Judicial review into adult GIDs

[WarriorN]

Two attempts to post on this were deleted with a more detailed title into what it actually is: the launching of a judicial review against adult GIDS.

I only posted the title and the text of the tweet.

So posting the link to the tweet.

He also has a piece in the times - sorry I can't access.

Wow.

Thanks for perstisting with the share, OP. This seems very significant.

Depressingly I think you're right FannyCann It also highlights why trans activist groups have been so desperate to "train" the judiciary in rightthink and rightspeech - and so determined that the public never find out any details. Maya Forstater campaigned to discover the details after a judge staggeringly pronounced that the belief of knowing that there are 2 sexes was "not worthy of respect in a democratic society"

https://thecritic.co.uk/who-judges-the-judges/

We knew Maya's judgement was important at the time but I still find it hard to get my head around how far the rot has gone and just how important that judgement was.

Copying this post here from the other thread as it's relevant

The medical school in Ritchie's area, Newcastle university medical school, signed this:

This GLADD medical schools charter is attempting to put an all-out ban on discussing any factors that could be behind gender confusion with patients, even though that is contrary to the law. Even if this charter is not legally binding, it is still making doctors (and future doctors) think that patients with 'gender identity' can only be affirmed. This will endanger patient care at a time when we need to be reversing these procedures in the NHS, not bringing new doctors into it with the absolute wrong approach to it.

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/32-medical-schools-in-the-uk-have

Hopefully this will allow some of the appalling practices happening to these children to be aired in court. My concern is that if this vulnerable 21 year old is deemed to be "legally competent" to decide on this brutal surgery, many trans activists who see children as mini adults (as evidenced regularly on this board) will extrapolate any ruling to apply to the youngest of children.

And will push the concept that if a child can be "legally competent" to consent to radical surgery, then they are equally competent to consent to sexual relationships.

A rather sobering post.

I very much doubt that the adult service are gong to be able to properly help these children (yes adult, but only just). The adult service will deal in the main with, as you say, a different cohort of patients with very different reasons for wanting to transition.

They'll also be able to say well they've been on a waiting list for years (without actually seeing anyone or discussing anything) so that's the watchful waiting done now let's get you onto the drugs and surgery.

I mean the straight answer for the above is because us women can't be trusted not to change our minds!

It's the same with wanting a hysterectomy. A thousand and one reasons will be given for why they can't do that on a woman still with many child bearing years ahead of her.

So how they get from that to "so you're 16, want all your reproductive system and your breasts cut off because you feel like a boy? Yeah OK. Does next Tuesday work for you? "

Do they not see what they are doing? So blinded by the 'non science' totally unethical rubbish they've been fed by lobby groups?.

I can understand something like an accountancy firm falling for the lies, but medical professionals who not only are supposed to be highly educated and intelligent but swore to do no harm! That makes no bloody sense

Interesting choice to go for another judicial review. The ultimate conclusion in the Bell vs Tavistock case suggested that judicial review was perhaps not the right approach and that individuals were perhaps going to have to sue for damages/negligence.

Perhaps though, despite not winning the appeal, the Bell case is still considered a success because of what has been achieved because of the first judgment.

At some point, there will be a wave of negligence claims and it sounds like Ritchie’s surgical outcome is so poor that it seems unlikely it was made clear to him just how bad it could be, or how likely it was that the outcome would be so awful.

I think a lot of issue is with the language surrounding it. If you tell someone you're creating a vagina rather than a pseudo-vagina which is more akin to an open wound you shouldn't be surprised when they're suprised by its lack of function. By being delicate and whimsical around these surgeries like calling a mastectomy top surgery or refering to amputating a penis as bottom surgery, it belies the seriousness of the procedure and its irreversability.
Its like if you repeat TWAW or TMAM you can't be surprised when people actually believe it and think that they can become the opposite sex.

They're serious surgical procedures and should only be used in the most serious of cases.
100 hours of therapy sounds like more than enough time to contemplate such a procedure but if the therapy was only affirming Ritchie it seems a bit pointless.

I hope TRA's aren't as cruel to Ritchie as they were to Keira Bell, the fact that Ritchie is a man probably means they won't be as unkind

And will push the concept that if a child can be "legally competent" to consent to radical surgery, then they are equally competent to consent to sexual relationships.

Quite

Maybe this is the only way they can legally get somewhere?

