UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
loomer
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4260
Joined: 2005-11-20 07:57am

UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by loomer »


Puberty blockers: under-16s 'unlikely to be able to give informed consent'

NHS says clinic has suspended new referrals after pair, including woman who took blockers, win court case


Children under the age of 16 considering gender reassignment are unlikely to be mature enough to give informed consent to be prescribed puberty-blocking drugs, the high court has ruled.

Even in cases involving teenagers under 18 doctors may need to consult the courts for authorisation for medical intervention, three senior judges have ruled in an action brought against the Tavistock and Portman NHS trust, which runs the UK’s main gender identity development service for children.

An NHS spokesperson welcomed the “clarity” the decision had brought, adding: “The Tavistock have immediately suspended new referrals for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for the under 16s, which in future will only be permitted where a court specifically authorises it. Dr Hilary Cass is conducting a wider review on the future of gender identity services.”

The 19-page judgment in effect introduces guidelines for the way in which the London clinic handles young patients who experience gender dysphoria – the condition where they are distressed because of a “mismatch between their perceived identity and … their sex at birth”.

The claim was brought by Keira Bell, a 23-year-old woman who began taking puberty blockers when she was 16 before detransitioning, and the unnamed mother of a 15-year-old autistic girl who is on the waiting list for treatment.

In their decision, Dame Victoria Sharp, president of the Queen’s bench division, Lord Justice Lewis and Mrs Justice Lieven, said a child under the age of 16 may only consent to the use of medication intended to suppress puberty “where he or she is competent to understand the nature of the treatment”.

Such an understanding must include “the immediate and long-term consequences of the treatment, the limited evidence available as to its efficacy or purpose, the fact that the vast majority of patients proceed to the use of cross-sex hormones, and its potential life-changing consequences for a child”.

The judges said there would be enormous difficulties for young children weighing up this information and deciding whether to consent to the use of puberty blocking medication.

“It is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers,” the judges added. “It is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers.”

For treatment of those over 16 it is normally presumed that they have the ability to give consent. But in gender reassignment cases where puberty blockers may lead to subsequent surgical operations, the judges said: “Given the long-term consequences of the clinical interventions at issue in this case, and given that the treatment is as yet innovative and experimental, we recognise that clinicians may well regard these as cases where the authorisation of the court should be sought prior to commencing the clinical treatment.”

At a hearing in October, lawyers for the claimants argued that children going through puberty were “not capable of properly understanding the nature and effects of hormone blockers”.

There is “a very high likelihood” that children who start taking hormone blockers, they added, will later begin taking cross-sex hormones, which they say cause “irreversible changes”.

The Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) at the Tavistock clinic has been providing puberty blockers to children as young as 10 assessed as suffering from gender dysphoria, the judges noted.

Clinicians have required “the informed consent of those children and young persons to whom such drugs are prescribed”, the judgment said. “The issue at the heart of this claim is whether informed consent in the legal sense can be given by such children and young persons.”

The Tavistock deals with cases referred to it from across England and Wales. Until 2011, puberty blockers were only available at GIDS for those aged 16 or older.

In the year 2019-20, of 161 children referred to GIDS, three were aged 10 or 11 and 95 under the age of 16.

Diagnosis of gender dysphoria involves children demonstrating at least six of a series of behavioural traits as well as an “associated significant distress or impairment in function, lasting at least six months”.

Those patterns of behaviour include:

• A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender.

• A strong preference for wearing clothes typical of the other gender.

• A strong preference for cross-gender roles in make-believe play or fantasy play.

• A strong preference for toys, games or activities stereotypically used or engaged in by the other gender.

• A strong preference for playmates of the other gender.

• A strong rejection of toys, games and activities typical of one’s assigned gender.

• A strong dislike of one’s sexual anatomy.

• A strong desire for the physical sex characteristics that match one’s experienced gender.

A spokesman for the Tavistock and Portman NHS trust said the trust would seek permission to appeal against the ruling, adding: “The trust is disappointed by today’s judgment and we understand that the outcome is likely to cause anxiety for patients and their families.

“Our first duty is to our patients, particularly those currently receiving hormone blocking treatment, and we are working with our partners, University College London hospitals NHS foundation trust and Leeds teaching hospitals NHS trust, to provide support for patients concerned about the impact on their care.”

Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice after the ruling, Bell said she was “delighted” with the ruling: “This judgment is not political, it’s about protecting vulnerable children … I’m delighted to see that common sense has prevailed.”

Paul Conrathe, the solicitor who represented both claimants, said the ruling was “an historic judgment that protects children who suffer from gender dysphoria … This may have led to hundreds of children receiving this experimental treatment without their properly informed consent.”

Lui Asquith, from the trans children’s charity Mermaids, said: “It’s frankly a potential catastrophe for trans young people across the country and it cannot be exaggerated the impact that this might have, not only on the population of trans young people that require hormone blockers, but it may potentially open the floodgates towards other questions around bodily autonomy and who has the right to govern their own body.”
Source

Disastrously wrongheaded. Court orders are an inappropriate intervention in this arena, as they involve scrutizining people's most intimate suffering in a callous system that, at best, is overworked and ambivalent, and at worst, actively hostile. Pulling it for very young children is moderately understandable, but restricting it even for those past the age of 16 is utterly unconscionable. To boot, every single patient under 16 who's already on the medication will be subjected to an invasive review process, during which they will be denied their medication and which will either lead to a refusal to treat or the aforementioned court order scrutinization. People will die because of this.

Now would be an excellent time to donate to Mermaids.
"Doctors keep their scalpels and other instruments handy, for emergencies. Keep your philosophy ready too—ready to understand heaven and earth. In everything you do, even the smallest thing, remember the chain that links them. Nothing earthly succeeds by ignoring heaven, nothing heavenly by ignoring the earth." M.A.A.A
User avatar
VX-145
Padawan Learner
Posts: 251
Joined: 2008-10-30 07:10am
Location: I don't know. Honestly.

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by VX-145 »

I try to stay out of N&P - I get enough doom and gloom from reality - but I just wanted to point out that this isn't just transphobia (though the UK has plenty of that - to the point where the BBC chose to interview precisely one trans person in an article about trans people, among other things) but an attempt, direct or indirect, to end Gillick Competence.

In case you didn't follow the link (and just to show that I do know what I'm talking about :wink: ), Gillick Competence is the legal principle by which people under the age of consent - 16 - are allowed to make decisions about their own healthcare. This originated from a case over contraceptive access, and the basic idea is that if a child is capable of understanding the ramifications of a treatment, they are able to consent to it. This ruling says that children cannot understand the ramifications of taking puberty blockers (which makes puberty blockers useless, given you've likely already hit puberty by age 16), and opens the door for rulings like "children cannot understand the ramifications of an abortion", for example.

Given that the most prominent anti-trans group in the UK - LGB Alliance - has links to American fundamentalist anti-abortion groups, I should hope the motive behind ending it is clear. Divide et impera and all that.

Anyway, trans rights are human rights, this decision is fucked from all angles, and I'll try and get back to staying out of N&P.
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28724
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by Broomstick »

Such an understanding must include “the immediate and long-term consequences of the treatment, the limited evidence available as to its efficacy or purpose, the fact that the vast majority of patients proceed to the use of cross-sex hormones, and its potential life-changing consequences for a child”.
Wow, putting the cart before the horse - puberty blockers are not what is leading to "cross sex hormones", gender dysphoria is.
“It is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers,” the judges added. “It is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers.”
The "long term consequences of puberty blockers" is that you experience puberty a little later than you might otherwise. This smells a lot like transphobia and also the assumption people under 18 are completely and totally incompetent and should have no say in how they are treated.
There is “a very high likelihood” that children who start taking hormone blockers, they added, will later begin taking cross-sex hormones, which they say cause “irreversible changes”.
Yeah, that's kind of the point of gender transition treatment. :roll:
The Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) at the Tavistock clinic has been providing puberty blockers to children as young as 10 assessed as suffering from gender dysphoria, the judges noted.
And? So? Puberty does start as young as 8 or 9 for some people (actually, even earlier but then it's "precocious puberty. How early? World record for youngest woman to give birth is six years old, there's something "irrevocable" for you.) You start puberty blockers when the body starts puberty, which these days can be pretty damn early.
Diagnosis of gender dysphoria involves children demonstrating at least six of a series of behavioural traits as well as an “associated significant distress or impairment in function, lasting at least six months”.

Those patterns of behaviour include:

• A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender.

• A strong preference for wearing clothes typical of the other gender.

