That's the CEO of okayplayer metooed then. Roots right on to immediate severing of ties.

I must admit, as much as I want to be open minded I still don't get the gender debate fully. I don't understand how gender is both a social construct and yet people can feel born on the wrong body, or need feel gender mis aligned. And yet I know at least one person close to me who has a relation who from a very early age had issues that maybe puberty blocking might have helped. That child's teenage years have been hell.

I think its very hard to say but as a parent my feeling is that it is too early to do anything that will have a permanent lasting effect to a child based on what they are telling you. That may sound incredibly harsh but teenage years are by nature a mess. The concept that someone of 14 years of age can make such a life altering decision doesn't sound right. And yet, I would well believe there are exceptional cases. Ultimately I guess it must fall on the parents for such a decision but while I would support my daughter in any aspect you might take in relation to this I would draw to line at something so permanent so soon.

.

Thank u Tempu, I am gloating indeed. Feels gud man.

I don't really want to argue, really, but the judgment is there if you wanna read it. It is actually very accessible, and as usual, cuts out all the shit. The only missing piece for you may be this "trans ppl exist" angle of yours. I mean, firstly, because that is just a given, and is not up for debate. But as I think you mean to direct your interlocutor to "how trans ppl will perceive policy" as an angle, well, In legal terms, when you are considering the interests of a child (which should be the only question here, when considering whether to take medical hormonal intervention to delay biological changes), you do not consider the interest of a third party, a totally unrelated adult trans person who might consider what happens to this child, or the policy that applies to this child, to be a statement or reflection on them.

Which is a polite way to say, this angle is totally irrelevant. And it is. It might be relevant emotionally for a trans person who is happy with their choice, which one imagines is virtually all of them, but that is because that person lives in a society that until recently (and arguably still) viewed them as freaks/ deviants/aberrations. It's a question of messaging and reassurance: making sure the child has the opportunity to shape their future is not a judgement on anyone's decision on their identity. But the question first and foremost is the interest of the child itself, not other people.

It's simpl to me but then I am a lawyer who thinks doctrinally, I am male who knows 0 trans people and actually on reflection has 0 gay friends. I am cis to the max, so mayb I underestimate the messaging part of all this.

.

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

Thank u Tempu, I am gloating indeed. Feels gud man. I don't really want to argue, really, but the judgment is there if you wanna read it. It is actually very accessible, and as usual, cuts out all the shit. The only missing piece for you may be this "trans ppl exist" angle of yours. In legal terms, when you are considering the interests of a child (which should be the only question here, when considering whether to take medical hormonal intervention to delay biological changes), you do not consider the interest of a third party, a totally unrelated adult trans person who might consider what happens to this child, or the policy that applies to this child, to be a statement or reflection on them. Which is a polite way to say, this angle is totally irrelevant. And it is. It might be relevant emotionally for a trans person who is happy with their choice, which one imagines is virtually all of them, but that is because that person lives in a society that until recently (and arguably still) viewed them as freaks/ deviants/aberrations. It's a question of messaging and reassurance: making sure the child has the opportunity to shape their future is not a judgement on anyone's decision on their identity. But the question first and foremost is the interest of the child itself, not other people. It's simpl to me but then I am a lawyer who thinks doctrinally, I am male who knows 0 trans people and actually on reflection has 0 gay friends. I am cis to the max, so mayb I underestimate the messaging part of all this.

Ok, I understand that trans people existing does not legally relate to this specific case because it is about children who are not yet trans, but is this landmark case not potentially further emboldening a movement* that disagrees with the rights that trans people are fighting for? I feel considering this entirely in isolation is possible, but not really engaging with the complex reality of it? 

What about the concerns that this may set precedent that opens up access to abortion rights? Is that entirely scaremongering from people pushing a harmful trans ideology* or is it being ignored by people battling against that constructed ideology because it weakens their position? This might just be incredibly naïve of me, but part of my frustration with this stuff is the partisan nature of it from both sides. Better medical procedures, checks and failsafe's are needed to guide children and young adults through this psychologically and perhaps eventually medically,  but I am not sure that the people celebrating this ruling care about that at all?

I'm not trying to score a gotcha, these are just my concerns and questions.

*Movement, ideology, I don't know what to call them. There are clear sides that have been drawn, and each clearly have elements that do not operate in good faith, but the disparity in how those views are reported on and discussed seems too swing heavily in favour of the ant-trans way in the mainstream media.

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

Diluted Dante wrote:

I'm glad that you're delighting in the misery of trans kids Gonz. 

That's a shitty thing to say, to be honest.

So was your post.

.

If you want me to take you seriously on this, you need to stop treating it like an abstract debate where you can 'win'.

.

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

I recall Dante claiming that PBs were not a hormonal intervention, they just stop hormones, for example. Well this judgment I think puts paid to that.

