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

[MaudTheInvincible]

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. 💚🤍💜

@CuriousaboutSamphire
So, they are GC people who took a right turn at the last moment?

I am a GC woman

• I often experience discomfort with or a sense of ‘wrongness’ about one or more of the societal mores surrounding male/female roles
• I don't undertsand what the primary or secondary sexual characteristics of bodies have to do with being mor or less valued in society. I can see it affects how your clothes hang!
• I hate, rail against, have marched, shouted, stickered against the gendered expectations or stereotypes that society clings to

As a consequence I am a gender critical individual. I fight against those stereotypes. I do not embrace them, live by them and insist that they are the be all and end all of humanity!

I don’t know about trans people, but I often see myself as a potentially gender critical person who took a right turn at the last moment. I share most of your beliefs about gender, I just disagree about the extent to which people should be permitted to find their own individual way to deal with - and live with - the way things currently are.

Huh?

Nope! Try that again! What do YOU think a trans person is. Not what do you think trans person thinks they are!

Me?

I think a trans individual is a person with a deep disconnect between their biological selves and their internalised sense of self when measured against societal stereotypes and expectations.

I think that eradicating gendered expecations, those stereotypes would help many but not all trans individuals.

Consider the 1980s gender benders and then look at how the 90s wrung them dry, distorted the gender free expression with Guy Liners and Manbags and the rise of the Ladette, Spice Girls etc. Then look again at how toxic masculinity has risen since the turn of the century - the rise of all things pink, muscled, etc.

It doesn't make immediate sense to me but I can work my way through it and judge it as ineffably sad that so many people are currently being made so unhappy byy chains of their own devising!

I just disagree about the extent to which people should be permitted to find their own individual way to deal with - and live with - the way things currently are. But I don't have/think there should be any controls on how individuals choose to live, as long as they do no harm. You seem to have bought into the GC = denying the existence, literal violence rhetoric

I live and let live, until an inequity becomes obvious.

And that has happened now, all encapsulated within the mantra TWAW. As that MUST deny women their rights to female only spaces (and men male spaces, should they choose to speak up against it), ignores the reality of any sex based provision.

Put as simply as I can - until a transwoman's wants conflict with my needs I couldn't care less what she does - I will even use her preferred pronouns when talking to her (as I do on a daily basis).

But as soon as those needs and wants conflict I will stand up and point out that a transomwan is biologicaly male, probably still with intact male genitalia and has absolutely no business being anywhere a woman say no! Just as any other male.

I don’t know about trans people, but I often see myself as a potentially gender critical person who took a right turn at the last moment. I share most of your beliefs about gender, I just disagree about the extent to which people should be permitted to find their own individual way to deal with - and live with - the way things currently are.

I think adults should be permitted to do what they want with their bodies. Does that differ from your view?

But this threaad is about children being given powerful and harmful medication to irreversibly modify their bodies before they have the maturity to fully understand the consequences of this medication, which means that they are not able to consent to this treatment.

So getting back to children, and your description of what you think 'being trans' means

I think it means they experience discomfort with or a sense of ‘wrongness’ about one or more of-
- the labels/social categories (man/woman/boy/girl) and associated pronouns that usually attach to people with the biological sexual characteristics they were born with;

I don't think children should be given this medical treatment because they are uncomfortable with labels, social categories or pronouns. Do you?

- the primary or secondary sexual characteristics of their bodies;

There are all sorts of reasons why an adolescent might be uncomfortable with the changes which occur at puberty. I don't think the solution is to give them medication to stop this which will have serious implications for their health, both immediately and for the rest of their lives. Do you?

- the gendered expectations or stereotypes that often attach to the label/social category they are expected to inhabit as a result of their biological sexual characteristics;

I don't think children should be given this medical treatment because they are unhappy with 'gendered expectations or stereotypes'. Do you?

This idea that transwomen are escaping the stereotypes imposed on them by claiming they're women, just doesn't work in real life.

People know they're not women. They just see them as extra special men to whom saying no is even more precarious.

I have not yet understood how you escape a thing by being the living epitome of it!

Let alone the whole actually changing sex thing!

