A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
Thanks, I’ve learned something new today and I haven’t even got up yet.
Is this woman a transphobe?
- Thread starter co-op
- Start date
Border Reiver
Active Member
Sorry. Forgot the exception that proves the rule.
bmd
Island in the stream.
I'm not in favour of that either but at least it isn't irreversible. With this, I am not making a judgement on the reason why these children wish to do these things btw.
Border Reiver
Active Member
Medicine does not treat that as an absolute. Current medical ethics require that appropriate risks be taken for the probable benefit of the patient.
The court is not considering that. The only consideration is child consent.
bimble
floofy
i wasn't aware of this NICE report existing but here it is, if anyone wants to take a look (click on the blue title for full report as PDF)
Evidence search service closure information
The conclusion seems to be that there is no evidence of these treatments on young people improving mental health or quality of life?
But I am not any good at reading these studies and don't understand the numbers.
(Also i'm not even here anymore obvs)
19force8
For the avoidance of faith
Most prescriptions of puberty blockers to children are to delay precocious puberty. So it was a very unhelpful ruling which has now been largely overturned. There has been no suggestion of surgery for under 16s.
There is a lot of misinformation about detransistioning. It's not at all common, studies show that only around 1% of trans people detransition, almost all pre-surgery, mostly MtF and many cite social pressures as the main reason. Indeed, of those who do detransition, some will go on to transition fully at a later date. In fact the statistics for satisfaction/regret following gender affirming surgery are much better than for other elective procedures.
Thinking back to when my lads were 16 I don't know whether they had the capacity to make such decisions at that age, but I suspect that's largely because they didn't need to. If either of them had had gender dysphoria I hope I'd have been able to give them the support they needed.
There is a lot of neuroscience about synaptic pruning and the development of the pre frontal cortex, that shows adolescents cannot weigh up decisions and risks as adults do. I only need to observe the thought patterns/arguments/decisions of my sons to see that evidence. Children need to be supported to explore their feelings and relationships with their bodies and gender. And no active intervention that could constitute harm by the medical community should be considered. To do otherwise is madness- these children as adults will be horrified. Support, understanding, love, counselling, acceptance and not medical intervention.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
The thing is (in theory at least, it doesn't 100% work this way but it should) everyone has the right to make unwise** decisions unless someone can show they don't understand what they're deciding (either because they are incapable of processing information about the decision, or are unable to remember it for long enough to process it)
If an adult (because it's not quite the same for minors) can show they do understand the risks of a choice and are able to positively express that choice in their own way, then it's a fundamental human right to make that choice. It's not about 'vulnerability' but about mental capacity, they aren't the same.
** to me, you or someone else.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I see I've been tagged a few times despite saying I was leaving this. Not going to respond to whattaboutery, will just make the point again about bad thinking on both sides.
On one side are the theories of Ray Blanchard, which ought to be forgotten in the dustbin of bad ideas but have been revived and are referenced pretty often in this debate, not just on the Twitter fringe. It's quite hard for me to put into words how wrong his ideas are. From reading his stuff directly, it's wrong from the bottom up. It reflects little more than his own prejudices against homosexuality, and contains some frankly absurd ideas about what sexual attraction is and how it develops. It's reductive and wrong, but its particular mention of 'autogynephilia' has been latched onto as a means to an end - the end being to reduce male to female transgenderism to a fetish. These are regressive, reactionary, arbitrary ideas.
On the other side are the theories of the likes of Mermaids. Again, not fringe ideas as, among other things, Mermaids is an influential lobbying organisation. Its theories are just as arbitrary as Blanchard's, promoting a particular form of a 'gender spectrum' filled with stereotypes onto which people in general, and children in particular, are invited to place themselves. It essentialises gender and dogmatically asserts that affirmation of the child's professed gender identity is the only correct course of action. Indeed, they consider anything else to be tantamount to abuse. These are also regressive and reactionary ideas, and they've found enthusiastic support in certain quarters in the medical profession, for instance with influential US endocrinologist Norman Spack, who advocates medical intervention as young as ten. The certainty with which this narrow, poorly evidenced medical model is promoted reminds me horribly of the certainty with which US doctors toured the country lobotomising thousands of people indiscriminately in the 1950s.
It depresses me how people on both sides of this debate attach themselves to one or other of these bad ideas because it's 'their side'. Please don't tag me to respond to this.
