Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is this woman a transphobe?

Edie said:
Ok. Well just from that headline, she sounds like a radical nut job. I mean I’ve not even read the article, but I’m pretty confident in saying that littlebabyjesus is very unlikely to support her or those that do. This debate would be much better if the nut job fringes were just ignored. Of course armed men should not protect women in public toilets that’s FUCKING NUTS. Can we discuss something real please.
Click to expand...
I think the relevant bit is this:
Keira Bell, who won a landmark judicial review against the NHS prescribing puberty blockers to trans teens, defended Parker, calling for people to “leave this woman alone”.

“She has done more for the greater good than a lot of people,” Bell tweeted.
Click to expand...
Now, littlebabyjesus may or may not be a fan of Parker herself, but lbj does seem to think that it's wrong for people to criticise Bell:
When you end up labelling Keira Bell a bigot... you've gone wrong somewhere.
Click to expand...
So she may be an objectionable weirdo, but she's an objectionable weirdo who some people think is worth defending.

(oops, crossposted there)
 
smokedout said:
I agree, she's pretty out there, and it would be great if we could just ignore her. But after making those comments and being criticised for it Keira Bell, who has said Posie was her biggest influence, leapt to her defence. And anyone who suggests Bell might be a bigot because of that is outrageous according to littlebabyjesus

Do you see how this stuff filters down? And why it might be a concern when it starts to draw people in like that?
Click to expand...
Who is Keira Bell?
 
Edie said:
Who is Keira Bell?
Click to expand...

Keira Bell is the detransitioner who went to court to try and prevent children and young people from having access to trans healthcare and had some success, although that's now been largely overturned - although the threat to Gillick competence is still very real. Last week her legal team, led by a notorious barrister from the religious right, attempted to intervene in a court case to prevent a young trans person being proscribed blockers that they, their parents and their doctors all supported. Thankfully the court told them to fuck off. These aren't just people on twitter.
 
smokedout said:
Keira Bell is the detransitioner who went to court to try and prevent children and young people from having access to trans healthcare and had some success, although that's now been largely overturned - although the threat to Gillick competence is still very real. Last week her legal team, led by a notorious barrister from the religious right, attempted to intervene in a court case to prevent a young trans person being proscribed blockers that they, their parents and their doctors all supported. Thankfully the court told them to fuck off. These aren't just people on twitter.
Click to expand...

A quick and heartfelt thanks to smokedout for having the time and patience to reply to the posts here, some of them which could be seen as coming across as lazy and/or disingenuous.
 
smokedout said:
Keira Bell is the detransitioner who went to court to try and prevent children and young people from having access to trans healthcare and had some success, although that's now been largely overturned - although the threat to Gillick competence is still very real. Last week her legal team, led by a notorious barrister from the religious right, attempted to intervene in a court case to prevent a young trans person being proscribed blockers that they, their parents and their doctors all supported. Thankfully the court told them to fuck off. These aren't just people on twitter.
Click to expand...
Ah apologies. Cross posted with hitmouse who explained the link.

So from @hitmouse’s article, it seems as if the judicial review has ruled that doctors should not be allowed to prescribe puberty blockers to under 16yo unless court approved. And this is a result of people like Keira Bell who have had treatment which they later regret. (Presumably treatment such as surgery which is irreversible or hormonal treatment that may cause infertility).

To be honest, that sounds sensible to me. As a mum to lads exactly this age I don’t think they would have capacity. Even for a young adult it is a very very complex decision, balancing shorter gains with longer term significant risk of harm. To think an 11 year old could do that is...
 
Edie said:
Ah apologies. Cross posted with hitmouse who explained the link.

So from @hitmouse’s article, it seems as if the judicial review has ruled that doctors should not be allowed to prescribe puberty blockers to under 16yo unless court approved. And this is a result of people like Keira Bell who have had treatment which they later regret. (Presumably treatment such as surgery which is irreversible or hormonal treatment that may cause infertility).

To be honest, that sounds sensible to me. As a mum to lads exactly this age I don’t think they would have capacity. Even for a young adult it is a very very complex decision, balancing shorter gains with longer term significant risk of harm. To think an 11 year old could do that is...
Click to expand...

I find it mind-boggling that any sane person even sets foot down the shall-we-give-irreversible-surgery-to-a-vulnerable-person road. How is this even up for debate? And yes, I do mean up for debate. To have even considered it, never mind to have actually carried it out, is unreal.
 
bmd said:
I find it mind-boggling that any sane person even sets foot down the shall-we-give-irreversible-surgery-to-a-vulnerable-person road. How is this even up for debate? And yes, I do mean up for debate. To have even considered it, never mind to have actually carried it out, is unreal.
Click to expand...

Why? Vulnerable people have surgery all the time. If a kid had a tumour in his foot nobody would seriously argue with doctors who said it should be amputated to prevent the cancer spreading.

Of course it's a difficult issue, but nowhere near as clear-cut as you're making out.
 
19force8 said:
:confused:

No, there's no debate about natural sets?
No, nature is black and white with no shades of grey?
No, there are no men with XX chromosomes or women with XY?
No, the world isn't more complex than bmd was taught?

