Parents of transgender teenager lose bid to stop mastectomy

[IwantToRetire]

The parents of a non-binary 17-year-old have failed in their bid to prevent the teenager from having breast removal surgery after they were accused of believing that LGBTQ+ people were “evil and satanic”.

The parents had asked the High Court in London for an injunction banning their child from having a mastectomy.

They also sought to have the teenager made subject of a psychiatric report, claiming their child’s sexual preferences were symptoms of a mental illness.

But a High Court judge has refused to grant the injunction saying that while their child was only 17, they would turn 18 within days of the hearing and would therefore be able to give consent to gender-affirming treatment as an adult.

The Hon Mr Justice Macdonald ruled it would be wholly disproportionate to permit an expert to examine the teenager.

Part of a longer article originally in the Telegraph but reprinted by Yahoo (sports?) https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/parents-transgender-teenager-lose-bid-164349686.html

I wonder if the parents hadn't been so blatantly anti L&G if the Judge would have made a different decision. Or that that they nearly being 18 was the crucial point.

The judgement is here:

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/gk-and-lk-v-ee-and-another/

IMO the judge had no choice but to find against the parents. They were trying to claim she was incapable of consent on the back of a one sentence statement by medical professional in another country (with no indication of what that person’s qualifications were) for a hypothetical treatment which their daughter might attempt to undergo at some point in the future- medical treatment which like it or not, is currently seen as standard for gender dysphoric adults with no need for psychological assessment.

I don’t like the situation we are in, but there are better ways of pushing back- eg Anna Castle’s judicial review

Because someone of nearly 18 should not have their decisions dictated by their parents based on homophobia.

I can't see any evidence of the parents being homophobic beyond the say so of a confused child. It could just as easily be the case that the child has been groomed online to say what she needed to get her own confused way as it is that her parents are homophobic. Total mess of a family ultimately, whichever way this ends up going.

Right. Let them have their decisions dictated by homophobic influencers on TikTok, instead.

The bottom line is that the NHS should not be performing mastectomies on women with healthy breasts, any more than they should be amputating the legs of those with BIID.

The bottom line is that the NHS should not be performing mastectomies on women with healthy breasts

That's your opinion - which is a very different thing to the law. You can argue that these operations shouldn’t happen at all, but as they are legal, this decision has to be based on reality - not what you or anyone else thinks should happen.

They may be legal but they shouldn't be funded by the nhs.

It's worth reading the judgment that rogdmum has linked above https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/GK-and-LK-v-EE-Gender-Affirming-Medical-Treatment-2023-EWCOP-49.pdf

The judge is clear that the primary reason for refusing the parents' case was that there was no treatment planned and none planned for the foreseeable future so it was purely speculative. Without any proposed treatment it wasn't possible to assess the 'child's' capacity, as that would have to be assessed according to the actual treatment proposed and they were about to turn 18 so would in any case be an adult if there were future treatment. The whole thing sounds as if it was doomed to failure even if these were perfect parents and it's very clear from the judgment that there'd been a really troubled history. I'm not sure that anyone could read that judgment and think the decision was wrong.

It is the correct result for what was in question .

The child was 17 at the hearing but 18 when the judgement was handed down and the judge was considerate of this fact. The parents represented themselves.

It was in no way an assessment of ‘gender affirming treatment’ - the judge made the point that no specific condition was being considered and no evidence for or against was being assessed. At this point EE (the child) was not due to have any treatment (though they would like to in the near future) so nothing specific for consider.

The only thing the judge was assessing was if EE had capacity based on the evidence presented. The parents’ evidence was very weak and not backed up by any recognised professional. It read like they considered any angry outburst by EE to be a ‘psychotic episode’ and stated that an incident recorded as domestic abuse by the police in 2012 was the father having a psychotic episode and therefore family history (no mental health professional involvement in that episode). The judge noted that merely making unwise decisions does not mean you do not have capacity.

I like Norway' medical recommendations to stave off any gender-affirming medical treatments until age 25.

I didn't know that. Very interesting.

Also thanks to those who have found and read the actual judgement.

Have only recently found out that the illusion I had (from youth so bound to be out of date) that the Telegraph was always properly research news, has recently been challenged by some shocking reporting on other news, and assuming yahoo didn't tinker with the original article, a prime example of how selecting out bits does not make a factual report.

The decision had nothing to do with whether or not it is legal to carry out mastectomies on healthy individuals. The judge was very clear this was not even considered. But in any case it was quite clear that it would be a private operation not nhs.

I don't think you are trying to be funny BUT

what kind of 'reality' tells young people that they can be born in the the wrong body and that extreme body modification means that they become and will be treated as the opposite Sex?

It is you who believes in lies.

This is all abhorrent no matter what the gender extremists and men's rights activists have lobbied for.

The Telegraph is pretty awful recently. I no longer take anything in it at face value. I'd always look for the source information for the proper context.

So a 17 year old could get a mastectomy easy peasy because of gender issues but my friend with a family history of breast cancer that age couldn’t without putting up a fight? That just sends the wrong message

I don't think you've understood what @StockpotSoup meant.

The reality is that these operations are presently legal and presently available on the NHS. The reality is that at 18 you no longer require your parents consent for treatment. The decision in court must be based on those realities.

There are massive arguments to be made that the former should not be the case, but this was the correct decision in law.

It's not "easy peasy". The person in question (who is 18 now) will be on a very long waiting list, if they are even put on one. There was no imminent or planned treatment at the time of the case.

Don't be so patronising, I completely understood what Stockpot Soup meant.

It shouldn't be the law.

There is no basis in reality that a woman removing her breasts maketh a man.

I am sorry that this is inconvenient but it is the truth.

Our YP are being sold a lie whether this is incorrectly supported 'in law' or it isn't.

Yes but it is the law at this present moment in time. I'm sorry if that's inconvenient, but courts can't make it up to suit themselves.

I know removing a woman's breasts doesn't make a man.

The NHS shouldn’t be funding non emergency cosmetic surgeries, it should be based on a genuine pathological need that would be life limiting or life threatening.

I agree, but at the moment it does. And that's the reality we have to deal with.

So the law incorrectly supports a lie.

Why is It wrong of me to point this out?

The whole thing is nonsense.

Harmful nonsense supported by extreme gender ideologists.

It would be interesting to get some proper research going about this because, like you, I am often struck by the blatant homophobia or sometimes unusually rigid gender expectations in the histories of trans identified people. It seems that those are the real problems people are facing, whatever defensive conclusions they've reached.

No one has to put up with anything.

Changes don't happen if we just roll over and accept them.

The fact that the NHS supports a harmful gender extremist postion which actively harms YP needs shouting from the hilltops.

Being silent is completely unacceptable unless you are a genderist.

Inevitable decision. Not only is the child nearly 18, but it's established law that people over 16 to have capacity to consent, unless clear reason to think otherwise [Family Law Reform Act 1969].

I don't think it's as simple as that. The NHS constitution says "The NHS belongs to the people. It is there to improve our health and wellbeing, supporting us to keep mentally and physically well, to get better when we are ill and, when we cannot fully recover, to stay as well as we can to the end of our lives". But these surgeries do not improve health or wellbeing. There is no evidence that they keep people mentally well and plenty that they negatively impact physical wellbeing. So no, the NHS should not do these surgeries.

Exactly this, @Flickersy.

@lifeturnsonadime - You can shout “But it’s just wronnnnngggg!!!” all you like, but it’s only your opinion. Your opinion doesn’t affect the law.