Court hears children cannot consent to puberty blockers

submitted by artetolife from theguardian.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]blahblahgcer 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

Fenella Morris QC, representing the trust, described the argument that children could not give informed consent to being prescribed hormone blockers as “a radical proposition”.

Jesus christ.

[–]artetolife[S] 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

If this person on twitter is a reliable source then the defence is really putting their foot in it. Especially:

12 or 13 year olds already having sex so can't make a 'global statment' that any child is nessiscerly incapable of understanding these matters

What is the age of consent for then? The mind boggles.

[–]Omina_Sentenziosa 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

That's supposed to make sense?

Children at 12 are having sex, and that's OK because they are mature enough to consent? And this is considered a legitimate defense?

I can't believe this is the world of today.

[–]artetolife[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well... Indeed. It's the kind of thing I'd have expected Mermaids to say if they'd been allowed to give evidence, not a QC.

[–]blackrainbow 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's something that pedophiles could hope for... Oops!!

[–]Omina_Sentenziosa 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You know what the fucked up thing is? It could win. Because nothing makes sense anymore.

[–]Shesstealthy 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Having sex does not irrevocably alter your body, or have major ongoing physical complications and potentially shorten your life unless you contract HIV or syphilis.

They're two different things.

[–]Omina_Sentenziosa 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

They are both things that shouldn't be done at 12/13.

Especially when it comes to sex between 12/13 years old kids and adults.

[–]Thatstealthygal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Indeed. BUT I suspect people are trying to say that denying a kid hormone blockers is like trying to force a gay kid to be straight. It's not. A young person can explore their sexuality with kids their own age without lasting physical damage, regardless of which sex they end up preferring. Many gay people started with straight relationships and plenty of straight people explored same-sex relationships. Your preference can change, or not, and that's OK. No harm done. Hormone blockers and surgeries? Not so much.

[–]Omina_Sentenziosa 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

A young person can explore their sexuality with kids their own age without lasting physical damage, regardless of which sex they end up preferring.

Yes, it doesn't bring the same lasting damages, but I don't think that 12/13 years old kids having sex is a good thing like they are implying. 16? OK. 15? Maybe. Younger than that, absolutely not. They are talking as if it's something that should be accepted, respected and encouraged. No thanks. Kids at 12 shouldn't be playing with each others' s genitals and I find it incredibly troubling that it's being normalized and considered good with the argument that it's "exploring their sexuality". I don't care if that sexuality is straight or gay, but at that age you should at most experience masturbation, not sex with any other person, adult or child.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I think one of the issues is that the attorney didn't define "having sex," and no one asked her to clarify what she meant.

Given that this attorney is representing a clinic that specializes in matters of sexual development, identity and health, it's worrying to me that she wasn't more precise. Even your term "playing with each other's genitals" is too vague in my opinion.

I find it similarly alarming that an attorney for a part of the NHS focusing on child development is lumping together kids of 12/13 as though they are one and the same. Fact is, kids start puberty at different ages, progress through it at different rates; and regardless of when an individual starts puberty, it usually happens for each young person in fits and starts rather than at one continuous, consistent rate.

Clinicians working in child development and their legal advocates should know full well that if they were to compare any two 12 year-olds or two 13 year-olds to one another, they'd find that two kids of the same exact age often are at very different stages developmentally. Moreover, most kids at 13 are noticeably changed compared to how they themselves were a year earlier. In the tween and teen years, a few months can make a huge difference in each individual child's development, physically, emotionally and intellectually. The people at the Tavistock and their legal team should know this!

Back to the topic of whether kids at 12 or 13 are too young to be "having sex," I think that depends on what we mean by "having sex." I agree kids at that age shouldn't be shagging with peers or even engaging in acts like blow jobs, cunnilingus; it's probably too young even for hand jobs or fingering each other. But there's quite a few sexual activities that lots of kids at 12 and especially at 13 will be engaging in with peers that don't involve contact with bare genitals, penetration or even touching the genitals with the hands: necking, above-waist petting, frottage, for example.

