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”.

WPATH is being quoted? That pb are reversible

Live streaming on YouTube

Tavi's side trying to argue that children are fully informed of possibilities like infertility, etc.

Judge says but children might not be able to understand how that will effect them.

Good judge.

Paraphrasing: According to the Endocrine Society, because there's fertility preservation then clearly the patients are being informed about what they'll be undergoing.

Was watching a bit about the couple who are both trans who had a baby via surrogate during lockdown; the TW described never ever thinking that they'd want to be a parent when the option to freeze sperm was offered.

And they transitioned as an adult.

@nauticant

Paraphrasing: According to the Endocrine Society, because there's fertility preservation then clearly the patients are being informed about what they'll be undergoing.

Yes, they don't seem to get that telling kids something and them actually understanding that are two completely different things.

Fertility preservation is fine if you've been producing eggs/sperm but what if you don't want to go down that route because you really don't understand. How many 13 year olds want children?

Counsel for appellant speaking confidently that Tanner Stage 2 gives high certainty about the best way forward. It's (at least) the second time she's made a very bold statement about a diagnostic/scientific matter.

So Tavi's side are arguing that every 12 year old is different, and they'll have different levels of competence.

Yeah, isn't that why taking it to court is a good idea? You don't just plop every 12 year old on PB's because some 12 year olds might have a better understanding

It is possible to get into the swing of what's going on in the proceedings but for me I had to watch about half an hour's worth before I wasn't finding it confusing.

Omg the Tavi QC has just invoked the magical, wise ‘trans child’ who definitely understands everything about making decisions about unknown future effects on feelings and desires they have never yet had, relating to sex and fertility. Didn’t Tavi’s own evidence quote a child who openly said sexual relations were ‘not on my radar? Have they got new evidence? This claim seems to be made out of words, with no facts to back it up.

Cass review being mentioned but selective and this would be new evidence

and Cass review isn't finished

Did their QC just say that there are new operating procedures and processes and therefore everything is just fine. Can they do that?

The appellant's arguments are all wholly based on the fact that the 12 year old you put on puberty blockers does have gender dysphoria and it is a permanent condition, that will be ameliorated by puberty blockers (and then presumably by the rest of the treatments). The 4000% increase figure tells us that's simply wishful thinking.

@nauticant

Counsel for appellant speaking confidently that Tanner Stage 2 gives high certainty about the best way forward. It's (at least) the second time she's made a very bold statement about a diagnostic/scientific matter.

For those who aren’t aware, Tanner stage 1 is prepubertal, Tanner stage 2 is the stage at the first visible signs of puberty, scant hair etc.

Yes highame, apparently the more regulations and regulatory bodies you have the closer you get to 100% success.

nauticant isn't there lots of evidence that medication doesn't produce the desired results in many cases and aren't we at a stage were more and more evidence is actually pointing in the opposite direction?

The Tavistock’s own study, published online days after the original ruling, after they said it wasn’t ready during the hearing, concluded puberty blockers conferred no psychological improvement over time overall for the children in the study.

To be fair the appellant is entitled to cherry-pick the evidence to present the best case. It's up to the respondent (getting it right this time) to point out the flaws in that. Also the judges will stick an oar in when they feel they're having the wool pulled over their eyes.

Judge pointing out a contradiction, that you can't say the treatment is completely reversible when by their own admission, they have to wait until this cohort are fully grown up to understand the full side effects.

But then they'd need to follow up into adulthood and beyond and we know how comprehensive that has been......

It's all very well saying something is reversible, but have they produced actual proof, an actual study