all 16 comments

[–]comradeconradical 26 insightful - 2 fun26 insightful - 1 fun27 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

This sets an amazing precedent.

Strange how PinkNews is reporting that puberty blockers are OK for under 16 years old. The decision pretty clearly states that under 13 cannot consent, that 14-15 most likely cannot consent, and that 16-18 would need court approval for this experimental and largely undocumented medical treatment.

[–]Daraincork 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yes...extraordinary headline in Pink News. Clutching at straws a bit I think. Has leave to appeal been denied?

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I think they are just too thick to understand the judgement.

Someone pointed out that all the TRAs (even Big Steph the trans-lawyer) were celebrating victory because they simply didn't understand except Jolyon Maugham who understood it all straight away and had a twitter meltdown.

[–]Britishbulldog 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is excellent news. Common sense prevails for once. Keira Bell is a shero.

[–]anonymale[S] 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Statement from Keira Bell:

...this fight is not yet over. I would like to personally call on professionals and clinicians to create better mental health services and models to help those dealing with gender dysphoria to reconcile with their sex. And furthermore I call on society to accept those who do not conform to sex stereotypes, not to push them into a life of drugs and concealment from who they truly are. This means stopping the homophobia, the misogyny and the bullying of those that are different.

Today I am delighted to see that common sense has prevailed and to see a reinstatement of safeguarding for children.

Standing on Keira's left is Susan Evans, the original claimant in this case, who worked as a psychotherapist at the Tavistock clinic. Apart from everything else she, Keira and Mrs A have achieved today, they've also won vindication for the many GIDS staff who have tried to express their concerns for over a decade now, often finding they had no choice but to resign.

[–]GConly 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

YES!!!

[–]artetolife 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Fantastic news. Interestingly this is being framed as a victory for the Tavistock by some people on reddit but it really isn't.

Edit: lol, just compare the reporting from the Mirror

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-children-under-16-can-23096605

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

The Mirror's headline is

Children under 16 can consent to puberty blockers if they understand treatment

Which is totally misrepresents the ruling, which said that kids under 16 cannot possibly understand what the treatment will do to them because at that age they do not have the capacity. What's more, the treatment itself will prevent them from developing the capacity!

The bald-faced lies of the press have become shocking. It's like we're living in the USSR under Stalin.

[–]artetolife 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They slipped the truth in a single paragraph halfway through the article:

Ms Bell and Mrs A were asking the High Court to rule it is unlawful for children who wish to undergo gender reassignment to be prescribed hormone blockers without an order from the court that such treatment is in their "best interests".

In other words nobody was ever asking for a blanket ban on PBs for under-16s but they wrote the article that way anyway...

[–]anonymale[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree that the Mirror headline spins the meaning of the judgment wildly, just by missing out the word ‘only’, but the judgment does not say

...that kids under 16 cannot possibly understand what the treatment will do to them because at that age they do not have the capacity.

See para 151. Rather than ban puberty blockers and hormones altogether for kids the court ruled on how Gillick competence applies to them. Para 138 sets out specifically what a child must ‘understand, retain and weigh up’ in order to be considered able to give meaningful consent. The court also says that the child must understand these for both puberty blockers and hormones as they are part of the same treatment pathway. It is a very strict set of criteria which I doubt GIDS has any chance of showing it can meet for any child currently on its books.

[–]SweetBabyCheeses 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Woop woop. What a woman. I hope that Keira is able to find some peace and have a full and happy life.

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

some good news. ultimately, sanity will prevail and this period of time will be deemed as shameful as mass sterilizations or other eugenicist policies...

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

And not a word in the NYT about this. Wonder why? /s

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

I only heard about this recently, underneath the Page hoopla. I'm glad this legal win was won and I hope for a brighter future for the kids of the UK!

[–]Sistersovermisters 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A beacon of light in this year of darkness. Hope this means more for the future, which I'm sure it will.