World Athletics transgender women ban
Discussion
E63eeeeee... said:
If you like. Do you fancy answering the questions you clipped out of my post?
Do I think my opinion should take precedence over that of a child? I would seek to test the competence of the child to understand what this means. I would suggest (based on working in law and seeing a number of kids in court) that most children have no idea and ability to understand the consequences. As for doctors, are we talking about the people who behaved as they did during Covid? Well, yes their views should be heavily discounted too I am afraid as I trust them not one jot anymore. I know two people who died alone thanks to doctors and I have a friend who has to live through that pain every damn day of her life.
By the way, what is the 3rd leading cause of death in the USA?
E63eeeeee... said:
What are your qualifications to make that blanket decision? Have you actually spoken to any of those kids? Why do you think you know better than the doctors and professionals involved in these decisions with the kids and their parents?
You're chasing others so I'll chase you. What qualifications do you hold that suggest a child can know and therefore declare what sex they are?
Edited by bobbo89 on Saturday 25th March 20:50
Jasandjules said:
E63eeeeee... said:
If you like. Do you fancy answering the questions you clipped out of my post?
Do I think my opinion should take precedence over that of a child? I would seek to test the competence of the child to understand what this means. I would suggest (based on working in law and seeing a number of kids in court) that most children have no idea and ability to understand the consequences. As for doctors, are we talking about the people who behaved as they did during Covid? Well, yes their views should be heavily discounted too I am afraid as I trust them not one jot anymore. I know two people who died alone thanks to doctors and I have a friend who has to live through that pain every damn day of her life.
By the way, what is the 3rd leading cause of death in the USA?
Are you suggesting that children should never be consulted about their medical treatment? Until what age? Do you also think that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised from 10? Because that's fundamentally about the ability to understand consequences.
No idea about causes of death in the US. Try Google.
bobbo89 said:
E63eeeeee... said:
What are your qualifications to make that blanket decision? Have you actually spoken to any of those kids? Why do you think you know better than the doctors and professionals involved in these decisions with the kids and their parents?
You're chasing others so I'll chase you. What qualifications do you hold that suggest a child can know and therefore declare what sex they are?
Edited by bobbo89 on Saturday 25th March 20:50
Saw a Sharon Davies interview...
She says that there are a lot of Trans Men & Women who are still happy to run as their biological sex. If an other / open category was introduced, there might only be three or four people in a race.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5_-lCS9opTI
She says that there are a lot of Trans Men & Women who are still happy to run as their biological sex. If an other / open category was introduced, there might only be three or four people in a race.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5_-lCS9opTI
Edited by Milkyway on Saturday 25th March 21:13
E63eeeeee... said:
bobbo89 said:
E63eeeeee... said:
What are your qualifications to make that blanket decision? Have you actually spoken to any of those kids? Why do you think you know better than the doctors and professionals involved in these decisions with the kids and their parents?
You're chasing others so I'll chase you. What qualifications do you hold that suggest a child can know and therefore declare what sex they are?
Edited by bobbo89 on Saturday 25th March 20:50
Is there any other field of medicine where this rate of absolute failure is deemed acceptable?
vetrof said:
Considering that more than 1 in 20 of the Tavestock Clinic's patients are taking action for medical malpractice and the damning report into it's practices, there is probably every reason to question the current way that said specialists are coming to their conclusions.
Is there any other field of medicine where this rate of absolute failure is deemed acceptable?
It's an absolute scandal and people seemingly still want to be a part of it. It's complete madness! Is there any other field of medicine where this rate of absolute failure is deemed acceptable?
bobbo89 said:
vetrof said:
Considering that more than 1 in 20 of the Tavestock Clinic's patients are taking action for medical malpractice and the damning report into it's practices, there is probably every reason to question the current way that said specialists are coming to their conclusions.
Is there any other field of medicine where this rate of absolute failure is deemed acceptable?
It's an absolute scandal and people seemingly still want to be a part of it. It's complete madness! Is there any other field of medicine where this rate of absolute failure is deemed acceptable?
8.4L 154 said:
What age group do you think Gillick competence applies to then?
Read the judgement that overturned Bell v Tavistock yourself, and then come back credibly and tell me it does apply to irreversible choices for 10 year olds.https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/bell-and-anothe...
It’s also worth noting that the Tavistock Clinic was decided to be shut down shortly after this appeal.
vetrof said:
Considering that more than 1 in 20 of the Tavestock Clinic's patients are taking action for medical malpractice and the damning report into it's practices, there is probably every reason to question the current way that said specialists are coming to their conclusions.