@OldCrone

You say a child can’t consent but that is not the position in law. Do I think a child should be able to consent to treatment which experienced clinicians have assessed on balance as likely to be the best thing for their well-being despite some risks (and remembering that in the case of puberty blockers those risks and long term implications are nowhere near as great as those of cross-sex hormones)? Yes.

As @ButterflyHatched pointed out, no one knows why some people experience gender dysphoria, but it appears to be very powerful in some children, to a point where clearly some children, their families, and the medical professionals responsible for their care think puberty blockers are the best course of action.

I agree more evidence is needed though.

Do I think a child should be able to consent to treatment which experienced clinicians have assessed on balance as likely to be the best thing for their well-being despite some risks (and remembering that in the case of puberty blockers those risks and long term implications are nowhere near as great as those of cross-sex hormones)? Yes. Well, if/when that is ever the case we can discuss it then. Currently we have Helen Weberley, The Tavistock etc making it up as they go along and not keeping records - as they have both said under oath in thier repsctive court cases.

As for the underlying cause of gender dysphoria, one thging we do know is that it is exacerbated by societal mores. That is easily mapped acorss different types of society, across time and the globe. There may be a biological aspect, but is is observably a societal one and has been further exacerbated by the arrival of social media!

As @ButterflyHatched pointed out, no one knows why some people experience gender dysphoria, but it appears to be very powerful in some children, to a point where clearly some children, their families, and the medical professionals responsible for their care think puberty blockers are the best course of action.

Up until now, activists have made sure that everyone is in denial about what might cause it.

Stephanie Davis Arai has said that she has never yet seen a child who thinks they are trans who haven't haven't been either gay, suffered from past trauma, or are autistic.

Until those three aspects are thoroughly studied, this whole 'no one knows' just sounds like activism for adults.

Do I think a child should be able to consent to treatment which experienced clinicians have assessed on balance as likely to be the best thing for their well-being despite some risks (and remembering that in the case of puberty blockers those risks and long term implications are nowhere near as great as those of cross-sex hormones)? Yes

But what is this treatment for? You have said it's to treat a dislike of stereotypes and/or "discomfort with the primary or secondary sexual characteristics of their bodies".

Do you believe that this treatment should be given to children because they have a dislike of stereotypes?

As for discomfort with the sex characteristics of their bodies, this can occur for many reasons. At puberty, obviously because of the changes which occur. It could also be due to trauma or abuse. There are many other possible reasons. Don't you think all these possible reasons for this discomfort should be thoroughly explored before deciding that the best solution is to put this child on a lifetime of medication?

And that's interesting wording: "Do I think a child should be able to consent to treatment...?" What do you mean? I was talking about capacity to consent. This is nothing to do with letting them give 'consent'. Do you really believe that a child in the early stages of puberty has the capacity to consent to a lifetime of impaired sexual function and sterilisation? A certain high profile 'trans child' in the US believes that having an orgasm is a bit like a sneeze. This is the level of understanding of these children.

So, again there seems to be some major ignoring of the current cohort’s needs. But then, I guess if you don’t believe that there is any coercive influence at play in the treatment of this group you would naively expect that the clinicians are spending extensive and quality time understanding each child’s needs.

And you would believe that those clinicians would absolutely get it right every time and be able to cut through the preloaded information that these female adolescents have derived from lobby group charities, social media and their peers.

And ignore that there is a growing group of detransitioners raising the alarm, not to stop people transitioning but for greater safeguards to be in place, for more exploratory treatments.

And that the evidence is mounting that there is many aspects unexplained with this cohort. Including social contagion (I mean, seriously 5 out of a group of 7 teenage girls in my direct experience. What is the chances?), mental health and comorbidities, trauma and homophobia. So much to be explained but there is this continuing narrative that ‘clinicians know best’. Fuck off with that.

What part of in 2018, one third of a GIDS clinic staff came to report concerns about the treatment regimes. What part of the coercive nature of the clinic Sonia Appleby was in a lead safeguarding role for has been ignored?

And this blind acceptance that these under resourced clinics are making the best decisions instead of following affirming only protocols that too quickly send them to another department.