:D
Click to expand...
There are males with more than one X or Y chromosome. There are no females with a Y chromosome. The indicator of sex is the presence or absence of a Y chromosome.
 
Last edited:
Edie said:
Ah apologies. Cross posted with hitmouse who explained the link.

So from @hitmouse’s article, it seems as if the judicial review has ruled that doctors should not be allowed to prescribe puberty blockers to under 16yo unless court approved. And this is a result of people like Keira Bell who have had treatment which they later regret. (Presumably treatment such as surgery which is irreversible or hormonal treatment that may cause infertility).

To be honest, that sounds sensible to me. As a mum to lads exactly this age I don’t think they would have capacity. Even for a young adult it is a very very complex decision, balancing shorter gains with longer term significant risk of harm. To think an 11 year old could do that is...
Click to expand...

I share some reservations around irreversible medical intervention (albeit the medical evidence is increasingly pointing towards its efficacy), but there's a big issue at stake: competence. That the decision under appeal has undermined the Gillick test (that's worked well for some time), which doesn't seem desirable. I'm fairly sure the appeal will succeed (as it should).
 
Athos, I know this is probably missing the point of you on here but I'll say it anyway and then at least I know I've said it. I don't put people on actual ignore because even a broken clock is right twice a day. However, I don't read your posts any more, not even the latest one you've written in response to mine.
 
bmd said:
Athos, I know this is probably missing the point of you on here but I'll say it anyway and then at least I know I've said it. I don't put people on actual ignore because even a broken clock is right twice a day. However, I don't read your posts any more, not even the latest one you've written in response to mine.
Click to expand...

I don't belive you, but, whatever; read mine or don't - either way, it won't stop me commenting on yours.
 
Last edited:
Athos said:
Why? Vulnerable people have surgery all the time. If a kid had a tumour in his foot nobody would seriously argue with doctors who said it should be amputated to prevent the cancer spreading.

Of course it's a difficult issue, but nowhere near as clear-cut as you're making out.
Click to expand...
One fairly significant difference is that children are very unlikely to grow into adults who strongly feel their cancer should not have been surgically treated to save their life. But because gender dysphoria is a psychological condition, some people are going to regret having treatment as children and young adults that later affects their bodies or health or fertility. So, primum non nocere.
 
It is more complicated than that. The original case found that children could not consent alone and queried whether even parents could consent. This overturned the Gillick case which allows all children to decide on health issues if competent. The Gillick case was on provision of contraception against parental advice but was applied to all care. The question of parental consent was heard in a second case which found that parents can consent. The ruling on child consent is under appeal. The judgement does not affect current self consented prescriptions (of which there are very few without parental agreement). I would be surprised if the judgement is not overturned on appeal.
 
smokedout said:
Keira Bell is the detransitioner who went to court to try and prevent children and young people from having access to trans healthcare and had some success, although that's now been largely overturned - although the threat to Gillick competence is still very real. Last week her legal team, led by a notorious barrister from the religious right, attempted to intervene in a court case to prevent a young trans person being proscribed blockers that they, their parents and their doctors all supported. Thankfully the court told them to fuck off. These aren't just people on twitter.
Click to expand...
What effect will the recent report from NICE have that says the evidence for efficacy is very low in terms of improvements to mental health? For both blockers and cross sex hormones. It doesn't seem the recent furore on effects on bone density has been resolved either way also.

It seems like the studies done so far are not conclusive. When you're talking about medications that affect healthy tissue, for psychological reasons, I think the benefits have to be conclusive don't they? I'm not saying that if proper studies are done that won't be the case but I don't understand how we are at the stage of giving young people treatments that aren't proven to help. That just seems utterly crazy to me.
 
bmd said:
I find it mind-boggling that any sane person even sets foot down the shall-we-give-irreversible-surgery-to-a-vulnerable-person road. How is this even up for debate? And yes, I do mean up for debate. To have even considered it, never mind to have actually carried it out, is unreal.
Click to expand...
It is not surgery. It is prescription of medicine. Surgery for gender change is illegal under 16 years of age in the UK.
 
baldrick said:
What effect will the recent report from NICE have that says the evidence for efficacy is very low in terms of improvements to mental health? For both blockers and cross sex hormones. It doesn't seem the recent furore on effects on bone density has been resolved either way also.

It seems like the studies done so far are not conclusive. When you're talking about medications that affect healthy tissue, for psychological reasons, I think the benefits have to be conclusive don't they? I'm not saying that if proper studies are done that won't be the case but I don't understand how we are at the stage of giving young people treatments that aren't proven to help. That just seems utterly crazy to me.
Click to expand...

The court did not and cannot consider efficacy. It is merely considering consent. Consent by parents has been confirmed as lawful so the only question now is child alone consent which is very rare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wookey
Woman falls through a hole in Blackpool Pier
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Lotte
L
WhyLikeThis
Is your Labour MP on this list?
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
WhyLikeThis
WhyLikeThis
Maggot
What is wrong with government borrowing?
2 3
Replies
61
Views
2K
LakieLady
LakieLady
_Russ_
This little shit.....
Replies
19
Views
873
stavros
S
Humberto
David Cameron is a walking disaster. And war criminal.
Replies
12
Views
695
Mation
Mation
Back
Top Bottom