Sunday Times Mum wins case to stop Gender GP

[Cismyfatarse]

Mother wins landmark court ruling to stop child having private trans treatment

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/20276262-7016-11ee-8275-e4bad3604bca?shareToken=590d845315b0d71da77c347639fb0da7

Hopefully the share token works and the mother knows the support she would get on here. Sending her a massive cheer and a hug.

Thank you for the share token link. Frustratingly written article, but it gets the issue out there. And time is of the essence for the impending High Court hearing.

Can anyone suggest some searchable words to find her gardening page? I'd like to read it in the mum's own words if poss.

@AutumnCrow I don't know what to type in but there's an article on this case in the mail which may help you
Mum's court fight with ex-husband over their child's gender switch https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12657457/Mums-court-fight-ex-husband-childs-gender-switch.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton

Search ‘ensure my child doesn’t medically transition’

What an utter fucking mess. Transgenderism as yet another way to weaponise children in divorce. If I can locate the crowdfunder, I will do a bit of gardening for this mum. I guess it's a tricky thing to publicise though, because of maintaining anonymity for the child.

Thanks @Hoardasurass and @GrownUpBeans - on it now.

Policy makers have to understand that is no such thing as a transexual child. Children might present as being confused about their sexuality, not liking their body, feeling they don't fit in (often because they have autism) and all these things need to be explored to understand what is going on. In some cases there will be a history of sexual abuse. I cannot think of any instance where it would be considered the correct thing to do, to give a child experimental puberty blockers & cross sex hormones which will render them sterile with no sexual function.....as for removing healthy breasts-have we learnt nothing from the history of foot binding or FGM? Well done this Mother.

Yes that worked - just did a bit of gardening

Why is everyone here so sure that the presumption of capacity of a 16 year old under Gillick doesn’t apply to this young person?

Of course there is every chance they are already Gillick competent - but in a few months the presumption is that they will be Gillick competent.

So on what basis do posters here conclude that this person is not or will not be Gillick competent?

Wasn't Gillick about contraception not about chopping off body parts?

The specific case was. The test on competence was not limited to contraception.

16 year olds are presumed to be competent to consent to medical treatment. So would be interested in the basis for posters who seem to think this presumption should not apply to this specific person.

Children can't consent to self harm. Going onto puberty blockers is the first step to a lifetime of harm, both physical and mental. Supporting them through natural puberty will in almost all cases mean that their gender confusion is resolved and they will be happy. The very few that still have those feelings can be explored when their brains are fully mature which is approx 25

This is unfinished business in that she was only granted an interim order pending the full hearing. Otherwise the full hearing would be stymied by the husband getting private gender treatment beforehand.
I know that Gillick is relevant in this case but the outcome is still important as the precedent will be set and could be applied to other younger children. Don't let the importance of that be derailed by Gillick.

Why are you so sure that teen breast removal surgery is the appropriate “medical treatment” for a girl who is psychologically distressed?

We know why that “teetus yeetus” person in America is so keen to promote beast amputation surgery for girls and young women. It’s because that’s how she’s funding her lifestyle.

But why is arguing against restrictions on teen breast removal surgery so important to you?

The child is 15, according to the article. Turns 16 next year. Have I read that right?

Some previous discussions.

https://www.mumsnet.com/search?query=+Gillick&date=all&topics[0]=Feminism%3A+Sex+%26+gender+discussions

My actual garden is past it for this year. This sort of gardening is a useful substitute, and far more important.

@PlanetJanette
Cosmetic surgery is banned for anyone under it is also illegal to sterilise anyone under 18 in the UK.
This is because we recognise that even with gillikic competency a child CAN NOT understand the life long consequences of such actions except in very rare circumstances such as cancer treatments which are lifesaving unlike cross sex hormones and puberty blockers (no they really aren't lifesaving no matter what the TRAs claim).
Add to the above that so called gender affirmative care has no medical or scientific basis behind it and you get the reason why it should be illegal in all under 18s especially as 80% grow out of it by just going through puberty, and therapy for the underlying issues increases that number whereas puberty blockers lock in the dysphoria

I thought this paragraph was good:
Her solicitor, Paul Conrathe of Sinclairslaw, said: “This case takes place against a backdrop of increasing concern about the safety and effectiveness of puberty blocking and cross-sex hormone treatment for gender-questioning children. The court has been sufficiently concerned to take the unusual step of making an interim order preventing my client’s child from being treated outside the NHS.”

Why is anyone so sure that a child can consent to treatment that will cause them permanent harm for no proven benefit? The standard of competence that should be required for an unproven treatment with dubious benefits and known harm is different to that for a treatment where the benefits are known and any potential harm massively outweighed by the benefits.

The brain continues to develop until age 25, that needs to be considered when assessing competence.

I dont know this woman or her child - but she's not trying to stop treatment for her child, simply to ensure that her child receives good treatment. I dont know her ex husband either but I do know that many ex-husbands will use a child as a weapon and not put the child's best interests first. So I'll do some gardening to support her.

I thought a qualifier for Gillick competency was that the child was fully informed about the choice they were making. Given how much general debate and recent medical trend away from "affirmative care" model e.g. Sweden and Norway, Cass review in the UK, it could be argued that no one is fully informed about the long term effects of medical transition through surgery. That the UK NHS is partway through the process of banning puberty blockers outside of research settings also seems to confirm that more medical study over and above the waving of coloured flags is required to better understand the science and outcomes of the medical chemical supression of and surgical interference with natural human development.
All of that undermines the fully informed qualifier of Gillick competence that's being assumed without question or critical thinking here.

This is going to be an important case given the experimental nature of "gender affirming medicine", the lack of data and the potential monumental negative impact these drugs have on brain and body development, fertility, sexual feelings in children.

But I look forward to trans activists sharing with us what is so appealing to them of allowing this level of medical experimentation on children & young people.

If you’ve included a link to a crowd funder catduckgoose, I think they get automatically hidden / deleted.

MrsOvertonsWindow · Today 11:51

But I look forward to trans activists sharing with us what is so appealing to them of allowing this level of medical experimentation on children & young people.

I'm sure that it will be a miserable collection of the usual dishonest propaganda tropes, including "literal genocide."

I can't be the only one to find it disturbing that a practice in Spain (or any other) country is legally allowed to prescribe drugs, after a short phone call, or email exchange.

Or for sufficient payment, @SinnerBoy .