On one side are the theories of Ray Blanchard, which ought to be forgotten in the dustbin of bad ideas but have been revived and are referenced pretty often in this debate, not just on the Twitter fringe. It's quite hard for me to put into words how wrong his ideas are. From reading his stuff directly, it's wrong from the bottom up. It reflects little more than his own prejudices against homosexuality, and contains some frankly absurd ideas about what sexual attraction is and how it develops. It's reductive and wrong, but its particular mention of 'autogynephilia' has been latched onto as a means to an end - the end being to reduce male to female transgenderism to a fetish. These are regressive, reactionary, arbitrary ideas.
On the other side are the theories of the likes of Mermaids. Again, not fringe ideas as, among other things, Mermaids is an influential lobbying organisation. Its theories are just as arbitrary as Blanchard's, promoting a particular form of a 'gender spectrum' filled with stereotypes onto which people in general, and children in particular, are invited to place themselves. It essentialises gender and dogmatically asserts that affirmation of the child's professed gender identity is the only correct course of action. Indeed, they consider anything else to be tantamount to abuse. These are also regressive and reactionary ideas, and they've found enthusiastic support in certain quarters in the medical profession, for instance with influential US endocrinologist Norman Spack, who advocates medical intervention as young as ten. The certainty with which this narrow, poorly evidenced medical model is promoted reminds me horribly of the certainty with which US doctors toured the country lobotomising thousands of people indiscriminately in the 1950s.
It depresses me how people on both sides of this debate attach themselves to one or other of these bad ideas because it's 'their side'. Please don't tag me to respond to this.
Border Reiver
Active Member
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But the law differs. Children over seven years of age have been able to consent to any treat.ent they have the capacity to understand according to medical ethics since the Gillick case; parents have always been able to give consent for any medical intervention not specifically forbidden. Medical ethics and law have considered research on maturing of children's ability to consent and have settled on the law as it is currently applied. It is unlikely to change.
bmd
Island in the stream.
Yes, sorry I wasn't more clear. What I was talking about was children. I fully support anyone, who is over the age of consent for this kind of thing, making their own decisions about their body.
Wrt to 'vulnerable' and Trans people, I do think they are vulnerable because of the fact that they see their body as having grown wrongly and therefore the impact that has on their mental health leads to a vulnerability bias towards resolving it.
Last edited:
Border Reiver
Active Member
And under Gillick Competence this apllies to children and medical treatment at the level of their understanding .
Border Reiver
Active Member
With the current case never was the adage "Hard cases make bad law" more apposite. The court basically considered a single case and ignored a majority of other cases.
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
No they didn’t. You are as wrong about this as you are about most of the other things you pontificate about.
Border Reiver
Active Member
Apart from the appellant which other cases were considered? That is one of the grounds of appeal. You do realise that their questioning if the whole issue of prescription of puberty blockers (suggesting even parents cannot consent) has been ruled not to be the case and the only current restriction is on prescription for children against parental consent? I expect a return to Gillick Competence for puberty blockers on appeal.
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
You forgot that you ‘had me on ignore’....
Border Reiver
Active Member
Border Reiver
Active Member
I use it to stop abusive posts. Once the person has had a chance to cool down I unignore them. You chose to tag me so you now have a chance to debate without abuse.
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
Bollocks. You are a trolling returner or sock puppet and I claim my £5
Last edited:
bmd
Island in the stream.
I'm not using capacity and vulnerability interchangeably here and also, the law seems to need to catch up or, at least, reflect on it's ability to encompass these issues.
Border Reiver
Active Member
Back on ignore until you show some ability to learn.
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
That’s my day ruined then...you know Orangutan’s persona on the ‘jokes’ thread is a joke right?
Border Reiver
Active Member
The law was reviewed relatively recently (in the eighties and nineties) in England and Wales. I was involved in the consultation for capacity and the elderly. It is unlikely to change again as the formulation seems to have worked well.
Psychiatry (via DSM) has removed transgender from a disorder to a normative condtion causing distress as we moved from DSM IV(R) to DSM5. Unlikely to be undone.
bmd
Island in the stream.
And now, all I know that I didn't before is that you were involved in a consultation on a law.
Jolly good.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I know I said I was leaving this but I just want to make one measured, nuanced point.
Fuck the DSM.
Fuck the DSM.
Border Reiver
Active Member
Border Reiver
Active Member
You can ignore it as you wish. It is widely used in teaching and interpreting mental disorders by psychiatrists and the courts. If you are communicating with people about mental disorders it is widely recognised as a work of definition and reference. I have many reservations about it, but it exists and tends to affect many legal and medical decisions.
Similar threads