Is there any other field of medicine where this rate of absolute failure is deemed acceptable?
Of course. There are plenty of treatments with proven less than 50% chances of success. Some of them have potentially serious or critical failure scenarios. Sometimes they're still the best option, the risks are explained and the people involved make an informed decision. You're talking to someone who had multiple surgeries with worse than 5% risk of death, never mind serious complications or just failure of the treatment. Is there any other field of medicine where this rate of absolute failure is deemed acceptable?
loafer123 said:
8.4L 154 said:
What age group do you think Gillick competence applies to then?
Read the judgement that overturned Bell v Tavistock yourself, and then come back credibly and tell me it does apply to irreversible choices for 10 year olds.https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/bell-and-anothe...
It’s also worth noting that the Tavistock Clinic was decided to be shut down shortly after this appeal.
Judgment said:
Conclusions
91.We allow Tavistock’s appeal and set aside the declaration. In addition, we hold that it was inappropriate for the Divisional Court to provide the guidance. The Divisional Court concluded that Tavistock’s policies and practices (as expressed in the service specification and the SOP) were not unlawful and rejected the legal criticism of its materials. In those circumstances, the claim for judicial review is dismissed.
92 We should not finish this judgment without recognising the difficulties and complexities associated with the question of whether children are competent to consent to the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. They raise all the deep issues identified in Gillick, and more. Clinicians will inevitably take great care before recommending treatment to a child and be astute to ensure that the consent obtained from both child and parents is properly informed by the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed course of treatment and in the light of evolving research and understanding of the implications and long-term consequences of such treatment. Great care is needed to ensure that the necessary consents are properly obtained. As Gillick itself made clear, clinicians will be alive to the possibility of regulatory or civil action where, in individual cases, the issue can be tested.
93 The service specification and SOP provide much guidance to the multi-disciplinary teams of clinicians. Those clinicians must satisfy themselves that the child and parents appreciate the short and long-term implications of the treatment upon which the child is embarking. So much is uncontroversial. But it is for the clinicians to exercise their judgement knowing how important it is that consent is properly obtained according to the particular individual circumstances, as envisaged by Gillick itself, and by reference to developing understanding in this difficult and controversial area. The clinicians are subject to professional regulation and oversight. The parties showed us an example of a Care Quality Commission report in January 2021 critical of GIDS, including in relation to aspects of obtaining consent before referral by Tavistock, which illustrate that. The fact that the report concluded that Tavistock had, in certain respects, fallen short of the standard expected in its application of the service specification does not affect the lawfulness of that specification; and it would not entitle a court to take on the task of the clinician in determining whether a child is or is not Gillick competent to be referred on to the Trusts or prescribed puberty blockers by the Trusts.
94 Once it was conceded by the claimants that the Divisional Court had made no findings of illegality, the focus of this appeal was squarely on Gillick and whether, by making the declaration accompanied by guidance requiring (probably frequent) court intervention, the Divisional Court had placed an improper restriction on the Gillick test of competence. In our judgment, whilst driven by the very best of intentions, the Divisional Court imposed such a restriction through the terms of the declaration itself, by the utilisation of age criteria and by the requirement to make applications to the court. As we have said, applications to the court may well be appropriate in specific difficult cases, but it was not appropriate to give guidance as to when such circumstances might arise.
The appeal judgement found that it was up to clinicians to determine Gillick not the courts and it was improper for the Divisional court to impose age limits.91.We allow Tavistock’s appeal and set aside the declaration. In addition, we hold that it was inappropriate for the Divisional Court to provide the guidance. The Divisional Court concluded that Tavistock’s policies and practices (as expressed in the service specification and the SOP) were not unlawful and rejected the legal criticism of its materials. In those circumstances, the claim for judicial review is dismissed.
92 We should not finish this judgment without recognising the difficulties and complexities associated with the question of whether children are competent to consent to the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. They raise all the deep issues identified in Gillick, and more. Clinicians will inevitably take great care before recommending treatment to a child and be astute to ensure that the consent obtained from both child and parents is properly informed by the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed course of treatment and in the light of evolving research and understanding of the implications and long-term consequences of such treatment. Great care is needed to ensure that the necessary consents are properly obtained. As Gillick itself made clear, clinicians will be alive to the possibility of regulatory or civil action where, in individual cases, the issue can be tested.
