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. 💚🤍💜

@MonsignorMirth

That’s a fair question and id say that not everyone who is transgender will want to change their bodies and of course that’s ok!

These are highly personal and individual decisions. To answer your question, Gender identity is different from gender expression. How we present ourselves to the world is totally down to an individual.

Thanks, and I hate to bang on but that doesn't answer my question at all! How do you define gender identity? What does it have to do with a biological sexed body?

Gender identity refers to our sense of who we are and how we see and describe ourselves. For some, this can cause distress when sex doesn’t match up. and that’s gender dysphoria. No one should be told they have to be a certain way or look a certain way. But if they want to, then that’s down to them and being on something that stops that distress I’m all for.

@QuimReaper

Disgusted women on testosterone are advised to have a hysterectomy after five years because of risk of vaginal atrophy. Buck Angel has talked very publicly about being hospitalised due to not receiving that memo.

Hysterectomy wouldn't prevent vaginal atrophy. Vaginal atrophy is caused by reduced oestrogen.

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

If the important thing is for mind and body to "match", why is changing the body the only valid option? Why isn't it equally valid to change the mind so that it is congruent with the body?

What scientific evidence is there for the idea that everyone has a 'gender identity'?
I mean where is it located? why do some (most) people self identify as not having one? why has it never been mentioned in history if its a real thing that we all have? I mean the Greek philosophers never mentioned it in any way? or anyone else? Christian philosophers? anyone?

@ditalini

If I were a paediatric endocrinologist I might be considering whether it really was worth the financial and reputational risk. Doesn't look like GIDS are going to be slow in passing the legal buck when it lands.

Yes. So who is going to be sued by this? The NHS? Or individual doctors, will they be held responsible?

@NutellaEllaElla

It really seems an own goal when the TRAs shout all over social media for women to suck their dicks. Then they have the audacity to call us literally violent 🙄

and in the same breath advocating for young boys to have their dicks removed.

Are their diognosic tests for peoples 'gender identity'? Medical evidence that is standardised that describes it?

@Awiltu

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

If the important thing is for mind and body to "match", why is changing the body the only valid option? Why isn't it equally valid to change the mind so that it is congruent with the body?

Quite.

This is the second judgement that clearly acknowledged harm may be done by these policies and that the right way to address these harms is to sue for damages.

The problem with this approach is that damages (ie money) cannot restore fertility or stich the removed breasts back on.

So so often we see on MN - when an OP has reached the end of their tether with an 18 year old - posters asserting that he 18 yo is still a child, that their brains aren't fully developed until age 25. There's a debate about whether prominent people, now adults, should be held to account for things they posted on SM when they were 14. Most of us would look back and cringe at some of the things we did when were teenagers, because at that time we couldn't think far ahead.

To me, Gillick competence re contraception is not in the same ball park as delaying or stopping puberty. The first is reversible, stop taking the pill and you're fertile again. The results of puberty blockers is permanent, as Keira knows all too well.

Gender identity is the idea that all of this rests on, and unless someone can tell me otherwise, there is nothing. Nothing, not one jot of independent evidence that it exists at all?

@QuimReaper

Disgusted women on testosterone are advised to have a hysterectomy after five years because of risk of vaginal atrophy. Buck Angel has talked very publicly about being hospitalised due to not receiving that memo.

They aren't; this is outdated advice and in fact these days GICs prefer not to refer for hysterectomy at all, and certainly not for this reason as having a hysterectomy doesn't prevent vaginal atrophy. Vaginal atrophy is a non-serious condition that is easily treated with topical oestrogen - it's exactly the same problem, and exactly the same treatment, post-menopausal women get.

Buck Angel needed a hysterectomy due to an infection in his womb - this is completely different from vaginal atrophy and it's unknown if taking testosterone even caused his condition.

The doctor's employer will be sued with compensation coming from an insurance policy. They will need to ensure that their policies for getting informed consent are robust and that staff follow them.

The important bit will be ensuring that this is all evidenced. There was a very interesting thread from a lawyer who acts for the NHS in such cases and she was clear that where there is no written evidence, it is assumed that none was gathered.

@shesellsseacats

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.

FOIs do not entitle you to access to children's medical records.

@RedDogsBeg

You think a child being legally allowed to make medical decisions about their own body if deemed competent to do so

You'd be happy for a child to take adult doses of prescription medication or over the counter medication then, after all if they are deemed medically competent of the risks associated with that why worry if they take a fatal amount.

I assume what you're trying to say here is that the actual treatments used to delay puberty themselves aren't medically safe for children in the doses given (because otherwise you seem to think that I'd equate being given an appropriate dose of medication with awareness of the side effects is the same as being given a huge overdose of a medication with an awareness of the side effects, which... is.. not the same thing and obviously I wouldn't be 'happy' about that).

Given that puberty blockers are already used in children experiencing early onset puberty to delay it, I would assume they're safe in the appropriate dose, and I make no claim whatsoever to know more than endocrinologists on this. I don't know why you are, to be honest.

And if the dose is (as one would hope) appropriate for blocking puberty (as these drugs are already used for, so we would assume so), then yes, I am happy for a child who has demonstrated the required level of competence to take them, yeah.

I am confused by the judgement in its lack of reference to Keira.

If everything's lovely and fine and no problem, why was Keira so drastically failed and left with irreversible lifetime challenges? What happens when later an adult says as Keira has, "what did you do to me? Why didn't you protect me when I was in distress and confused and this felt like a good idea?"

