...what "recent events in the UK"?

High court judgement ruling that 16yr olds or under are unlikely to be able to consent to puberty blockers, a move that is transparently in contradiction to all established care and under mines the Gillick principle that also governs the right of teens to access contraception. Its not ruled in law, but we’re already seeing PBs being withdrawn or denied. The Good Law Project intends to challenge this.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-re.....berty-blockers

...but...why would a pre-pubescent teenager be of sound enough mind to make a decision on their gender? We don't even allow them to sign legal contracts....

So you’re saying that a teenager questioning their gender should be forced through a permanent physical change they have no control over that in gnc kids drastically raises the chance of suicide, instead of being given the time to figure it out in a way that can be withdrawn safely at any time?
Sorry if this is in good faith, there are a lot of people celebrating that they’ve just made it harder to help kids avoid a very traumatic process and I’m not in the mood to play games.

Not at all, and I'll thank you not to fabricate things I never said.

What I'm saying is that as a society we don't trust children to make informed decisions. They aren't allowed to vote. They aren't allowed to smoke. They aren't allowed to drink. They aren't allowed to have sex. They aren't allowed to sit on a jury. They aren't allowed to have a credit card. And people are generally okay with all of that. Yet we're supposed to assume that a twelve year old somehow is able to make a decision of this magnitude?

I'm not against them getting professional consultation - by all means let them talk to people confidentially who can help them. Many children question their gender at some point. It's a natural part of growing up. I just don't think throwing drugs at them is somehow the morally right thing to do.

And no, I'm not "celebrating" anything. This doesn't affect me personally, but I genuinely don't understand why people are demanding the right to drug children who, let's be frank, don't know anything about anything. They're children.

It's also reprehensible to call them "reversible" given they haven't been around that long and we're still not sure of all the side effects, though some studies have shown they can potentially cause infertility, which CAN be permanent.

No, the opposite. They’re still developing and deserve the time to make that choice in good time. Therefore, those who may need it deserve the right to have access to medical care that will give them the time to develop to the point where we can be confident they can make those choices.

I never said you were, but what was that about not fabricating things?

I’d also thank you not to erase the autonomy and self awareness of children, our identities do not spring fully formed from the earth at the age of 16, just because a person is not fully developed does not mean they don’t know themselves or their needs. Our roles as adults is to help them navigate the world safely, these drugs have been used for decades both by trans and cis kids safely, they are not new or risky, they are a safe way to postpone a potentially damaging process until the child is able to make a fully informed decision/s at the age of 16/18.

You don’t seem as concerned that this ruling makes it
A) likely that children dealing with precocious puberty will see their medication withdrawn or harder to access
B) kids suffering sexual abuse can no longer access contraception
C) vulnerable kids are being made more dependent on abusive family members
D) this movement is directly linked to people using this as a wedge issue to turn back abortion rights
Etc...

I never said they were reversible, I dislike that term as it implies time is turned back. But they have been used since the 70s safely. The risks are no higher than with other medications which are considered negligible.

Sure. They have the right to have access to medical care. But it IS a form of medical treatment and historically children aren't good at making judgement calls. That's why they're not allowed tattoos or piercings without their parent's consent either. And that's what this case is. It didn't rule that they CAN'T have access to puberty blockers. What it said was that 13-14 year olds are "highly unlikely" to be able to make an informed decision.

Umm. Yes, you did. The very first words in your reply were "So you're saying" followed by something I didn't say. How is that not fabricating something I never said?

And children DON'T have autonomy. That's why they can't choose to leave home. That's why they can't do any of the things I said earlier. As a society, we have collectively decided that children CANNOT make these decisions by themselves. Even if you feel they should, the law says they don't.

A) No, because if they are already prescribed it, this ruling won't affect their medication. And for those who have not yet received their prescription, it only rules that they are unlikely to be prescribed blockers WITHOUT the approval of an adult. It does NOT deny them access period.
B) Many forms of contraception do not require a prescription to access. And again, the ruling only says that the children are "highly unlikely" to be able to make an informed decision. It does NOT say that they CAN'T have medical help.
C) This is, yes, a slightly more grey area, but hopefully social services are involved at some point. The only time this court ruling would directly affect the situation would be if the ONLY contact the child had with the outside world was a request for medical help from a GP.
D) That has nothing to do with this. People use all kinds of court rulings to further their causes which are only tangentially related. But that isn't the fault of the ruling.

No, you didn't use the word "reversible", but the Amnesty page you linked to does, and so do the people you're sponsoring: https://goodlawproject.org/case/nhs.....-young-people/

I also note that the Good Law Project aren't actually on the same page as you. What THEY are trying to challenge is the delay in consultation.

"The NHS has a legal obligation to see those referred to Gender Identity Development Service within 18 weeks. But the average waiting time is 18 months. In some shocking reports, young people are waiting for up to four years for a first appointment. Not to get what the NHS describes as fully reversible puberty blockers but to begin the process of being assessed for eligibility for puberty blockers."

As I said in the first place, I have no problem with young people being able to get consultation, and THAT is the issue that the Good Law Project are seeking to solve. NOT access to drugs. Access to consultation. I'm certainly in favour of reducing the wait time, because 18 months is a very long time for a teenager.

No, they’re not. That’s why they deserve support to make the right choice, not be permanently physically changed before they can make those choices.
And no, you’re right its not a ban. But it is an effective ban, as the immediate response has been to pause or deny pbs from patients as health care services often don’t have the funds or capacity to risk challenges to the decision. ADULTS already have their medication denied them based on the personal whims of their doctors, I hope we can at least agree that that is inappropriate, but its now an excuse to do the same to kids... well. More than usual.