93 The service specification and SOP provide much guidance to the multi-disciplinary teams of clinicians. Those clinicians must satisfy themselves that the child and parents appreciate the short and long-term implications of the treatment upon which the child is embarking. So much is uncontroversial. But it is for the clinicians to exercise their judgement knowing how important it is that consent is properly obtained according to the particular individual circumstances, as envisaged by Gillick itself, and by reference to developing understanding in this difficult and controversial area. The clinicians are subject to professional regulation and oversight. The parties showed us an example of a Care Quality Commission report in January 2021 critical of GIDS, including in relation to aspects of obtaining consent before referral by Tavistock, which illustrate that. The fact that the report concluded that Tavistock had, in certain respects, fallen short of the standard expected in its application of the service specification does not affect the lawfulness of that specification; and it would not entitle a court to take on the task of the clinician in determining whether a child is or is not Gillick competent to be referred on to the Trusts or prescribed puberty blockers by the Trusts.
94 Once it was conceded by the claimants that the Divisional Court had made no findings of illegality, the focus of this appeal was squarely on Gillick and whether, by making the declaration accompanied by guidance requiring (probably frequent) court intervention, the Divisional Court had placed an improper restriction on the Gillick test of competence. In our judgment, whilst driven by the very best of intentions, the Divisional Court imposed such a restriction through the terms of the declaration itself, by the utilisation of age criteria and by the requirement to make applications to the court. As we have said, applications to the court may well be appropriate in specific difficult cases, but it was not appropriate to give guidance as to when such circumstances might arise.
As for the Tavi closing down, the reason given is that it is oversubscribed and unable to meet demand from a single clinic structure in a satisfactory way, it is to be replaced by a greater number of regional clinics.
Edited by 8.4L 154 on Saturday 25th March 23:02
E63eeeeee... said:
vetrof said:
Considering that more than 1 in 20 of the Tavestock Clinic's patients are taking action for medical malpractice and the damning report into it's practices, there is probably every reason to question the current way that said specialists are coming to their conclusions.
Is there any other field of medicine where this rate of absolute failure is deemed acceptable?
Of course. There are plenty of treatments with proven less than 50% chances of success. Some of them have potentially serious or critical failure scenarios. Sometimes they're still the best option, the risks are explained and the people involved make an informed decision. You're talking to someone who had multiple surgeries with worse than 5% risk of death, never mind serious complications or just failure of the treatment. Is there any other field of medicine where this rate of absolute failure is deemed acceptable?
bobbo89 said:
Pre-pubescent kids aren't getting surgery, what they are getting however is told that there's such thing as being born in the wrong body and that they can swap between being a girl and a boy, that's wrong on a ridiculous and dangerous level and those who preach such nonsense need calling out.
You cannot change your sex, instilling the idea that you can on impressionable children is beyond the pale.
The notion of a 'trans kid' is just the same as a 'vegan dog'. We all know who's making the decisions...
ThisYou cannot change your sex, instilling the idea that you can on impressionable children is beyond the pale.
The notion of a 'trans kid' is just the same as a 'vegan dog'. We all know who's making the decisions...
and the focus of this thread has been on trans-women for athletics but it is teenage girls who are most susceptible to body dysmorphia when going through puberty and there are starting to many parents very unhappy with what they are being taught at school.
8.4L 154 said:
loafer123 said:
8.4L 154 said:
What age group do you think Gillick competence applies to then?
Read the judgement that overturned Bell v Tavistock yourself, and then come back credibly and tell me it does apply to irreversible choices for 10 year olds.https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/bell-and-anothe...
It’s also worth noting that the Tavistock Clinic was decided to be shut down shortly after this appeal.
Judgment said:
Conclusions
91.We allow Tavistock’s appeal and set aside the declaration. In addition, we hold that it was inappropriate for the Divisional Court to provide the guidance. The Divisional Court concluded that Tavistock’s policies and practices (as expressed in the service specification and the SOP) were not unlawful and rejected the legal criticism of its materials. In those circumstances, the claim for judicial review is dismissed.
92 We should not finish this judgment without recognising the difficulties and complexities associated with the question of whether children are competent to consent to the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. They raise all the deep issues identified in Gillick, and more. Clinicians will inevitably take great care before recommending treatment to a child and be astute to ensure that the consent obtained from both child and parents is properly informed by the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed course of treatment and in the light of evolving research and understanding of the implications and long-term consequences of such treatment. Great care is needed to ensure that the necessary consents are properly obtained. As Gillick itself made clear, clinicians will be alive to the possibility of regulatory or civil action where, in individual cases, the issue can be tested.
