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. 💚🤍💜

Yes, love to you, Keira.

And god almighty, strength to the children who risk harm because of this decision.

yes! What a relief! Now can we improve services and reduce wait times?!

We all want services to improve, but that is only by fully researched and proven pathways of care, something that the TRA's are keen to try and stop happening. A one way traction of care is not optimal care however much you want it to be.

That summary does indeed read as 'this is shit but it's not illegal. Yet. Sort your house out'.

Reading the summary, it seems the Court of Appeal has taken quite a conservative and safe approach. The court's job is not to decide medical issues (doctors know best and the courts should butt out), and even if the Tavistock's approach is unorthodox the only option is for patients to sue individual doctors for negligence. On the other hand, the High Court were concerned by the lack of evidence base for the treatment and decided that it was not the kind of thing which children could legally consent to in general. The High Court decided that children were not Gillick competent in this area, and the Court of Appeal said the issue of Gillick competence was up to the doctors to decide and if the doctors didn't check properly they were at risk of being sued.

It will be interesting to see if this goes to the Supreme Court. This wouldn't be the first case where there has been a bold first instance judgment followed by a conservative rolling back of the court of appeal.

@Conniethesensible

HOORAY! Bell v Tavistock has been overturned in the Court of Appeal. This is a huge win for trans people, trans youth and their families in particular ♥️

Fantastic news for young trans people, who will now be allowed the same rights in law as other young people to make informed decisions about their own care (in conjunction with their parents and doctors) when considered capable of doing so by their clinician.

A notable excerpts:

"[Lieven J] rejected the suggestion that the prescription of puberty blockers was in a special category of medical intervention which always required the sanction of the court, despite the controversial nature of the treatment. We respectfully agree."

for clinicians to exercise their judgment knowing how important it was for the patient’s consent to be properly obtained according to the particular individual circumstances. Clinicians would be alive to the possibility of regulatory or civil action which allows the issue of whether consent has been properly obtained to be tested in individual cases.

Clinicians like Helen Webberley, presumably.

@MonsignorMirth

Can I genuinely ask the two posters celebrating and urging faster treatment what gender has to do with physical bodies? If gender is innate and entirely separate from sex, why does anyone need to change their body? I really struggle with this. The way people insist a trans person's body must be changed from 'male-looking' to 'female-looking' or vice versa implies there is something to do with biological sex that overlaps with gender. But what and how? How can people also claim that these are separate and different ones handed out at birth?

It's about congruence. Internal mind with external body presentation.

And let's face it, society loves to force gender norms on people, so it makes trans peoples lives easier. Non Binary are the true trans people that are pushing gender norms. They have it super tough as they fit precisely what you are saying and therefore find it hard to get treatment, support and fit in .

It is indeed a day to celebrate! Congrats to all.

Clinicians would be alive to the possibility of regulatory or civil action which allows the issue of whether consent has been properly obtained to be tested in individual cases.

This.

Actually that is a fair summing it - basically it isn't for the courts to decide as they are not the specialists (ok loosely applied there) but basically finished with - 'sort your house out, otherwise you will be liable'

Mark my words - there will be moves to lower the age of consent riding on the coat tails of this. A child can consent to go on cross-sex hormones? Then they can consent to sex.

Whenever safeguards are let down, the PIE/MAP faction swarms in.

Bloody awful decision that will lead to many others suffering, like Keira has.

What treatment do people need if they are innately none binary ? If being trans isn't an illness or mental problem?

Do they want their nails done on nhs money?

@JustSpeculation

Clinicians would be alive to the possibility of regulatory or civil action which allows the issue of whether consent has been properly obtained to be tested in individual cases.

This.

That's the key sentence, yep.

@midgemagneto

What treatment do people need if they are innately none binary ? If being trans isn't an illness or mental problem?

Do they want their nails done on nhs money?

Presumably they need treatment to get their genitals to conform to the genitals of their mind, midge.

Ah well, I was speaking to a doctor friend about this the other day. Eventually the harms caused by injecting unnecessary testosterone into a female body will become apparent but there will be a lot of damage done by then. Just glad I became aware of this issue via mumsnet so I could steer my kids away from ever thinking this was OK. Sorry for all those caught up in it.

@MonsignorMirth

First point: stating that the Tavi doesn't prescribe the PBs, but refers them to others to prescribe, although the Tavi assesses whether they would benefit from PBs and is capable of giving consent.

So still the same issue really?

It beggars belief that even the Tavistock is engaged in buck-passing.