It doesn't though. It says children have to take account of future treatments, that they can't have until 16/18 anyway. It doesn't say puberty blockers aren't a hormonal intervention.

.

.

I've had a read through the ruling.  

It's interesting stuff, though I found myself feeling concerned by some of the arguments taken.

First things first, I guess I should declare some interests.  I have a member of my extended family who took puberty blockers for a while, then ultimately opted to revert back to her original sex (not in the UK). Equally, obviously, I have in my time referred a number of young people to GIDS.  It's probably worth saying that, thanks to the insane waiting times, not one of those people has actually managed to see them to date.

I suppose, broadly, I have some sympathy with the ruling. The argument that you can't really give informed consent to an experimental treatment about which the evidence remains somewhat unclear is a fair one, and I think if this was the entirety of the argument I would be at peace with it.  (Though, you know, every treatment is experimental at some point...)

However the two bits that most had me raising my eyebrows were:

(a) The assumption that consenting to Treatment A meant that you are by extension consenting to Treatment B purely because the vast majority of people did so. (Despite the fact that Treatment B also gets consented when and if they make that transition, but also the personal experience of knowing someone who chose not to have Treatment B, at part thanks to having had A.  Anecdote, for sure, but not irrelevant.)  

(b) The notion that children can't consent for something if they don't yet have the lived experience necessary to understand the consequences of it.

(Both of the above are paraphrased, and may well miss some fundamental bit of law that I haven't understood.)

The judge was fairly careful with their wording, but none the less this seemingly opens up all sorts of issues, particularly the latter section.

Firstly, there are loads of things for which we consent children and adults alike for which they don't have lived experience yet. One of the fundamental problems with gaining consent is that humans are pretty lacking in their ability to imagine things, combined with our ability to tell ourselves "that won't happen to me". I understand the argument that a 14 year old might not yet comprehend how unhappy they would be if they lost fertility, or their sexual experiences were changed - but would counter that that's also true of many adults (even those who are sexually active).  If lived experience is to become the cornerstone of consent, then I'm not really sure how we consent for anything. At the extreme - if you believe that you're going to heaven when you die, can I meaningfully consent you for anything with a risk of death?

Or to put it the other way round, does this mean an adult can only consent to gender reassignment if they've had sex, and sufficient life experience to truly know that they would definitely never, ever, want a child? 

It's a particularly pressing concern given why we have Gillick competence in the first place - a case that arose to settle the question of whether contraception can be given to under sixteens.  Essentially it states that where a child has sufficient intelligence and understanding to comprehend what is proposed, then you no longer require parental consent.  

What this ruling appears to add to the mix, that wasn't there before, is the suggestion that for some issues, there is a default presumption that under 16s are unable to give consent to some treatments.  This feels like a retrograde step, as it appears to crack open the door for people to make further appeals that other things are "too complex" for children to comprehend.  Can any child really understand the long term effects of having an abortion on their psychological well being?  Can any child truly comprehend the long term health risks of taking contraception?  (After all, we've already established they're not mature enough to make decisions about other hormonal "treatments" that improve happiness, but have no physical benefit.) etc etc.

Gillick is incredibly helpful from a GP perspective in allowing kids to make their own decisions when their parents may be pressurising them into entirely different ones. This makes it feel significantly less water tight than it was (and it was already looking a little leaky).  

Notions of consent and capacity in medicine have, until now, rested largely on the idea that such issues must be judged case by case, person by person.  This ruling introduces - carefully and cautiously, but none the less - the idea of absolutes around capacity and consent for medical treatment that make me slightly nervous.  

My other observation about the case is that, certainly in the case of Bell, the decisions that were taken that rendered the greatest irreversible effect upon her - taking testosterone, and having mastectomy, were both decisions taken when she was over the age of 16.  (She was 20 when she had the mastectomy.)  I appreciate the suggestion that these decisions were made as a consequence of already having stepped down this path by taking puberty blockers, but none the less. It's evident that nothing magical happens on your 16th, or even 18th birthday, that makes you immune from regretting these decisions.

Sigh, sorry.  Waffled on for ages, and not sure I've added anything much. It's clear that GIDS haven't exactly covered themselves in glory, and their singular failure to produce fairly basic evidence is damning if not wholly surprising to those of us who've been in the NHS.  I wonder whether a more competent service, would have achieved a different result.  

One last comment though. The Observer editorial suggests that children who find this judgement distressing should "receive the professional support they need".  Conveniently, they don't say what they think that support is.  Right now, other than GIDS, there really isn't any. Meanwhile people are buying hormones on the internet, and experimenting with breast binders.  Whatever your view on the legal decision, or even on the question of gender dysphoria as a whole, it's clear that we're absolutely failing to support these individuals.  It doesn't feel like this has helped.

Wasn’t it down to the offerers of the medication to provide evidence that it’s okay?