Break it down for me Gillick Competence and Fraser Guidelines

[FemaleAndLearning]

Could we have a break it down for me style of thread on Gillick and Fraser? I see transactivists saying that because Starmer said in the interview with Mumsnet that he doesn't think children should be socially transitioned without consent of patents that this means he doesn't understand Gillick Competence or wants to get rid of it thus preventing under 16s accessing the contraceptive pill and abortions without their parents consent. But contraception seems to come under Fraser Guidelines not Gillick?

My understanding is that Gillick Competence is for medical procedures. The Cass Review cass.independent-review.uk/publications/interim-report/ says that social transitioning is not a neutral act and should occur under medical supervision (from memory). So is social transition a medical procedure? How does this relate to the Kiera Bell case where accusations of breaching Gillick Competence have also been made.

I found this by the NSPCC
learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system/gillick-competence-fraser-guidelines#article-top
But it doesn't give a lot of examples and given the case law around this would suggest this is not a clear cut piece of legislation.

It would be really useful to have a clear thread on this subject that can be referred to and used to back up discussions. Thank you.

I don't think social transition at school in general is covered by Gillick as it isn't a medical procedure.

Gillick isn't only used for medical decisions. It is also used to assess a child's competence to make general decisions about their lives. Although that still doesn't mean that it would be appropriate for teachers to be carrying out such assessments on children in relation to social transition. I would not think they are trained or competent to make such assessments.

Isn't the "without parental consent" also deeply problematic given how many parents of teens have totally swallowed the ideology and in some cases actively push an agenda that promotes transition as a form of homophobia?

Hence in an ideal world (or even a semi functional one) you need institutions to operate on evidence bases not ideology and trends in what is considered 'politically correct' or expedient (for want of a better term - politically correct is a problematic one I acknowledge).

There is a trans riot if sorts on this thread but I can't vouch for how accurate it is. It says 'consent to parents' not from.

twitter.com/WhatTheTrans/status/1587452628912508935?t=Pmfd7G6sC9olr71-S0XXpQ&s=19
I'll keep looking!

Wow that was a funny auto correct not trans riot should say transcript!

It was this type of questioning that made me want to know more about Gillick Competence.

Judgement in the Gilick case was related to medical intervention that was deemed to be in the best interest of the child to prevent an alternative that would otherwise have caused much greater harm. The Fraser ruling clarified the judgement.

It has since been used as a presumption that under 16 can be deemed to be mature enough to make decisions without parental involvement.. it is questionable as to whether these assumptions are valid in the absence of a medical intervention which prevents a greater harm.

If a minor is deemed Gillick competant... it shouldn't automatically follow that it gives them the right to consent to all and anything..... the age of consent to have a tatoo for example, is 18, with or without parental consent. The rest of the tests should also be applied... does it prevent a greater harm from happening.

At around 13:45 you can add captions (auto-generated) bad screenshot below.

Great autocorrect there.

ChateauM - obviously the ideologues will claim imminent suicide based on that much overused tiny study that they base all claims of anything other than immediate, unquestioning affirmation and whatever medical interventions they want being akin to sentencing a gender questioning child to death.

I guess activists will claim that the alternative to not giving affirmative care is suicide which is the worst outcome and will cause the most harm so better give the children the drugs.

Why the deep fried fuck is Owen Jones making this about him?

When he came out as 'queer' to his parents, did that involve getting a referral to a clinic, did it involve changing his name or anything about himself, did it involve going down a pathway of taking powerful drugs that would halt his perfectly normally developing puberty and mess with his endocrine and reproductive system, did it involve him eventually chopping off parts of his body, becoming sterile, sexually dysfunctional?

If the answer is 'no', then he needs to pipe down.

Lumping gay and trans people together as one 'queer' homogenous group is ridiculous at the best of times, but when you are talking about the developing bodies of children, it's downright dangerous.

Oh, but at the same time no one must dare claim that being trans is any sort of mental health issue...it's no different to being gay yanno.

Yes they basically believe that it means there is a risk to access to contraception for under age girls.

A better analogy would be so we believe children are allowed to self harm or starve themselves?

It gets clouded because it's "medical" treatment. But the end game is self harm.

Another analogy would be taking anti depressants at a young age which could potentially impact brain. But they won't admit it's a mental health issue.