Do I think a child should be able to consent to treatment which experienced clinicians have assessed on balance as likely to be the best thing for their well-being despite some risks

And please stop downplaying the health risk associated with Puberty blockers for girls. And the fact that 98+% go on to cross sex hormones. All based on a lack of evidence that has been admitted by so called experts.

@OldCrone
But what is this treatment for? You have said it's to treat a dislike of stereotypes and/or "discomfort with the primary or secondary sexual characteristics of their bodies".

Do you believe that this treatment should be given to children because they have a dislike of stereotypes?

No, it’s a treatment to avoid children experiencing intense distress as a result of going through puberty, while the causes of that distress are investigated and the most appropriate longer term treatment is determined.

As for discomfort with the sex characteristics of their bodies, this can occur for many reasons. At puberty, obviously because of the changes which occur. It could also be due to trauma or abuse. There are many other possible reasons. Don't you think all these possible reasons for this discomfort should be thoroughly explored before deciding that the best solution is to put this child on a lifetime of medication?

Yes, I think the causes should be explored as fully as possible. Puberty blockers, although not a perfect solution, at least provide a bit of space for that investigation to take place before irrevocable changes occur to the child’s body as a result of puberty.

And that's interesting wording: "Do I think a child should be able to consent to treatment...?" What do you mean? I was talking about capacity to consent. This is nothing to do with letting them give 'consent'. Do you really believe that a child in the early stages of puberty has the capacity to consent to a lifetime of impaired sexual function and sterilisation? A certain high profile 'trans child' in the US believes that having an orgasm is a bit like a sneeze. This is the level of understanding of these children.

There’s clearly no single universally applicable age at which children attain the necessary level of understanding and maturity to be able to consent to treatment. However, the rules of Gillick competence provide the legal framework for determining in individual cases whether a child is capable of consenting. It’s also relevant that the majority of children referred by the Tavistock for prescription of puberty blockers are 15 or 16, and most children do not start cross sex hormones until 17.

If a child is capable of making the life changing decision to have a baby at 16 are they not potentially capable of deciding to embark on this treatment?

Yes, I think the causes should be explored as fully as possible. Puberty blockers, although not a perfect solution, at least provide a bit of space for that investigation to take place before irrevocable changes occur to the child’s body as a result of puberty.

This is such a dangerous argument. It sounds great "a bit of space", but actually it's about using drugs to stop a child's normal physical development so that they don't mature naturally.

And, as came out in the Bell case, it's a one-way street. Once a child starts taking puberty blockers they are almost certain to go on to cross sex hormones.

And none of us know the long-term effects of these drugs.

It's a barbaric practice when we should be allowing children to mature naturally and treating their psychological problems so that they come to terms with their body.

And ignore that there is a growing group of detransitioners raising the alarm, not to stop people transitioning but for greater safeguards to be in place, for more exploratory treatments.

What's interesting is that the Five (Trans)Guys upthread can consent to the childhood treatment they never had, but detransitioners somehow don't speak for trans people. And gender non-conforming women like me, who were very uncomfortable as children and who absolutely would have been transed if we had been younger, also don't speak for anyone else.

Ultimately, why are the Five (Trans) Guys that Butterfly is friends with a better arbiter of the best course of action for children than I am? I have lower cardiovascular risk, no atrophy to my sex organs, and I'm not on any medication. I don't have to change my name or get my parents to refer to me as their son, I don't have to monitor everyone for the right pronouns, because frankly I don't care if I get called "he" or "sir" occasionally, provided its accidental and not some goady homophobia.
I mean, I'm not perfect, but I'm certainly healthier than the average transman, so how come their view has more weight than mine?

No, it’s a treatment to avoid children experiencing intense distress as a result of going through puberty, while the causes of that distress are investigated
And we know this doesn't always happen. The distress is often chalked up to gender issues and the transition process is sold as a cure-all.

