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.

Have I said to be silent? Have I said we mustn't campaign for change?

In this particular legal case, which is what the thread was about, this was the correct decision. We can't argue with that from a legal standpoint.

Not to mention it’s ironic they’re talking about consent to a major medical procedure for transgender people to justify it, yet I have to practically beg a doctor to remove my uterus that is riddled with endometriosis or beg them to take my tubes out so I don’t die having a baby, but if I say I am trans they’ll happily take my whole reproductive system out.

Looks like consent only matters if you’re a man or want to be a man eh?

What law are you talking about?

Capacity of over 16's is clear.

The fact that the NHS is incorrectly supporting YP in radical mastectomies on the lie that it makes them the opposite sex IS WRONG.

Unless you are a gender extremist you would see the harm in this position.

Why do you think YP should be supported either by law or by the NHS to have radical surgeries which will not help them because the REALITY is that it can't.. in other words human's cannot change sex no matter how much they wish it to be so.

What kind of doctors do this stuff? Horrendous. Same for legs, arms whatever for body dysmorphia. I know that's rare (thankfully), though double mastectomy doesn't seem to be rare now, and even gets celebrated in some circles.

But courts can overrule decisions of 16 and 17 year olds and those of adults without capacity. So it wouldn't be completely cut and dried if there had been a proposed treatment and the 'child' was either lacking capacity or making a decision that was clearly against best interests. It would need very clear evidence though and was clearly doomed here where no treatment planned.

Actually I think we can.

Capacity in over 16s is established when it comes to medical treatment that helps them.

What is not clear here is whether a person should have capacity (at any age) to make decisions which harm them.

What is the difference in this between a woman removing healthy breast tissue because she has a belief she can change sex (which is demonstrably wrong) or removing a leg because she's trans -abled?

The law in supporting consent here is wrong and needs challenging. We most certainly can and should argue about consent for such surgeries.

Well youre only a female type in pain/at risk of death. Can't you please think of the important people here who demand the world go along with their make believe and want it made so? They are the important people! Feelz trumps actual health issues of course!

Then say you're trans, if it'll get you the surgery.

In reality, women who identify as men and who elect to have this kind of surgery have to wait an awfully long time. It's not a conveyor belt where you just tick a box and they perform a hysterectomy that afternoon.

I was a virgin until 19 and I don't think I enjoyed sexual stimulation of my breasts until I dated a, let's say, more talented, boyfriend at age 20. I also didn't really think much on any future children and breastfeeding - I was too worried about studying, dating, friendships, having fun etc.

These girls very likely have little physical sexual experience or any life experience. They very well don't know what they are going to miss - they are too young.

The way I see it is, at least they’ve got their referral in, I’m still waiting on mine!!

Next step the 17 year old sues her parents to make them pay for the op as technically if she's a student can she not demand they arr financially responsible for her while under 23?

What is the difference in this between a woman removing healthy breast tissue because she has a belief she can change sex (which is demonstrably wrong) or removing a leg because she's trans -abled?

There's no difference, IMO. But my opinion doesn't mean anything when a judge is handing down a decision. Then it's only the law that matters.

We can campaign for that law to be changed, but until it is then this was sadly the correct decision.

Medical misogyny is crazy, no wonder plenty of women are also using this loophole to escape every day misogyny. We should all do it, reckon men’s services will adapt their terminology of the word man to accommodate us? Of course not that’s just wishful thinking. Let’s hope the person carrying out their surgery isn’t a biological male as women’s mortality rates increase.

Not fine at all, in my opinion. But those pushing "affirmative treatment" have been astonishingly successful in normalising such mutilation. Apparently finding it disturbing is unkind.

So on a discussion forum you don't think we should discuss the fact that we think a legal decision is morally wrong?

Why is that?

Where have I said we can't discuss the moralities of a legal decision? Please quote the post.

I have said we can't argue with the legalities of this particular court decision as it is correct in law as things currently stand.

I haven't said I"m arguing the legalities of this decision. Please quote the post where I have.

I'm arguing the morality of this decision and you keep telling me I shouldn't because 'it's the law'.

I can draw my own inferences about your intentions from that.

I haven't said I"m arguing the legalities of this decision. Please quote the post where I have.

I didn't say you were - I am talking about the legalities.

I'm arguing the morality of this decision and you keep telling me I shouldn't because 'it's the law'.

Again, please could you quote where I have said that you shouldn't discuss the morality of this situation?

You appear to be reading completely different posts to what I've actually typed. The fact you can't quote me on any of the above tells me you have very little argument and rely on twisting others posts so you can have a go.

It is also illegal to drive a car over 70 mph on a motorway, for someone to pass themselves off as a policeman, and to propagate giant hogweeed. And these things had as much relevance to this judgement as the legality of a bilateral mastectomy on a healthy woman.

Did you read the judgement?

Same right back at you Flickersy

I think that this decision is morally wrong. I don't think that people should have the right legally, especially young people , to modify their bodies in a harmful way. I don't see a difference between this and a person removing healthy limbs because they want to be disabled.

That is my point.

You will no doubt come back again to tell me 'but it's the law'. Go for it. I'm ignoring your deflection from now on.

This is STILL just your opinion.

It's clear you haven't read my posts because you completely ignore the fact that I agree with you that it's not right that healthy young women can have mastectomies for cosmetic reasons.

That doesn't mean my brain falls out when thinking about the law, which is relevant to the link in the OP. I can accept the law is one thing whilst also disagreeing with it.

I don't know how much clearer I can be.

Yes I have read the judgement.

I was not the poster who started the conversation about double mastectomies. I am just responding to those who did.

So your opinion is that radical harmful surgeries based on a complete lie is a good thing?

OK then.

Why aren't there 100s of middle aged women queuing up for radical mastectomies because they are the wrong gender, or is this a social contagion that is harmful to YP whose brains are not fully developed to understand the implication to their bodies or that they are being sold a lie that a mastectomy makes them a man?