Update on protect teenagers from harmful and irreversible medical treatment

[anyolddinosaur]

"On Friday my solicitors heard from the High Court that Mr Justice Foxton had given me and parent X permission to challenge the decision of the CQC to license GenderPlus Hormone Clinic. The judge was very concerned that the CQC may have licensed GenderPlus without having all the necessary information it needed to assure itself that providing cross sex hormone treatment to teenagers was a safe treatment. The judge was also concerned that by granting licensing to GenderPlus the CQC was acting irrationally."

Judicial review is an expensive business.

The Telegraph on this

https://archive.ph/nVh29

Good. Presumably the fact that the regulator (allegedly an independent body) is signed up to Stonewall is going to make it very difficult for them to claim that they're acting independently. As so many organisations have discovered, signing up to Stonewall requires following Stonewall's demands in all aspects of your organisation.
Presumably the CQC is going to look ridiculous in court in the light of Cass and their obeisance to Stonewall?

The fact that GenderPlus are describing these teens as 'transgender' shows that the have not listened to the Cass review at all.

Great stuff. Thanks for sharing OP.

The wheels are falling off the trans train at quite a rate.

Who knew that medical experimentation on children would turn out to have been such a bad idea, eh?

Presumably the CQC is going to look ridiculous in court in the light of Cass and their obeisance to Stonewall?

Hopefully. Fingers crossed that the conversations now unfolding in the US in the post-mortem of the election will give people a boost in confidence to talk more publicly about why giving irrerversible physical treatments to distressed teenagers is a bad idea.

The fact that GenderPlus are describing these teens as 'transgender' shows that the have not listened to the Cass review at all.

Indeed. Hopefully David Bell will get chance to calmly and succinctly remind everyone why the phrase "trans child" (and by extension "transgender teen") is unhelpful. It was great hearing him pull Evan Davis up on this on Radio 4, twice. He puts it so well: the use of this phrase foreclosures on the outcome of any therapeutic exploration. It's terrible practice for anyone to start with the conclusion that someone "is trans" when neutrally exploring why they might be distressed about their body.

They will need considerable financial support to bring the case. Garden in the usual place and the title points the way.

I'm no expert on this. But wouldn't it be so easy in this situation to replace "trans" with something like "gender questioning"?

Can anyone explain this paragraph to me? It doesn’t seem to make sense.

“Gender Plus does not prescribe drugs to suppress puberty but uses GnRH medication – known as puberty blockers – “as part of a gender-affirming hormone pathway to patients aged 16 years and above”. The Health Secretary confirmed that this was allowed, the clinic says.”

If it uses puberty blockers, how can it not be prescribing drugs to suppress puberty? Or is the implication that puberty is entirely past by the time the patients are 16?

It will be interesting to see how this goes. Does the government bill that was introduced ban puberty blockers altogether, or does it ban the NHS from using them?

What I find scary is just how difficult it is to prevent these evil people harming children. First of all the Nottingham team who are continuing to follow WPATH despite everything, now these plus of course whatever Gender GP are calling themselves now.

It's like tackling a hydra.

Yep.

I'm glad Kemi Badenoch talked about that on the Mumsnet webinar and that it made the papers when she said that this is the term she uses to describe such children.

It gives me hope that she'll hold the government to account in PMQs on why they haven't finalised the draft Gender Questioning Children guidance. Whether Labour likes it or not, this term is out there and in use. Also that document represents the only place (I think) where a UK government has written a definition of "gender identity". And it's a good one:

"Gender identity: is a contested belief. It is a sense a person may have of their own gender, whether male, female or another category such as non-binary. This may or may not be the same as their biological sex. Many people do not consider that they or others have a gender identity at all."

It sounds like they are being creative with their language. I can't imagine they'll get away with that.

"I didn't use the puberty blockers to block anyone's puberty" sounds ridiculous and desperate as an explanation! If they weren't used for that, what exactly were they used for?!

In the past, I'm sure they'd have got away with a solemn look on their face when uttering the magic words "gender affirming care" but I don't think they would now.

Hopefully the Health Secretary is having a bit of a rethink on that one...... It'll be interesting to see that challenged in court if it is maintained as the government response.

BTW have pledged. 🤞for a win

"Good News
We now have a date set for the Judicial Review. This JR will examine the CQC’s decision to register GenderPlus, and the hearing has been listed for 24/25 June 2025.
In the meantime we await evidence from the CQC and GenderPlus, which has to be with our legal team by 28th February.
Once we have seen their evidence we will be preparing for the hearing.
Please do share the link for this fund with anyone who you think might be able to support us with our legal costs.
Many thanks
Susan and my co-claimant, Mum' X' "

That's very good news.
I'm sure the Stonewall captured regulator, the CQC's evidence will be a model of child safeguarding centred, age appropriate, gender twaddle free information 🙄🤔

This is finally coming to court - update says

"So next week, 24th and 25th of June at the Royal Courts of Justice in London will be the moment our team has worked towards. If you can come along at any stage, we would be very happy to see you there. "

They would still benefit from extra carrots - or soft fruit is in season.

This is great news. I’ve got my gardening gloves out.

It remains utterly flabbergasting that the case still needs to be brought - the CQC are clearly not fit for purpose and I hope they get absolutely roasted in court.