One has to weigh up the distress at having a period, and the distress at breasts forming, with the permanent bone damage and stunted growth on the other hand. Distress is easier to deal with than osteoporosis is. And who fans the flames of the distress, who tells these children they will be suicidal, that life will be awful, that dysphoria is "crippling"? The lobby groups who want to medicalise them.
If this treatment was never made available to anyone, nobody would be threatening suicide to get it. If it was never made available to children, it would be more widely accepted that transition begins at 18 and not before.
These children didn't kill themselves thirty years ago, and they're not killing themselves now, it's all lies. Their actual, real distress is being artificially amplified by adults who want them to transition. As the Tavistock whistleblowers mentioned in the Times, it's often overt homophobia from the parents.

There’s clearly no single universally applicable age at which children attain the necessary level of understanding and maturity to be able to consent to treatment. However, the rules of Gillick competence provide the legal framework for determining in individual cases whether a child is capable of consenting. It’s also relevant that the majority of children referred by the Tavistock for prescription of puberty blockers are 15 or 16, and most children do not start cross sex hormones until 17.

Have you forgotten that this court case was about children much younger than 15? These were being prescribed by GIDS to children as young as 12.

How can a 12-year-old consent to being sterilised and having impaired sexual function? A child of that age cannot possibly understand what that means.

If a child is capable of making the life changing decision to have a baby at 16 are they not potentially capable of deciding to embark on this treatment?

A girl of 16 who has a baby is sexually mature. This is very different from a child who has not yet been through puberty, who by definition is not sexually mature. Do you also favour lowering the age of consent? Because if you think a child of 12 is mature enough to consent to being sterilised and losing sexual function, presumably you also think they are mature enough to consent to sex. Or are you arguing for a minimum age of 16 for puberty blockers?

If a child is capable of making the life changing decision to have a baby at 16 are they not potentially capable of deciding to embark on this treatment?

How many children deliberately seek to have a baby at 16?

How many children are in a position to have to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy because they were ill-prepared for the choice they made to have sex? If it was indeed their positive consent to even have sex in the first place.

So, if that person had had clear guidance and counselling to ensure that they were in fact fully cognisant of the high risk that they would indeed get pregnant, would they still have chosen to have sex with enthusiastic and positive consent?

Puberty blockers, although not a perfect solution, at least provide a bit of space for that investigation to take place before irrevocable changes occur to the child’s body as a result of puberty.

So children's health, girls in particular, is just acceptable collateral for providing 'space' for that investigation.

Just a reminder, there is absolutely no evidence that puberty blockers improve mental health. And the known effects are that they cause depression and suicide ideation when used for precocious puberty.

And males, the studies have shown, at least have some chance with cross sex hormones to regain some mineralisation to their bones. Females don't get that chance.

So, again.... female's health is cast as acceptable collateral for males to get what they want.

@Helleofabore...you keep talking about there being no evidence that blockers improve mental health.
70-strong study: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20646177/

If you know any kids on blockers, try asking them.
Did you grow up with any at the time when it was age-relevant? I did. There were plenty of us. The effects were very clear. We were still trans - still experiencing gender dysphoria - but they stopped it getting worse.

Without controlled experiments you don't know that. It's just a belief

And something that is so heavily ( in my experience) about how you feel about yourself , it's just the sort of thing where any dummy medication might well help

So, another 2014 study and without any of the study accessible for me from that link.

Behavioral and emotional problems and depressive symptoms decreased, while general functioning improved significantly during puberty suppression. Feelings of anxiety and anger did not change between T0 and T1. While changes over time were equal for both sexes, compared with natal males, natal females were older when they started puberty suppression and showed more problem behavior at both T0 and T1. Gender dysphoria and body satisfaction did not change between T0 and T1. No adolescent withdrew from puberty suppression, and all started cross‐sex hormone treatment, the first step of actual gender reassignment.

So, from the summary... anxiety and anger didn't change?

And natal females showed more problem behaviour?

And Gender dysphoria and body satisfaction did not change?

Finally, no adolescent withdrew from treatment and 100% went on to CSH.

Maybe you would like to explain these results since I am not able to see more than that.

And while you are at it... can you explain to me again the relevance of this study to the cohort that we are now talking about? One that may have very different motivations for seeking transition and one that may actually be irreparably harmed with this treatment path.