My statement: “ there are a lot of people celebrating that”
Your reply: “ And no, I'm not "celebrating" anything. “
Are you “a lot of people” or is this just projection?


Autonomy was probably the wrong word, self awareness is closer to what I wanted. As a society we have decided these things but should they not be constantly under review as new evidence comes to light. Why should we be deliberately acting in opposition to known evidence that this action helps way more than it hinders.

A) medication can be withdrawn at any time, getting a ‘script doesn’t guarantee a repeat case in point: adult trans people being denied access to hrt spontaneously mid-treatment.
A+B) as I mentioned above, this is an effective ban. If the difficulties in accessing are prohibitive to the point where it is almost indistinguishable then it is effectively a ban even if legal it is not. This also means that kids from poorer families are likely to be disproportionately effected. If there is no ban and its a-okay for the wealthy to access this treatment privately then why make it more difficult if not for ideological reasons, there is no medical reason for limiting access in this way.

B)No, all contraception is not prescription, but that is beside the point. Alcohol isn’t prescribed but you’re still not allowed to buy it under a certain age. The point isn’t “can this be prescribed or not” irt to contraception its “should under 16s have access to this w/out parental permission”, the answer is yes, because kids should be able to take steps to protect themselves from unwanted effects of sex they might not have a say in having. By saying that even with the support of their families and the potential support of a specialist or doctor PBs can not be given this directly undermines the access to contraception. If someone is not mentally competent enough to decide whether they want PBs (in this case: all kids) then the argument is easily made to apply to other medications.

Please note, I am not saying this is a flat out ban on x,y and z meds being given to kids Now. I’m saying this is part of a wider pattern that has been pressing for some time, that following that pattern will likely lead to further restrictions on access to medical care for both cis and trans people, but particularly women and girls, who will be disproportionately effected, given that both demographics already struggle to be taken seriously by medical staff.

D) ideally yes, but ss are already over stretched and capable of erring, why take away support thats already shown to be helpful and needed.

E) if I spend year’s campaigning for the right to drive at 120mph and then push a court case that raises the spd limit to 90mph, people have the right to be suspicious of my motivations. It is Possible that someone who has spent their time pushing to roll back gay and women’s rights and access to health care might only coincidentally be involved in something directly connected to gay and women’s rights and health care but I’m not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

And? Idk if you noticed but trans people aren’t big on conformity ;P
There are lots of people I don’t always agree with, Darius Rejali has a phd and specialises in the study of torture, I still think his rejection of the term “psychological torture” is harmful regressive bubkiss. That’s not to say I’m Right or know more than him. Likewise I might not be right to dislike the term “reversible”, for all I know medically its entirely the correct term, but I’m just a guy drawing porn, not a spokesman for Amnesty International, and as such I tend not to use it.

I think you miss-understood my intention in my choice of donation. The Good Law Project is not solely involved in this one case, they have represented trans people in the past and are only now shifting their focus onto this specific incident. Likewise my focus is a donation to support them in general, not specifically on this topic.

“In light of the decision in the Keira Bell case, which we believe to be wrongly decided, we are presently crowdfunding for the costs of two legal interventions. We will update you on those shortly.” 2nd dec
We don’t currently know what their goals are irt this case. It might be they decide this is not a fight to take on, fine, I’m not a lawyer to tell you if that choice would be right or wrong.

The wait time is atrocious but the issues are connected, waiting 18months or more for an apt or waiting 18 wks or less is a meaningless difference if the end result is the same. There may always be kids who are denied treatment based on misgivings, humans are fallible after all no matter how good their intentions, but no one should be denied based on someone else not wanting or not being able (financially/energetically etc...) to risk having to defend their choice in court. Likewise it should be between the child and professional health care professionals in private, not something to be dragged in front of a potentially uninformed court. Which is far more likely to be traumatic for the child—its bad enough for adults trying to get a grc.

I feel like I may be in a minority among trans people who feel a level of counselling and discussion is important as a first step, while its easy for those of us who knew very young (3yrs in my case) to point out that “taking time” to think about it is perverse after we already spent our lives considering it, that doesn’t take into account ignorance of options or social pressures to conform that might not be identified outside of a quiet guiding atmosphere. I’m dating a nb person but it still didn’t occur to me to consider I might be nb or gender fluid myself until I spoke to my specialist, as I’d clung very hard to the idea of “binary man” as a life raft snd shield, the only thing that had made sense to me up to that point, the only thing I felt that could protect me from the identity of “binary woman” being forced on me.
And I was lucky. I didn’t Know being trans was a thing. From the age of 13-21 I was miserable and considered just killing myself, but at least I didn’t have to live with the knowledge that everything I was going through Could be stopped, but wasn’t. It would be lovely to live in a world where there is easy casual access to the idea of and info about gender identity, but sadly we don’t. And, for example, trans masc kids shouldn’t be facing a nerve wracking series of questions on their preferred toys (still all too common) where they have to be afraid that admitting they liked the barbies they were given might deny them help, they should be allowed to verbally discuss and explore their identity with someone whose goal is to introduce ideas as possibilities, not definites, and judge the kid’s sense of identity and what mode of treatment, if any, is suitable. And they can’t do that effectively with this kind of ruling over their heads.

Anyway I have dinner to go eat and things to do, so for the sake of my productivity and peace-of mind on this friday night, I’m probably just going to leave it at that.

Have a good day/evening where-ever you are.