My child's school has told me that they don't encourage kids on to puberty blockers as they don't directly promote them, even though they do promote gender ideology and refer the kids on to Allsorts.

Allsorts have said they're not responsible for encouraging children onto puberty blockers as they don't prescribe them nor do they refer to GIDS (although they do tell kids about GIDS and how to get in contact).

Now the Tavistock are saying even GIDS don't actually make the decision!

So, the endocrinologists are going to take the responsibility for all this are they? I bet they bloody don't.

x-posted there.

Just so the tweet by Evan Urquhart is still accessible online when Evan Urquhart realises it must be deleted:

twitter.com/e_urq/status/1438852308058710020

archive.fo/yQVUJ

clinicians will be alive to the possibility of regulatory or civil action
where, in individual cases, the issue can be tested........clinicians must satisfy themselves that the child and parents appreciate the short and long-term implications of the treatment upon which the child
is embarking.....it is for the clinicians to exercise their judgement knowing how important it is that consent is properly obtained according to the particular individual circumstances......clinicians are
subject to professional regulation and oversight.....

Straight out buck passing with invitation for anyone unhappy to sue their clinician. So as predicted (and as with the prison review) it is now down to individuals to make their own cases, and some massive compensation payouts to start making insurers jumpy, and then we might have a rethink of the system.

This is very depressing, and not a good sign for all the young people who need support and therapy, not a load of hormones. What kind of person celebrates children not going through puberty? Bizzare.

CatherinaJTV
yes! What a relief! Now can we improve services and reduce wait times?!

Can somebody please explain to me why grown men are perfectly able to keep their dicks intact and we are supposed to view them as women, just because they say so - but young people (girls mostly) are being rushed into hormones and surgery as fast as possible because it's apparently the only way to resolve their distress.

Much love to Keira. This is a setback but not the end of the fight to protect children. And the case has done a lot to raise awareness.

Thanks mishy can you expand a bit as that hasn't really helped? What is 'internal mind' - do you think that has some relation to a physical body?

Does someone need to have e.g. no breasts to be a man? I can understand that 'external body presentation' might fit this box - but what if you have breasts but internally you are female - what about that internal feeling necessitates being a non-breasted person?

Are sex and gender not really that different? Is gender, broadly speaking, basically the concepts of masculinity and femininity? What have those got to do with bodies - we all know masculinity isn't a necessary nor sufficient condition to be physically male, and vice versa?

All of this seems to be increasingly 'gender conforming' - men are non-breasted people on testosterone, etc. Which suggests the concept of an internal gender unlinked to sexed bodies is false. This is where I don't understand.

@MonsignorMirth

Thanks mishy can you expand a bit as that hasn't really helped? What is 'internal mind' - do you think that has some relation to a physical body?

Does someone need to have e.g. no breasts to be a man? I can understand that 'external body presentation' might fit this box - but what if you have breasts but internally you are female - what about that internal feeling necessitates being a non-breasted person?

Are sex and gender not really that different? Is gender, broadly speaking, basically the concepts of masculinity and femininity? What have those got to do with bodies - we all know masculinity isn't a necessary nor sufficient condition to be physically male, and vice versa?

All of this seems to be increasingly 'gender conforming' - men are non-breasted people on testosterone, etc. Which suggests the concept of an internal gender unlinked to sexed bodies is false. This is where I don't understand.

Typo in my last post - "but what if you have breasts but internally you are fe male - what about that internal feeling necessitates being a non-breasted person?"

@MonsignorMirth

Can I genuinely ask the two posters celebrating and urging faster treatment what gender has to do with physical bodies? If gender is innate and entirely separate from sex, why does anyone need to change their body? I really struggle with this. The way people insist a trans person's body must be changed from 'male-looking' to 'female-looking' or vice versa implies there is something to do with biological sex that overlaps with gender. But what and how? How can people also claim that these are separate and different ones handed out at birth?

It doesn't make logical sense at all.

First, gender and sex are held to be completely separate so being a "woman" has no relation to being female.

However to be a "woman" you must change your body as much as possible so that you appear to be female and if you're not allowed to do this you will most likely commit suicide.

Female bodies have nothing to do with being a woman which is why those who claim to be women try and acquire a female body as far as it is possible to do so.

Nobody has ever attempted to resolve this paradox.

How can I do an FOI of the endocrinologists who the kids are being referred to? Does anyone know if they're part of the Tavistock or some other trust?

I want to know the reasons for children being rejected for puberty blockers. Because, I'd wager good money the reasons (if there are any) are all to do with physical health concerns, and not to do with any underlying reasons for their gender dysphoria or desire to transition.