And for I don't know how many more times I am going to say it, Dr Steensma has also recently stated that even he believes that this cohort is different and the protocol he was involved in developing may not work for them.

Maybe you should also tell the manufacturers of the drugs that depression and suicide ideation is not actually a side effect and that they are wrong to list it. And the NHS who describe it in the negative effects as mood alterations.

pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/09/02/peds.2013-2958
2014 De Vries states: Psychological functioning steadily improved. Well-being improved to similar or better than same age young adults from the general population. “GD (gender dysphoria) and body image difficulties persisted through puberty suppression and remitted after the administration of CSH and GRS (at T2) (significant linear effects in 3 of 4 indicators, and significant quadratic effects in all indicators)“ “None of the participants reported regret during puberty suppression, CSH, treatment, or after GRS. Satisfaction with appearance in the new gender was high, and at T2 no one reported being treated by others as someone of their assigned gender”. “All young adults in this study were generally satisfied with their physical appearance and none regretted treatment. Puberty suppression had caused their bodies to not (further) develop contrary to their experienced gender”. “Psychological functioning improved steadily over time, resulting in rates of clinical problems that are indistinguishable from general population samples (eg, percent in the clinical range dropped from 30% to 7% on the YSR/ASR30) and quality of life, satisfaction with life, and subjective happiness comparable to same-age peers. They note that this support gave “these formerly gender dysphoric youth the opportunity to develop into well-functioning young adults. These individuals, of whom an even higher percentage than the general population were pursuing higher education, seem different from the transgender youth in community samples with high rates of mental health disorders, suicidality and self-harming behaviour”.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26556015/
2015 Costa compared adolescents supported with puberty blockers to those denied access to blockers. 201 Adolescents with gender dysphoria aged 12-17 (average age 15) were assessed for psychosocial functioning, using an assessment called CGAS. All the youth in the study registered low levels of psychosocial functioning at baseline (CGAS = 57). One group of 61 youth were not granted puberty blockers, instead having 18 months of just psychological support. Their psychosocial functioning improved after 6 months of psychological support (to CGAS = 60) but then plateaued and stayed significantly below the levels of children without psychological symptoms (staying at CGAS = 62). Another group of 60 youth were allocated blockers after 6 months of just psychological support. Like the untreated group, their psychosocial functioning improved when just receiving psychological support (to CGAS = 60). Their psychosocial functioning then improved more significantly at each six monthly check up whilst on puberty blockers. The psychosocial functioning of youth after 12 months of puberty blockers had improved to match that of children without psychological symptoms (CGAS = 67). Trans youth with puberty blockers were able to reach levels of psychosocial functioning the same as their peers.

Here is Steensma saying that the research he has done may not apply to the current cohort by the way.

Because what is behind the large increase of children who have suddenly registered for transgender care since 2013? And what is the quality of life for this group long after the sex change? There is no answer to those questions. And that must happen, think Steensma and colleagues from Nijmegen.

“We don’t know whether studies we have done in the past can still be applied to this time. Many more children are registering, and also a different type,” says Steensma. “Suddenly there are many more girls applying who feel like a boy. While the ratio was the same in 2013, now three times as many children who were born as girls register, compared to children who were born as boys.”

4thwavenow.com/2021/03/16/dutch-puberty-blocker-pioneer-stop-blindly-adopting-our-research/

And I have seen no where where he denies that he has said this. In fact, this is not the only place I have seen him say this but I haven’t found the other quotes yet.

He also expressed concern at clinicians using his research to dictate a one size fits all, affirming only treatment. As he points out, the Dutch medical system takes a very slow approach (obviously not slow through waiting lists which I agree are tortuous but also seem to be across the board on all waiting lists).

I agree with Steensma's urges for caution with the recent cohort, and not to just blindly follow his team's findings - more research needs to be done - but you keep claiming there is no evidence that blockers have a positive effect on mental health, and that's just not true!

They don't 'cure' gender dysphoria, but they delay one of the factors that makes it worse. CSH and GRS, meanwhile, largely do. That's...the whole point!

Well since I cannot read the studies you keep posting I am not going to take your word for it when the Baker review also pointed it out. Or are we forgetting that review.