All the judgement seems to have is - go sue your doctor.

@BlueberryCheezecake you seem to really know what you are talking about. Please can you give me all the information on 'gender identities' that makes you so sure you are right?
It would clear up so much no?

Not to mention, as with the policies and practices that negatively affect female people, a kind of expectation that there will be some collateral damage of harmed people in the name of achieving this political end, but oh well.

Gender identity refers to our sense of who we are and how we see and describe ourselves. For some, this can cause distress when sex doesn’t match up. and that’s gender dysphoria. No one should be told they have to be a certain way or look a certain way. But if they want to, then that’s down to them and being on something that stops that distress I’m all for.

Well, sure, but the issue isn't so much in people feeling/dressing/looking a certain way. It's in those people demanding everyone else act as though they also view them that way, whether they do or not.

If I decide that I feel 20 years younger than I am, that's one thing. I can dress in whatever the cool kids wear these days, give up my bad 90s pop for the latest big thing on Apple Music, and act as though my prefrontal cortex isn't quite there yet, and as long as I'm not harming anyone else I should be left alone to be my bad self. But regardless of all that, I would have absolutely no right to insist that other people see me as anything but a middle-aged woman playing dress-up.

An external identity is not something that is stipulated by the individual and imposed upon the collective consciousness of the world. Your external identity is largely out of your control and will be different things to different people. Some people will think "Oh wow. look at that middle-aged woman being exactly who she wants to be - good for her!" and others will think "look at that idiot trying to pretend she's still young, what a tool!" - and regardless, none of them will actually believe that I am a "real" young person. Any attempt on my part to make them believe that would be narcissistic in the extreme. And any attempt on my part to try and make them say it even though they don't believe it - to speak lies to placate me - would be narcissistic and sociopathic.

Its not bad faith posting at all

That poster has never seen evidence that gender exists

If youve got the actual evidence that would be awesome

Vaginal atrophy is a non-serious condition that is easily treated with topical oestrogen - it's exactly the same problem, and exactly the same treatment, post-menopausal women get.

If you can't see the inherent horror in knowingly, wilfully and needlessly placing very young women - still teenagers, in some cases - into a post-menopausal state 20-35 years early, then I can't help you.

Only someone who hasn't experienced it would call vaginal atrophy "non-serious". Or someone who doesn't give two shits about women having an enjoyable sex life.

@Feedingthebirds1

This is the second judgement that clearly acknowledged harm may be done by these policies and that the right way to address these harms is to sue for damages.

The problem with this approach is that damages (ie money) cannot restore fertility or stich the removed breasts back on.

So so often we see on MN - when an OP has reached the end of their tether with an 18 year old - posters asserting that he 18 yo is still a child, that their brains aren't fully developed until age 25. There's a debate about whether prominent people, now adults, should be held to account for things they posted on SM when they were 14. Most of us would look back and cringe at some of the things we did when were teenagers, because at that time we couldn't think far ahead.

To me, Gillick competence re contraception is not in the same ball park as delaying or stopping puberty. The first is reversible, stop taking the pill and you're fertile again. The results of puberty blockers is permanent, as Keira knows all too well.

To me, Gillick competence re contraception is not in the same ball park as delaying or stopping puberty. The first is reversible, stop taking the pill and you're fertile again. The results of puberty blockers is permanent, as Keira knows all too well.

Well, the court disagrees with you. As I posted earlier:

"[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."

And they have a good legal ground to do so: asserting that consent to particular types of treatment is possible, based off whether people think it is palatable or morally right or controversial to provide it, is a slippery slope. Again, this assumes the treatments are safe (and that is a separate matter to the legal ruling today). But assuming they are, it would be a very dangerous opening to say that based on some people's assertion that the treatments are wrong or bad, that individuals cannot then consent to them in the same way they could other treatments. That's how you end up with a legal precedent that allows for e.g. stricter abortion laws.

sounds* like an anti-abortionist threatening doctors performing this integral part of health care.

* to me.

What you're missing here is that the NICE review has concluded that there is no evidence that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones alleviate distress associated with gender dysphoria and given the severe and life-changing effects of these treatments these are therefore now officially no longer considered effective treatments.

Put yourself in the shoes of an endocrinologist. Now you're hearing the Tavistock say it's not their responsibility but the endocrinologist's. If I was an endocrinologist, I would now disengage from this particular part of my discipline.

That's because the clinic who sends me these patients takes no responsibility for properly assessing them (and an endocrinologist is not really in a position to decide whether a child diagnosed with gender dysphoria has undergone all necessary psychological assessments to confirm this is a suitable treatment for them.) So I'm entirel dependent on the clinic sending me only suitable patients. But the clinic now says, well, if you decide to prescribe to this child it's wholly your responsibility. So I need to have diagnostic criteria to assess the child. But I have none (there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the child's endocrine system after all and psychology is not the field I practice in).

The official body says the treatment risks damage without having the required efficacy. The referring clinic says you take the fall if they send you the wrong patient.

What would you do?

Buck Angel needed a hysterectomy due to an infection in his womb - this is completely different from vaginal atrophy and it's unknown if taking testosterone even caused his condition.

Actually vaginal atrophy can be very serious if it isn't treated. In one of Buck Angel's YouTube videos he says that he was hospitalised with an infection due to vaginal atrophy. Buck Angel says he was never advised of the importance of oestrogen to their biologically female reproductive system. This is why BuckA is adamant about the fact that they are female and the importance of talking about the issues that arise when females take testosterone and hormone blockers.