(It doesn't really matter whether adults think it's wise for 12 or 13 year-olds to be doing these things, some certainly are doin' 'em anyways. And at 13, a lot of kids especially nowadays feel pressure to be doing more, as Catherine Hardwicke's excellent film "Thirteen" showed.)

Also, I think we need to keep in mind that most young people start engaging in sexual activities with peers in a gradual and graduated, step-by-step way, rather than starting off "playing with each other's genitals" or "going to home base" all at once. Or at least that's how it used to be when I grew up and when I raised kids; now in the era of constantly available internet porn, which kids are being exposed to at younger and younger ages, it might be different.

This reminds me: when I was in Catholic school in the the US in the 1960s, there were elaborate rules about what was permissible and what was going too far. For example, first there was kissing, then there was French kissing, but in both cases "making out" or "snogging" was confined to the head and neck (hence "necking"). And whilst this usually involved considerable above-the-waist holding and caressing, a clear distinction was made between that and the kind of caressing that involved touching of a girl's breasts. Which was known as "feeling up." (As opposed to "feeling down" which in this context didn't mean being sad or bummed out - it meant below the waist petting.) Lots of kids did lots of "making out" and caressing without the girl getting felt up.

What's more, even the "feeling up" that (some) girls (might have) permitted boys to do was further broken down into distinct types done usually done in stages rather than all at once: over over (hand over your clothes), under over (under the shirt, but over the bra), under under (hand inside bra) and under under undone (bra clasp unhooked). There was gatekeeping and much discussion over each step, and BFs had to earn the right to get to the next step...

[–]artetolife[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

13+ year olds in the UK have access to things like free contraception and STD checks, so it is at least acknowledged that some are sexually active. It is not an endorsement though. I went to the young person's clinic when I was about 14 and they really grilled me on what I was doing, who with, do we know how to use condoms properly etc before they let me walk out of there.

[–]Omina_Sentenziosa 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Back to the topic of whether kids at 12 or 13 are too young to be "having sex," I think that depends on what we mean by "having sex." I agree kids at that age shouldn't be shagging with peers or even engaging in acts like blow jobs, cunnilingus; it's probably too young even for hand jobs or fingering each other. But there's quite a few sexual activities that lots of kids at 12 and especially at 13 will be engaging in with peers that don't involve contact with bare genitals, penetration or even touching the genitals with the hands: necking, above-waist petting, frottage, for example.

I was talking about the shagging/blow jobs/cunnilingus trifecta here.

(It doesn't really matter whether adults think it's wise for 12 or 13 year-olds to be doing these things, some certainly are doin' 'em anyways. And at 13, a lot of kids especially nowadays feel pressure to be doing more, as Catherine Hardwicke's excellent film "Thirteen" showed.)

That adults don' t agree it' s not relevant here: I am well aware that teenagers and even younger kids do things despite what adults believe it' s best. The point, however, is that this would create a legal precedence. If they claim that children are mature enough to get transition because they are mature enough to have sex, then it means that the entire argument about age of consent would be completely useless. This isn' t simply a parent who doesn' t like that their kid is groping their boyfriend/girlfriend, this is a legal argument. The fact that they are just going "oh well, they do it so might as well take advantage of it" without even thinking about the repercussions (or maybe liking those repercussions) is what I am worried about.

Also, I think we need to keep in mind that most young people start engaging in sexual activities with peers in a gradual and graduated, step-by-step way, rather than starting off "playing with each other's genitals" or "going to home base" all at once. Or at least that's how it used to be when I grew up and when I raised kids; now in the era of constantly available internet porn, which kids are being exposed to at younger and younger ages, it might be different.

That' s the problem: I am younger than you (in my mid 30s), and in the '90s when I was that age, I knew no-one who was doing anything in the sexual category. The first couple among kids my age I have seen was when I was already in high school around 15. I started dating at 17. But yeah, I too grew up where things were gradual, so starting up with some kissing and then escalating after a certain time (usually enough that the kids in question were older) is different compared to the stuff kids do nowadays I am afraid. I wouldn' t be surprised if kids in middle school are already having complete intercourses. And the fact that it' s acknowledged for a hearing as a good thing that should be respected is horrifying to me.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I agree with you that the core issue here is the legal precedence. But the other equally important issues, ones I found very worrying, are: a) the imprecision of the attorney's language - what did she mean by "having sex"?, and b) the revelation that the Tavistock uses loose age categories that allow them to lump together of all kids age 12 and 13 together as if they're all in the exact same phase of development. At the very least, the Tavi should be classifying and analyzing these kids not just by their chronological ages, but by what Tanner stage they're in.

