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.

Second, as boiledsays, 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?

A patient is entitled to expect a reasonable level of competence and there is the chain of trust in that you expect a Dr to only recommend a course of action if it is the best treatment for your condition. The surgery is inherently intricate and complicated so the standard of competence is set accordingly, and the general standards and pathways of overall GD treatment are likely based on WPATH, so useless and basically set deliberately low so that in the litigious USA, it would be difficult to sue, especially as an adult patient. That is why, so far as I can tell, claimants have to rely on the "i was too young/unwell to make this decision" route.

miri1985 I completely agree where you say:
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

This is exactly what the NHS web information about gender dysphoria does. It’s awful. I hope that the Cass report and this judicial review team will pick up on that.
The NHS uses the same everyday language that describes our naturally-occurring human genitalia to describe the results of surgery, which is impossible. This deceitful language has been on their webpage for years which is also shocking. It is actual real transphobia to intentionally mislead patients like this:

‘Surgery for trans men
Common chest procedures for trans men (trans-masculine people) include:

• removal of both breasts (bilateral mastectomy) and associated chest reconstruction
• nipple repositioning
• dermal implant and tattoo

Gender surgery for trans men includes:

• construction of a penis (phalloplasty or metoidioplasty)
• construction of a scrotum (scrotoplasty) and testicular implants
• a penile implant

Removal of the womb (hysterectomy) and the ovaries and fallopian tubes (salpingo-oophorectomy) may also be considered.

Surgery for trans women
Gender surgery for trans women includes:

• removal of the testes (orchidectomy)
• removal of the penis (penectomy)
• construction of a vagina (vaginoplasty)
• construction of a vulva (vulvoplasty)
• construction of a clitoris (clitoroplasty)

Breast implants for trans women (trans-feminine people) are not routinely available on the NHS. Facial feminisation surgery and hair transplants are not routinely available on the NHS. As with all surgical procedures there can be complications. Your surgeon should discuss the risks and limitations of surgery with you before you consent to the procedure.’

From: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

Why doesn’t this NHS information discuss ‘the limitations of the procedures’ itself here? When the ‘limitations’ are so profound as to make the words used actually dishonest. You can’t ever surgically make a penis, scrotum, vagina, vulva or clitoris. It’s never been possible to do that. These things are functioning human organs.

It’s a complete failure of accuracy and honesty.
It shouldn’t be left, as it suggests here, to an NHS surgeon to unpick misconceptions that may have been placed in a patient’s mind by trusted NHS web information that could cause the patient to believe that actual new sex organs could possibly be created by having surgery.

Misleading patients demeans them, creates added health risks to them, wastes precious NHS resources and breaks everyone’s trust in the NHS.

These same NHS information webpages also explicitly lump together ‘teenagers’ with ‘adults’ when discussing signs of gender dysphoria.
It is totally inappropriate given the different life situations and maturity levels and social pressures on say, a 13 year old girl or boy compared to an adult father seeking to transition in mid life, for the NHS to fail to acknowledge that difference: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/symptoms/

rogdmum I’m so sorry to hear that, it’s appalling that you’ve both been let down so badly. I just hope that professional practice will change soon. But obviously that isn’t of much help for patients needing appropriate support right now and not getting it.

I think it's very telling that the vast majority of "trans" individuals who are encouraged to have surgery are children/ very young.

The fully adult (often middle-aged) men who "transition" rarely have anything as radical and irreversible as that. They wear a frock, grow their hair, put on a bit of lippy and adopt a head tilt. At most they may take oestrogen to grow a pair of breasts because they like them.

And isn't it strange that there hasn't been a tsunami of F-to-M mid-life transitioners the way there has been M-to-F?

Castrating children is child abuse and a lot of the motives behind it are much more sinister than money

Yes, the fact that most surgeries are on the young whilst middle aged male transitioners don't bother should really give pause for reflection on whether this is a good thing to do.

I had a quick google on 'lobotomies, consent' and it seems those having a lobotomy had to give some form of consent (either themselves or their next of kin). I don't think if you give 'consent' then that absolves the medical profession from all responsibility, particularly for young people.

If a doctor tells you something is necessary, most people believe them. If you also have charities saying you'll die if you don't have the surgery, and enormous social pressure to transition, and only affirmative 'therapy', that creates an environment where the pressure is all one way. Which is very much what seems to have happened with Ritchie.

yes effectively 100 sessions to sell you on the idea that this will fix your problems

Meanwhile, people with other serious mental health problems are lucky if they get a course of 10 sessions.

Sorry for the diversion, but what’s the problem with marriage equality? Is there a flaw in the UK legislation? I support the concept 100%.

Re the fast tracking of teens from Tavi to adult service - that's in the Hannah Barnes book too, as a PP said, it was only the endocrinologists in Ireland who actually paid any attention to the lack of assessment. There is a deliberate fast track 'assessment' at the Tavistock Gids for older teens which moves them straight over to adult services - I think it's just one appointment. Adult services assumes that a proper assessment has been done and it's all go from there.

The Baroness tweeted that same sex marriage had “degraded the status of women and girls” suggesting that it had lead to the situation we currently find ourselves in.

God knows what she meant by that. I’m guessing that she sees it as the thin end of an increasingly demanding wedge. I can’t quite see the connection myself though.

Is that your view?

😂🤣

Ah, ok, thank you. I think this is the one of the points at which my views and those of the good Baroness diverge. i suspect many of her views are influenced by her faith’s teaching about “holy matrimony”.

While she is far more socially conservative than me, I do respect her for her trying to engage in civil debate with those who oppose her.

rogdmum · Yesterday 07:46
This is very much needed. The adult pathway, which begins at 17, is full on affirmation onto the medical pipeline. With “time served” on the Tavi waiting list applied to the adult waiting time, many younger adults are being seen much more quickly than the headline 3-4 year waiting list would indicate.

I also find it absolutely chilling that the father of the other young man was threatened with his son being taken into care when he tried to block him from going on puberty blockers at 16. This cult-like social services threatening environment needs to stop.

In the “What is a Woman” film by Matt Walsh, he peaks to a father in Canada who has been imprisoned for trying to prevent his daughter from receiving x sex hormone treatment.

In the “What is a Woman” film by Matt Walsh, he peaks to a father in Canada who has been imprisoned for trying to prevent his daughter from receiving x sex hormone treatment.

Worse still, his 13 year old daughter.