Helen Joyce - why gender medicine isn’t science…

[Justme56]

https://www.thehelenjoyce.com/p/why-gender-medicine-isnt-science

“Actually that’s not quite right, because there isn’t any requirement to perform your gender, just to state it. Nothing further than the statement is required of the person making it: it’s other people who have to do the work by believing that statement — that is, by “affirming” that gender. The expression “gender self-identification” is a misnomer — it’s not something you have to do, beyond proclamation, it’s a demand that other people affirm you as being the gender you state yourself to be. Opening the door marked F or M is a way of declaring your gender identity.

There’s no place for other people’s judgment, indeed no role at all for other people except as supporting actors or appreciative audience. No room for them to say they don’t fancy joining in the performance, or to be a critic and say it’s not a very good performance. They’re not allowed to say: “OK, you say you’re a woman, that you’re living as a woman or have a female gender identity, but you don’t seem very female to me.”

Nope. Gillick competence ruled 16 in UK.
https://www.themdu.com/guidance-and-advice/guides/gillick-competence#:~:text='Gillick%20competence'%20refers%20to%20a,case%20went%20to%20three%20courts.

Duration is the same. Off label usage of medications is generally positively routine in medicine.

I never claimed any such thing. Maybe time to step away from the prosecco?

Biological facts are limited to the body, that’s kind of the point. Wearing lipstick and heels is no defence against prostate cancer. Men and women require medical treatment that corresponds to their sex, not their gender presentation. Anything else is actively dangerous. And concealing this from someone (oooh yes of course you’re a real woman) doesn’t change biological reality one iota.

No - the Family Law Act 1969 reduced capacity from 21 to 18. Useful extract from the YJB :

"We define a child as anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday. This is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and civil legislation in England and Wales. The fact that a child has reached 16 years of age, is living independently or is in further education, is a member of the armed forces, is in hospital or in custody in the secure estate, does not change their status or entitlements to services or protection".

Gillick competence is a completely different issue as those of us who have been involved in cases where Gillick / Fraser Guidelines feature understand.

Either way they don't cause sterilisation.

Off label usage of medications is generally positively routine in medicine.

I'm just quoting this latest gem from Howseitgoin for the benefit of lurkers.

This poster has endless hours to spam threads with their relentless wordvomit about sex/gender/evolution/consumer spending habits, but cheerily admits they haven't actually read the Cass Report- the single most important document in the trans debate.

Compare and contrast their childish mendacious bluster with the calm, rational prose of Dr Helen Joyce (PhD in Mathematics).

Nope.
In the UK, the legal precedent for children's medical consent, known as Gillick competence, was a key issue in the Bell v Tavistock case. The Court of Appeal ultimately overturned the High Court's ruling, which had stated it was unlikely a child under 16 could be Gillick competent to consent to puberty blockers. The current legal position is that the decision to use puberty blockers is for doctors to make based on the individual child's capacity, according to the Gillick principle, though recent NHS policy restricts their routine prescription outside of research trials.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_v_Tavistock#:~:text=The%20case%20was%20related%20to,to%20gain%20a%20judge's%20approval.

Look, you can promote sterilisation for vulnerable, troubled children if you want to. You might think you're on TRSOH, but most of us will view you as someone with a disturbing agenda.

Why are you so intent on sterilising children? You seem very keen to push the fact that sterilisation for children is a good thing. Why?

The same Helen Joyce that claimed jewish billionaires were plotting to sterilise girls a la white replacement theory? 😂

Seems Helen isn't being up front about her real unscientific motivations…

I'm promoting scientific consensus unlike Helen…

Yes dear. Now. Don’t forget change typing hand, antibac your keyboard and mouse and open the window. I’d also recommend drinking some water. Got to replace lost fluids.

You are not promoting scientific consensus

there are huge numbers of unanswered questions, and a lot of answers that have been hidden , and a lot of people who have been misled and sometimes science people make their best guess at the time -

At best a puberty blocker is an anti cancer drug with known side effects given to a child with no clear diagnosis, because, as Joyce points out, the concept of gender is completely subjective.

Please read Dopesick by Beth Macy if you think the motivation and practices of pharmaceutical companies should never be scrutinised.

You can probably get AI to summarise it in a paragraph, if you find long serious non-fiction an intellectual challenge.

With this post, you have lost any possible credibility I’m afraid.

When charged with doing no harm medical experts don't have the luxury of sitting on their hands because not doing anything isn't a zero sum game. Harm works in both directions IE damned if you & damned if you don't. Uncertainty in outcomes is no different for many medical treatments. Medical experts when faced with uncertainty consider the preponderance of evidence & what direction it points in & this is no different for gender affirming care.

Nope. Not true. No

I never said they shouldn't & in any case they aren't all 'jew controlled'. But those of us who aren't in denial know an anti semitic trope when we see one.

WPATH as scientific consensus?

😂😂😂😂

You do know who WPATH are, don't you?

I know perfectly well what Gillick competence is & it doesn't mean that you are an adult at 16. I remember the Gillick case well. It was about consent to treatment & it didn't go the way Mrs Gillick hoped or expected.

In the UK any person under the age of eighteen is a child.

Yes yes, I'm sure you know more than the high court of appeals dear…

Well they might just beat a mob of 'credentialed' facebook wowsers…

medics were misled as to the benefit of gender affirming medications and surgery’s, they were manipulated to avoid mental health support through false equivalence to trying to de-gay people. The voices of women who had experienced gender dysmorphia were silenced - and let’s face it medics don’t like listening to women.

The tide is turning however. Thank god.