You can't really find a good analogy though. It must be analysed based on evidence; which is sketchy.

Michael Biggs did a good potted history which shows how flakey evidence is.

www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2121238?needAccess=true

A better analogy would be so we believe children are allowed to self harm or starve themselves?

I was just watching a KJK interview with Meghan Murphy where their analogy was giving children crack cocaine on demand, because they're threatening to kill themselves if they don't get it, and most societal institutions are saying "why won't you let them have the cocaine!?"

We really think there's basically no evidence that this treatment helps long-term. Certainly not for the vast majority of children potentially going down this path for whom "gender" is clearly a proxy for other issues. And I'd say the harms are worse than cocaine.

Cass and future evidence may show that it leads to greater likelihood of medical interventions.

In which case it could be seen as needing specific safeguarding guidance.

It is self harm.

I have a friend for whom electric shock therapy has been lifesaving as an absolute last resort, but it's rare. She lost huge amounts of memory as a result. She was an adult.

I see medical transition as a similar intervention and social is the clear first step. But ECT isn't celebrated in pride.

Lib Dems: Labour join the Tories in taking away young people's rights.....

www.libdemvoice.org/labour-join-the-tories-in-trying-to-remove-young-peoples-rights-71845.html

Yes, there's something like this happening in Scotland. Not sure if it's law or just guidelines, but schools are encouraged to affirm a pupils gender identity but don't have to inform the parents. I hate this beacuse I would really hope someone would tell me if my DCs were struggling at school for whatever reason.

Here's a link. Not the best but will point you in the right direction if you're interested

www.newsweek.com/kids-young-four-can-now-change-gender-scotland-schools-without-parental-consent-1618942

Stopping children taking a paracetamol! My children are 12 and 14 and damn right they have to ask me for medication even 'just' a paracetamol!
Hard to to take the author seriously when they are referred to as a they.

Happening in Wales too, teachers changing names and using wrong sex pronouns without informing parents.
safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2021/08/22/advice-for-parents-on-social-transitioning-by-schools/

On desktop it is easier to screenshot (or copy and paste) the transcription if you open it in the sidebar. The timestamps can be turned off in the sidebar transcription or left in.

The transcription and captions are automatically generated for this video (they can be replaced by uploading a transcription file alongside the video file).

That the transcription and captions are autogenerated can be seen from the various attempts to interpret "Cass Review", eg. "cast review".

IMHO there is not much point mulling over what Starmer meant by "to parents" when he was speaking off the cuff in response to a question rather than from a script or in rehearsed dialogue.

Natural, conversational speech is very messy especially when someone is under pressure and anxious, as Starmer clearly was.

When people attempt to "speak as they write" outside of formal contexts it sounds robotic, pre-programmed and insincere. (This can create problems for people who are not neurotypical or who have a speech/language/communication problem and can also be a diagnostic indicator of schizophrenia.)

Starmer could have snapped into "Party Leader" mode with a stalling-reply that regurgitated a Party Line, eg. "We will be preparing a response to the final report when it is published. Until then, it does not see wise to second-guess what it might say".

Instead, he stayed in "cosy, fireside chat mode" as best he could and burbled a bit around the edges.

(That interview set-up was pretty dire BTW! Justine perched on a dining chair across from Starmer and Phillipson lower down on the sofa. She looked like she was going to read them the riot act for flicking fag ash on the new carpet!)

Copy and paste of transcript:

12:16
um here's a question from
12:19
suspanzara and she says
12:22
um lots of women including me have been
12:24
told that we are bigots because we've
12:26
repeatedly raised concerns about child
12:28
safeguarding in the context of gender
12:31
identity services but the cast reviews
12:33
interim report showed that we were right
12:35
to be concerned particularly with
12:37
reference to the lack of evidence around
12:39
the long-term consequences of puberty
12:41
blockers can I please ask if you've read
12:44
the report and how you would be guided
12:46
by its recommendations to provide better
12:48
safeguards for children no I don't think
12:51
we should
12:52
um refer to people in those terms for
12:53
wanting to have a discussion about what
12:55
is a very very sensitive issue this is
12:58
about children's well-being it's often
13:00
about the mental health and I do think
13:02
you know the department for Education
13:04
have been looking at some of these
13:05
issues particularly where it relates to
13:06
schools we're still waiting for guidance
13:09
to come forward and what I hear a lot at
13:11
the time particularly from her teachers
13:12
is that they are trying to navigate this
13:15
area they're trying to do what's best by
13:16
the children that they're responsible
13:18
for they want to make sure that children
13:19
are properly supported it's you know it
13:22
can be a difficult time and the absence
13:23
of that guidance does make it harder I
13:26
think for for schools and for school
13:28
leaders to try and do what's right for
13:30
children making sure they've got the
13:31
support that they need I think that is
13:32
really important and you've read the
13:34
cash report both of you you can't you
13:36
know what I'm talking about when I talk
13:38
about the cast review I do and I feel
13:40
very strongly about
13:41
um that children shouldn't be making
13:43
these very important decisions without
13:46
consent to their parents
13:48
um I say that as a matter of principle I
13:50
say as a parent we all know what it's
13:53
like you know with teenage children and
13:56
I feel very strongly about this that
13:59
um you know we this argument that
14:02
children make decisions without the
14:03
parents is one I just don't agree with
14:05
at all okay and user lost the pot says
14:09
I'm not anti-trans and I believe that
14:11
people should be able to live their
14:13
lives in whichever gender they feel most
14:15
comfortable but I am pro-women's rights
14:18
and I believe in sex segregation in
14:20
certain circumstances toilets hospitals
14:22
changing rooms Sports Etc how will you
14:26
uphold the right to have single sex
14:28
spaces while simultaneously proposing
14:31
legislation that will allow any male
14:33
human to gain legal recognition as
14:36
female through statutory declaration I'm
14:39
a big believer in safe spaces when we
14:42
first did our mom's net interview I was
14:44
director of public prosecutions and I
14:46
spent five years working hard on issues
14:49
involving women who had been subjected
14:51
to and girls subjected to sexual
14:54
violence and feel very very strongly
14:56
that there should be safe spaces as
14:59
provided for under the equalities Act
15:01
passed by a labor government
15:03
um and you know and let's be clear for
15:05
99.9 whatever percent of women it's all
15:09
a matter of biology and we all
15:11
understand that lab parties championing
15:13
championed women's rights for a very
15:14
very long time uh if you look at all the
15:17
changes in the law that have brought us
15:19
greater equality they've got the labor
15:21
party stamped all over them and that is
15:23
not only our past it's our future
15:26
um obviously you know there are some
15:28
people
15:29
um who don't identify with the gender
15:32
they're born into I'm not going to just
15:33
disrespect them and pretend they don't
15:35
um exist and that's why we need to
15:37
modernize the legislation that we've got
15:39
but that can be done respecting you know
15:42
safe spaces
15:44
Etc which are very very important that
15:45
could be done at the same time as
15:46
championing women's rights and we
15:49
absolutely need that now if you look at
15:51
I mean
15:52
the government's crashed the economy and
15:54
guess what women are disproportionately
15:57
impacted so we need a labor government
15:59
coming in not only to talk about what we

ETC.

So, IMHO, caution needs to be exercised by too literal a reading of an automated transcript of natural, conversational speech. Occasional grammatical errors are to be expected. What this does suggest though is that Starmer is not on top of this subject at all and was winging it 🙄

I do and I feel
13:40
very strongly about
13:41
um that children shouldn't be making
13:43
these very important decisions without
13:46
consent to their parents
13:48
um I say that as a matter of principle I
13:50
say as a parent we all know what it's
13:53
like you know with teenage children and
13:56
I feel very strongly about this that
13:59
um you know we this argument that
14:02
children make decisions without the
14:03
parents is one I just don't agree with
14:05
at all okay

Thanks for that and the tips on how to better use this feature in you tube.

Thanks for that Bosky. Yeah I felt he was winging it which is bizarre given it was bound to be an important issue with lots of MN'ers likely to ask about it.

I didn't find what he said clear one way or another about children or about women's safe spaces so was a bit surprised the ideologists read it the way did it because I didn't hear anything conclusive at all really - as you say or imply he just waffled around the issue and I took him as saying the parents should be involved in the decision and nothing stronger than that really.

Reality anyway is that in most cases parents are consenting to this. It's not enough imo to say it should be up to the parents when the parents could be driven by eg. homophobia or a form of munchausen by proxy (excuse spelling).