mature, can understand what that will mean.

I often view this as a parallel situation.

My son is 14. He's a very bright boy. IQ in the top 1 percent etc.

Suppose he came to me and said he didn't was absolutely certain he didn't want children and wanted a vasectomy, was distressed at the idea he might get someone pregnant and was actively avoiding forming any kind of "relationship" with a girl because of this worry, should I sign off on his vasectomy because he is a clever child who in many other ways would be deemed to be perfectly capable of having "capacity"? Even if him having the vasectomy caused him huge relief right now?

If even a 30yo woman can't get her tubes tied because she "might change her mind" about wanting children, how is it right to let pre-teens start on a medication route that will leave them stunted, weak-boned, infertile Peter Pan individuals who will never experience orgasm or enjoy an adult sexual relationship?

What sort of lives will they lead? Who will they sue for what they've lost? How many of us have heard "Why did you let me do that?!" from their adult children?

It's the reversibility lie that is at the heart of this case, I think. Puberty blockers are reversible if used appropriately and for a limited time, say on a 6 or 7yo who is showing signs of going into a precocious puberty. The child comes off at 11 or so and a normal puberty follows, as I understand it.

But trans children in these clinics almost invariably go straight from PB to cross sex hormones, meaning they get no pubertal growth spurt or sexual maturation at all, just some secondary characteristics induced by the artificial hormones, like breasts for the boys or facial hair and a deep voice for the girls.