Trying to sue the NHS for negligence is incredibly difficult. Once you've signed the piece of paper saying you agree to surgery and you understand the risks that they've explained to you (I know personally my surgeon hasn't explained it all to me before he fucked up despite the signed paperwork) then you've got literally no chance of taking them to court the usual route.

With Ritchie he did have a lot of counselling. 100 plus sessions over five years. He booked surgery more than once and backed out. Only proceeding when they threatened to cut off his support. A decent medical professional should have, over all that time, realised that cutting his penis off wasn't going to make things better for him.

And if that can happen to an adult with lots of therapy and time then doing the same to a teenager with hardly any therapy has to be negligence

I get the impression from his tweet that it's a governmental procedural thing.

They've served people with papers who he then says appear to welcome it.

Well yes, I agree it’s negligence, but if it is negligence, then a judicial review might not be the right approach. Judicial review looks at their general policies and there has to be a high bar to say that their policies are actually illegal, which is why Keira Bell’s case was unacceptable. From memory, the judge more or less hinted GIDS doctors were playing fast and loose with Gillick competence, but it was up to the doctors to ensure they applied them properly and their policy of using Gillick competence wasn’t illegal in itself.

I am aware the NHS get you to sign a consent form, but as I understand it, at least part of Ritchie’s argument is that he wasn’t in a reasonable state of mind to understand the consequences fully.

I think I read that some of the same lawyers are involved as in Keira’s case though, so hopefully they have learned from their previous loss and can build a good case. It’s not just Ritchie, of course. There’s the other boy, whose father hopes to prevent his son ending up where Ritchie is now.

I get the impression from Ritchie's twitter that he is also suing for negligence.

It's all very difficult. For a start, there is a legal limit on negligence claims - you have to do it within three years of the negligence taking place, or within three years of the point at which you became aware of the negligence. Ritchie is way beyond that initial three years, as will also be the case for a lot of de-transitioners.

Second, as boiled says, if you've agreed to the procedure and signed the bit of paper, and they've done what they said they were going to do, then how do you prove negligence?

To my mind, the problem is not that the surgeon performed the surgery wrongly or negligently, but that that kind of surgery should never be performed on a young, mentally vulnerable person. Perhaps it shouldn't be performed at all, or just in very rare cases. Who, apart from someone with mental health problems, is going to ask for their genitals to be removed? So I can see why judicial review makes sense. But I'm not sure what the chances of success are, or whether an unsuccessful outcome might block off other avenues of legal redress.

From what he's discussed on twitter and in webinars etc before he's keen that the pathways are changed. That rigour is applied in terms of suggesting alternative reasons for these feelings.

And yes that he wasn't in sound mind; it was all part of his ocd to be obsessed with being in the wrong body. Suggested to him by the internet.

But also that therapy is therapy and not a highway to surgery, which is what it was under the processes he experienced.

He doesn't want others to experience what he did.

tullipr.substack.com/p/how-i-got-here-trans-ocd-and-internet

This is a good description of how he now sees ocd and GD intertwining

And this one as linked upthread, describe the missed opportunities to gatekeep. The main one was "therapy is stopping unless you transition."

open.substack.com/pub/tullipr/p/scrambled-eggs?utmcampaign=post&utmm_medium=web

This came up in Hannah Barnes' book didn't it? The situation in Ireland where all their "trans kids" were being shipped off to the Tavi. And once they hit 18 they were referred back to the the adult service in Ireland. But the endocrinologists running the clinic noticed that all the young people being referred back had not been properly assessed and were not considered remotely suitable for hormones due to the complexity of the cases. These Endocrinologists had been running an adult clinic for years so it wasn't like they didn't know what they were talking about.

How interesting that our resident monitors are all over other trending threads related to this topic but are steadfastly ignoring the two about detransitioners.

Weird, that

Cos they don't exist innit. These two threads are just a figment of your imagination!

This is what GTQ+ has always been about.

Yes, as evidenced by this thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/4796258-where-did-pie-go-who-and-unesco-new-guidance-has-routes-in-queer-theory-sex-positivity-and-believes-children-are-sexual-from-birth?utmmcampaign=thread&utmmedium=share

This may work better

Where did PIE go? WHO and UNESCO new guidance has routes in Queer Theory, Sex Positivity and believes children are "sexual from birth" www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4796258-where-did-pie-go-who-and-unesco-new-guidance-has-routes-in-queer-theory-sex-positivity-and-believes-children-are-sexual-from-birth