It's so interesting to me that no one in your HS was coupled up until age 15, and you didn't start dating till 17. I wonder if the differences in our experiences might be related to where we each grew up? Country and state/province, and milieu.

Although I didn't go "all the way" until I was well over 16, I started dating at 13. Which was pretty normal for het girls in the late 60s in the suburban NYC area I grew up in. My own kids, who are about a half decade+ younger than you, started dating later than I did, but in their school and peer groups in hipsterville NYC some kids were coupling at 12/13. (And one of my eldest's male classmates groped me in the crotch and said something vulgar to me when the boy was six!) My own kids didn't really date early on, but they started having serious love interests and full-on PIV sex about the same time I did - during their junior year of HS (circa 2005-2010).

But I'm not trying to make what I or my kids did seem to be the norm for either my or their generation. There's always been huge variation- which is why I objected to the way the Tavi lawyer was characterizing things.

Also, I'm well aware that American girls who went to Roman Catholic convent schools in the 50s, 60s and 70s like I did were often "fast" coz no matter how behaved, we were probably doomed to hell (as Billy Joel made clear in his song "Only The Good Die Young"). Many of my close friends, especially my lesbian friends, that I met in college and later in life didn't date or experiment at all in HS; they only began to figure out their sexuality after they'd left their childhood homes - and some were well into their 20s before they dated. Also, my own principal college BF didn't have PIV sex until we fell in love when he was 19 pushing 20.

[–]LasagnaRossa 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But even if it was true, then what? It's a non-sequitur.

So since a tween can enjoy sexual acts with other tweens THEN that means they can hold a job, raise a family, drive a car or deeply transform their bodies with cosmetic surgery and hormones?

The whole logic is stupid.

[–]Omina_Sentenziosa 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Absolutely, it makes no sense in general, but I was just flabbergasted by the fact that they are so openly promoting the idea that 12/13 years old kids are mature enough to give consent for sex. They didn' t even make the distinction about sex between children or sex between children and adults. They are just going for "they have sex, that' s ok, so let them transition".

I heard about GCers thinking that this movement was just a NAMBLA 2 that managed to infiltrate not only LGB organizations but feminism and progressive circles as well, but I never really thought that it was the end goal. I just thought that some people were taking advantage of it. But now we have a legal argument that says it loud and clear and it' s ok for kids to have sex. If they win, we will have a law that will be a consequence of the argument that it' s ok for kids to have sex because they are mature enough to consent. I can see it clear how it will be exploited to give even more free pass to pedophiles. As if they weren' t treated too well already!

I hope that Bell' s legals will ask them the direct question about the age of consent, and I wonder what they are going to answer to it. If they just go "so what, kids are sexual beings" like the good vintologi creep is spreading all around, then there will be no more doubt to me that this is just pro-pedo rethoric.

Disgusting.

[–]Erised 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Here’s a question for the defense, are 12 or 13 year olds having sex with each other? Or are they being coerced into having sex by much older individuals? Because those are two widely different things.

[–]jet199 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Knowing the stories of many detransitioners it's likely the latter option. Some transition because they blame their sex for making them the target of their abuser, this happens to both sexes.

[–]Feather 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That is so sad. It's like when kids try to make themselves ugly through various methods of harming themselves so they won't be abused anymore, except instead of getting mental health treatment for the trauma and the ways they try to harm their bodies they get praise for it.

[–]blahblahgcer 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Is it too far to say this is more evidence of pedophilia being rampant with TRAs?

[–]denverkris 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

"a radical proposition, but I'm not going to qualify my opinion in any way, shape, or form."

It's almost as if their arguments are non existent when they can't simply screech slurs at people. "Well, normally I would just call you a terf and a nazi bigot, but we're in court, so..."