93 The service specification and SOP provide much guidance to the multi-disciplinary teams of clinicians. Those clinicians must satisfy themselves that the child and parents appreciate the short and long-term implications of the treatment upon which the child is embarking. So much is uncontroversial. But it is for the clinicians to exercise their judgement knowing how important it is that consent is properly obtained according to the particular individual circumstances, as envisaged by Gillick itself, and by reference to developing understanding in this difficult and controversial area. The clinicians are subject to professional regulation and oversight. The parties showed us an example of a Care Quality Commission report in January 2021 critical of GIDS, including in relation to aspects of obtaining consent before referral by Tavistock, which illustrate that. The fact that the report concluded that Tavistock had, in certain respects, fallen short of the standard expected in its application of the service specification does not affect the lawfulness of that specification; and it would not entitle a court to take on the task of the clinician in determining whether a child is or is not Gillick competent to be referred on to the Trusts or prescribed puberty blockers by the Trusts.
94 Once it was conceded by the claimants that the Divisional Court had made no findings of illegality, the focus of this appeal was squarely on Gillick and whether, by making the declaration accompanied by guidance requiring (probably frequent) court intervention, the Divisional Court had placed an improper restriction on the Gillick test of competence. In our judgment, whilst driven by the very best of intentions, the Divisional Court imposed such a restriction through the terms of the declaration itself, by the utilisation of age criteria and by the requirement to make applications to the court. As we have said, applications to the court may well be appropriate in specific difficult cases, but it was not appropriate to give guidance as to when such circumstances might arise.
The appeal judgement found that it was up to clinicians to determine Gillick not the courts and it was improper for the Divisional court to impose age limits.91.We allow Tavistock’s appeal and set aside the declaration. In addition, we hold that it was inappropriate for the Divisional Court to provide the guidance. The Divisional Court concluded that Tavistock’s policies and practices (as expressed in the service specification and the SOP) were not unlawful and rejected the legal criticism of its materials. In those circumstances, the claim for judicial review is dismissed.
92 We should not finish this judgment without recognising the difficulties and complexities associated with the question of whether children are competent to consent to the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. They raise all the deep issues identified in Gillick, and more. Clinicians will inevitably take great care before recommending treatment to a child and be astute to ensure that the consent obtained from both child and parents is properly informed by the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed course of treatment and in the light of evolving research and understanding of the implications and long-term consequences of such treatment. Great care is needed to ensure that the necessary consents are properly obtained. As Gillick itself made clear, clinicians will be alive to the possibility of regulatory or civil action where, in individual cases, the issue can be tested.
93 The service specification and SOP provide much guidance to the multi-disciplinary teams of clinicians. Those clinicians must satisfy themselves that the child and parents appreciate the short and long-term implications of the treatment upon which the child is embarking. So much is uncontroversial. But it is for the clinicians to exercise their judgement knowing how important it is that consent is properly obtained according to the particular individual circumstances, as envisaged by Gillick itself, and by reference to developing understanding in this difficult and controversial area. The clinicians are subject to professional regulation and oversight. The parties showed us an example of a Care Quality Commission report in January 2021 critical of GIDS, including in relation to aspects of obtaining consent before referral by Tavistock, which illustrate that. The fact that the report concluded that Tavistock had, in certain respects, fallen short of the standard expected in its application of the service specification does not affect the lawfulness of that specification; and it would not entitle a court to take on the task of the clinician in determining whether a child is or is not Gillick competent to be referred on to the Trusts or prescribed puberty blockers by the Trusts.
94 Once it was conceded by the claimants that the Divisional Court had made no findings of illegality, the focus of this appeal was squarely on Gillick and whether, by making the declaration accompanied by guidance requiring (probably frequent) court intervention, the Divisional Court had placed an improper restriction on the Gillick test of competence. In our judgment, whilst driven by the very best of intentions, the Divisional Court imposed such a restriction through the terms of the declaration itself, by the utilisation of age criteria and by the requirement to make applications to the court. As we have said, applications to the court may well be appropriate in specific difficult cases, but it was not appropriate to give guidance as to when such circumstances might arise.
As for the Tavi closing down, the reason given is that it is oversubscribed and unable to meet demand from a single clinic structure in a satisfactory way, it is to be replaced by a greater number of regional clinics.
Edited by 8.4L 154 on Saturday 25th March 23:02
The appeal made no view on the original judgement reasoning which was that a much older child should not have irreversible treatments.
The appeal certainly wasn’t allowed with an expectation that 10 year olds should get irreversible puberty blockers or surgery, which is the subject of our exchanges.
Only you appear to think that could be reasonable - anyone with any empathy for children would not.
As for the Tavistock Clinic, your reasoning for its closure is, again, extremely partial.
Here is the BBC report from the time. I will let others judge who is being open and honest.
NHS to close Tavistock child gender identity clinic https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62335665
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff