Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The judgment in Keira Bell's case will be given tomorrow

999 replies

MaudTheInvincible · 16/09/2021 19:19

The judgment of the Tavistock's appeal of the case will be given at 2pm.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/royal-courts-of-justice-cause-list/royal-courts-of-justice-daily-cause-list

Brave Keira. You have done so much to protect children from ideologically driven healthcare around the world. Your integrity and courage is inspiring and rare in this ridiculous day and age. 💚🤍💜

The judgment in Keira Bell's case will be given tomorrow
OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
EdgeOfACoin · 16/09/2021 21:14

@MishyJDI

Let's hope this dreadful decision of Keira is reversed and Gillick competency restored. She was 18+ when she was given HRT and took her hormone decisions. Take some personal accountability. Desistence is extremely low according to NHS/GIC stats. Hopefully this wrong with be righted!
  1. I thought the original judgment specifically referenced and considered Gillick competence - did it not?
  1. I don't think the NHS has any reliable stats on detransitioning. That was part of the problem.
Passmeamenuatthetottenham · 16/09/2021 21:18

@MishyJDI

Let's hope this dreadful decision of Keira is reversed and Gillick competency restored. She was 18+ when she was given HRT and took her hormone decisions. Take some personal accountability. Desistence is extremely low according to NHS/GIC stats. Hopefully this wrong with be righted!
Gillick competency is the concept that minors can consent to certain medical treatments if they can fully understand the treatment and its consequences.

The Bell case upheld Gillick competency because it ruled that children cannot understand a lifetime of potential infertility, sexual dysfunction, brain development issues and bone density issues, as well as things like irreversible surgery voice breaking and male pattern baldness, if they are under 16. How can any child fully comprehend that?

Gillick competency does not mean 'children can consent to any medical treatment they want without parental permission', I don't know why TRAs always peddle that line? Why do you think under 18s can't get a tattoo?!

Passmeamenuatthetottenham · 16/09/2021 21:21

Of this appeal is won tomorrow, will the original ruling just be overturned, or will there be an actual appeal process? I don't really know what this means tomorrow?

ChattyLion · 16/09/2021 21:28

Mishy no. Keira’s case supports Gillick competence.
Gillick is certainly not about consenting to permanent invasive physical changes that the child can’t possibly understand the meaning of. The whole principle turns on the child being able to demonstrate their understanding of their situation and the proposed treatment.

Gillick is about allowing a girl or young woman to consent to revert to a state of pre-pregnancy by accessing contraception or (see also Axon case) a safe legal abortion, provided she has the understanding to weigh the risks and benefits of those treatments. It will also always be more physically dangerous to carry a pregnancy to labour and birth than it is to use contraception or have a safe legal abortion. Safe legal abortion (or the provision of contraception) also do not have the potential effect of removing sexual and reproductive function forever from a child or young person. The long term risks and benefits of abortion and contraception are known.

What possible parallel does any of that have to offering untested, unresearched ‘treatments’ which can create a permanent loss of key sexual and reproductive function and are not evidenced to offer any long term benefit? While, at the same time, reportedly neglecting to properly explore the psychological aspects of children’s’ and young people’s distress?

thirdfiddle · 16/09/2021 21:29

I wonder if even should the Tavi win their appeal, they may take a much more cautious line on referring young people given everything else that has been going on, Sonia Appleby for example.

ChattyLion · 16/09/2021 21:29

X post Pass

Zeev · 16/09/2021 21:30

I am not exactly surprised MishyJDI misunderstood the case.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 16/09/2021 21:32

I suspect that will be the case. There are too many people watching now.

Waitwhat23 · 16/09/2021 21:39

It's always glorious to see the nonsense peddled by some anti women posters just annihilated by the knowledgeable posters on this board.

Utterly glorious.

rabbitwoman · 16/09/2021 22:11

@MishyJDI

Let's hope this dreadful decision of Keira is reversed and Gillick competency restored. She was 18+ when she was given HRT and took her hormone decisions. Take some personal accountability. Desistence is extremely low according to NHS/GIC stats. Hopefully this wrong with be righted!
Desistence is extremely low according to NHS/GIC stats

Why do you keep insisting on this?

Perhaps historically this was true, but we all know that

a) referrals absolutely sky rocketed by 4400% in the last decade

b) the Tavistock kept no data on follow up care for patients of their service. There is no way of knowing how many have desisted.

b) those children who have been treated during the boom in referrals will only just be coming up to their 20s now. We are just about to find out whether you are right or not, but as of yet, we don't officially know....

Personally I think this is shaping up to be a medical scandel of rather epic proportions with a lot of people trying to dodge accountability. But right now - we just don't know....

MaudTheInvincible · 16/09/2021 22:19

@Passmeamenuatthetottenham

Of this appeal is won tomorrow, will the original ruling just be overturned, or will there be an actual appeal process? I don't really know what this means tomorrow?

I don't know the legal process, but it sounds like it will be possible to take the case to a higher court, according to Dennis Noel Kavanagh:

"Please do not be downhearted if Keira loses this stage, there is still the Supreme Court and there will be a LOT to digest in this judgment beyond the headline."

mobile.twitter.com/Jebadoo2/status/1438546541099241483?s=20

Regarding desistance rates, weren't the old ones based on a small cohort of patients who'd undergone orchiectomies and were therefore known to be extremely committed to their transition?

OP posts:
PermanentTemporary · 16/09/2021 22:33

I think desistance and detransition in that cohort will be very different.

I worked on the edges of this field sometimes for about a year, in a specialist clinic. Adult desisters are really, really common at every stage. I'm certain some of them are stop/restart but there are also an awful lot of just plain stoppers. My first husband got as far as taking hormones (he was a scarily persuasive guy, given that it was harder in those days) but stopped again soon after and in the 20 following years that I knew what he was doing never showed a flicker of returning to a transition path (I am pretty sure he was bisexual but from an incredibly bleak and homophobic background). We would get regular calls at the clinic from adult men who'd just decided for a huge range of reasons that carrying on wasn't for them. Then there were just the chaotic ones, who could hardly keep an appointment and who would drop off the radar and then reappear.

I mean, this was some years ago. Just when the explosion in referrals for girls was happening, when the Dutch protocol had been implemented at the Tavi, when the system was groaning under the strain and the very different views and approaches of the staff there were becoming clear (i know someone who was in the team then).

The sheer strangeness of deciding you're going to do this... it's not surprising that desisting and detransitioning/ retransitioning is normal. It was, anyway. Before it became 'a paediatric issue' as Paris Lees once said, to my amazement that she'd said it out loud.

nauticant · 16/09/2021 22:34

Desistence is extremely low is a dishonest sleight of hand because what's really meant is desistance in the group formerly referred to as transsexuals was, historically, extremely low.

However, we live in a completely different reality now in which the "transsexual" type of transgender person is a tiny proportion of the supposedly 500,000 trans people in the UK these days. In that much larger group, that is the group a large part of which came from the 4400% increase, the desistence rates will be high and will mostly be before children have any medical interventions. At least, hopefully so, because if the trans activists get their way there'll be many many thousands of medicalised "trans kids" and the resulting medical scandal could dwarf all those that have gone before.

By the way, is it desistence or desistance?

PermanentTemporary · 16/09/2021 22:42

Desistance... I think.

As I say I think detransition was very rare in the studied population of years ago, but desistance wasn't. The ones who transitioned surgically were years into their journey and had not desisted. Therefore they didn't desist...

Transitioning when you are still growing up is a entirely different proposition. But its true that future detransition may not look like I as an oldie would expect. Regret? Maybe not. Maybe feeling it was something they had to go through. Maybe still liking the neutrality of their bodies in a sexust world. I passionately believe that this medicalisation of adolescence is a negative consequence of neoliberal healthcare plus multiple cultural pressures, but I do accept that I could be wrong.

Thank you Keira for making us all stop and think.

nauticant · 16/09/2021 22:55

The phrase medicalisation of adolescence really sums up what we're talking about.

Gabcsika · 16/09/2021 23:08

Fingers crossed.

From what I have read from the live tweeting regarding previous court case, I expect the first judgement to be overturned. There was a particular technicality (can't remember which) but I remember them (barrister and judges) being stuck on and the QC floundering in questioning. Maybe someone can enlighten as to what. Perhaps something to do with the parental loop hole.

However, I hope it comes out in GC favour as a former gender dysphoric, now adult.

What is being done to kids is a DISGRACE. Thank God I was born in the early 80s and not a decade or so later.

JoodyBlue · 16/09/2021 23:08

It is extraordinary and despicable that a young woman in her early 20s should have to bear the weight of bringing this momentous case. Keira is a hero. But it is heavy responsibility. I would like to be able to see this over and for her to be able to just get on with her life. The comment above that said "take responsibility" makes me sick. What kind of vile comment is that? It reflects only on the person who said it - oft-times these little jibes really show a person for who they are and it is pretty unpleasant.

Gabcsika · 16/09/2021 23:09

And regardless, THANK YOU KIERA 👍🏽!

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 17/09/2021 00:43

@MishyJDI

Let's hope this dreadful decision of Keira is reversed and Gillick competency restored. She was 18+ when she was given HRT and took her hormone decisions. Take some personal accountability. Desistence is extremely low according to NHS/GIC stats. Hopefully this wrong with be righted!
Let's hear it for Mishy the trans activist, whose reaction to a teenager being prescribed irreversible hormonal treatment and then surgery is "take some personal accountability".

When are the multiple, much older graduate-qualified staff who prescribed the hormonal treatment, signed her off on the surgery and performed the surgery, going to take personal accountability for their professional actions, Mishy?

Sophoclesthefox · 17/09/2021 06:49

I’ve got everything crossed that it goes well today.

I also wish that we had someone from the transactivist/transally side who could actually walk everyone through their approach, why they believe it’s correct, and what the implications will be if the decision is for the Tavi, taking into account all of the concurrent activity with the Cass review, Appleby verdict etc.

Instead, we’ve got mishy bobbing up to regurgitate debunked nonsense and untruths.

Come ON, allies! Bring your A-game so we can all have a grown up conversation about how children and young people with issues involving their gender can best be supported. Isn’t that what we all want?

I’m very fed up of poorly constructed, disingenuous scolding in place of serious debate on huge issues.

JustcameoutGC · 17/09/2021 06:58

Making young people life long patients, subjecting them to irreversible life altering surgery and hormone treatment. Risking sterility at such a young age.

This is NOT a good outcome by any measure and should go the way of electric shock therapy and lobotomies.

I have been appalled by the stance of the psychology community on this. I know a few psychologists. They generally agree that drugs do have a place in treating mental health issues particularly in an acute phase, but all of them believe that therapy is the route to health.

Except for gender questioning kids, no they get drugs intended for cancer patients and their tits lopped off.

Soontobe60 · 17/09/2021 07:00

@MishyJDI

Let's hope this dreadful decision of Keira is reversed and Gillick competency restored. She was 18+ when she was given HRT and took her hormone decisions. Take some personal accountability. Desistence is extremely low according to NHS/GIC stats. Hopefully this wrong with be righted!
Are you ok with children being given life changing medication because of an ideology then?
highame · 17/09/2021 07:21

Do they have an A game Sophocles

I imagine, either way, that this will be a lengthy judgement and if there is a lack of certainty, then it will be interesting to see how the Judges tackle that. They know how controversial this is but they wont take that into account. The initial Judge was very senior so there wont be too much that could be argued from the original judgement and no new evidence - remember that one?

ChattyLion · 17/09/2021 11:23

Agreed Sophocles it’s hard to dispel the sense anyone looking at this neutrally will get that distressed gender-non-conforming children and young people are somehow politically needed to be invasively and permanently physically ‘transitioned’ with a host of debilitating results and seemingly at any personal cost to those individual children, because all these red flags are being raised and some people just want to plough on regardless of the human cost. The question as always is who benefits from kids doing that? If not the children themselves we have some major system failure problems, don’t we.

NHS treatment should never be being provided for any length of time without a solid evidence base. And yet those continuing to advocate for unevidenced treatment for gender non conforming children, treatment that can’t explain its own risks and benefits because it hasn’t been assessed. Yet the advocates don’t conduct research to back up what they are doing either. So of course the whole system looks at best dangerously amateurish and at worst cynically politically led, both of which are completely unacceptable when it comes to children’s NHS (or private) healthcare.

Professionals with no political axe to grind normally see enormous legal and ethical risks in ploughing on giving permanent life-changing treatments to patients, without any evidence that what IS being done to their young patients is actually relieving the patients’ distress in the long term.

Being driven by a Belief is one thing and can be an amazing impetus to people practising medicine, but here there’s a massive failure of administrative process and oversight when for so long the system has been allowed to run in what looks like a solely belief-based way.

Also when proper standard legal informed consent, practiced so carefully across paediatric medical treatment and research, is reportedly being misread on such a grand scale in this way. How is the law being allowed to be misunderstood or misinformed in a highly sensitive area of practice- where is the GMC guidance? Where are the professional bodies for each specialism involves in caring for these kids, giving their training and guidance? Are external bodies or charities with no legal or medical expertise being allowed to influence inappropriately in this area?

It’s certainly not only the fault of individual prescribing doctors that this situation has arisen, but also the fault of the oversight institutions too. They are in turn overseen by government, so anyone worried about this must continue writing to your MP and government ministers to raise their awareness of this whole issue and that the safety mechanisms dor young patients don’t appear to be working very well in some areas.

When there’s no fact-based or generally accepted values-based justification for treating ‘trans’ children and young people with reportedly vastly fewer safeguards and medical norms than other children and young people are treated with, and no solid rebuttal by professionals or lobby groups of the concerns being raised about this issue, it’s really hard not to get the sense that these child transitions are needed as the poster children for a political agenda with men’s sexual entitlement and and men’s sexual access at its heart. One which the professionals either support, and havent had enough professional curiosity about, or feel they can’t speak out against because of fear.

The key question to ask is why children aren’t being centred at the heart of this discussion and instead gender politics is being centred at its heart? It’s such a massive red flag every single time someone minimises the experience of children and young people and the lack of safeguards for them.

As an example: Invalid legal consent to medical treatment is a huge legal and ethical issue whether it happens to one child who desists or detransitions, or to one child who doesn’t do either of those things, or to hundreds of thousands of children worldwide, which is the likely actual scenario we are looking at. It is a massive scandal and multiple individuals and institutions have chosen to look the other way for way too long so I really hope the UK courts lead the way in focusing clear sightedly on the needs of children, not the needs of adults.

ArabellaScott · 17/09/2021 12:19

Come ON, allies! Bring your A-game so we can all have a grown up conversation about how children and young people with issues involving their gender can best be supported. Isn’t that what we all want?

I’m very fed up of poorly constructed, disingenuous scolding in place of serious debate on huge issues.

Seconded. It's insulting, and dangerous, not only to women but to trans people and children with dysphoria.

Give us robust, properly researched evidence. Give us rational, thought through arguments. Give us any semblance of an open discussion.