• A strong preference for cross-gender roles in make-believe play or fantasy play.

• A strong preference for toys, games or activities stereotypically used or engaged in by the other gender.

• A strong preference for playmates of the other gender.

• A strong rejection of toys, games and activities typical of one’s assigned gender.

• A strong dislike of one’s sexual anatomy.

• A strong desire for the physical sex characteristics that match one’s experienced gender.
Well, goddamn, I hit all the ones I bolded.... I guess I'm borderline trans or something? Except I'm not experiencing distress over any of it. I did once or twice, like when my second grade teacher wanted me medicated because SHE found my "unladylike" behavior distressing....
A spokesman for the Tavistock and Portman NHS trust said the trust would seek permission to appeal against the ruling, adding: “The trust is disappointed by today’s judgment and we understand that the outcome is likely to cause anxiety for patients and their families.
Anxiety? I'd be expecting more than a few meltdowns.

I mean, goddamn, I was done with puberty by 13 or 14, if I had been trans gender lack of puberty blockers until 16 would basically mean why the hell bother?

Strikes me as a bunch of people who find trans gender people "icky" and want to "protect" children by denying them care that could help them.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
Nicholas
Youngling
Posts: 113
Joined: 2018-07-17 09:03am

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by Nicholas »

loomer wrote: 2020-12-03 02:54am
Disastrously wrongheaded. Court orders are an inappropriate intervention in this arena, as they involve scrutizining people's most intimate suffering in a callous system that, at best, is overworked and ambivalent, and at worst, actively hostile. Pulling it for very young children is moderately understandable, but restricting it even for those past the age of 16 is utterly unconscionable. To boot, every single patient under 16 who's already on the medication will be subjected to an invasive review process, during which they will be denied their medication and which will either lead to a refusal to treat or the aforementioned court order scrutinization. People will die because of this.

Now would be an excellent time to donate to Mermaids.
This intrigued me enough that I went and looked at the court decision https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-on ... nd-others/ and I think you are unduly alarmed by this and blaming the wrong people. First the program currently (Nov. 2019) has a 22-26 month waiting list and puberty blockers are an experimental treatment. In light of these two things claiming "people will die because of this" is unfounded. They might but we really don't know and the two year waiting list argues that treatment is not urgent.

Second, the court decision says children under 18 cannot give informed consent to puberty blockers because not having completed puberty they are not mature enough to understand the effects. There are two possible consequences to that. First, parental consent is required. Second, court approval is required.

About parental consent the court had this to say #47:
If a child cannot give consent for treatment because they are not Gillick competent then the normal position in law would be that someone with parental responsibility could consent on their behalf. Mr Hyam sought at one point to argue that a decision as to giving PBs would fall outside the scope of parental responsibility because of the nature of the treatment concerned. However, the GIDS practice in relation to acting on parental
consent alone is quite clear. In the response to the pre-action protocol letter the defendant said:

“36. There is a fundamental misunderstanding in your letter, which states that parents can consent to pubertal suspension on behalf of a child who
is not capable of doing so. This is not the case for this service, as is clear from the above. Although the general law would permit parent(s) to
consent on behalf of their child, GIDS has never administered, nor can it conceive of any situation where it would be appropriate to administer
blockers on a patient without their consent. The Service Specification confirms that this is the case.”

It follows that is not necessary for us to consider whether parents could consent to the treatment if the child cannot lawfully do so because this is not the policy or practice of the defendant and such a case could not currently arise on the facts.
About court approval the court had this to say #147 & #149:
We do however recognise that in the light of the evidence that has emerged, and the terms of this judgment, clinicians may well consider that it is not appropriate to move to treatment, such as PBs or CSH, without the involvement of the court. We consider that it would be appropriate for clinicians to involve the court in any case where there may be any doubt as to whether the long-term best interests of a 16 or 17 year old would
be served by the clinical interventions at issue in this case.

The decisions in respect of PBs have lifelong and life-changing consequences for the children. Apart perhaps from life-saving treatment, there will be no more profound medical decisions for children than whether to start on this treatment pathway. In those circumstances we consider that
it is appropriate that the court should determine whether it is in the child’s best interests to take PBs. There is a real benefit in the court, almost certainly with a child’s guardian appointed, having oversight over the decision. In any case, under the inherent jurisdiction concerning medical treatment for those under the age of 18, there is likely to be a conflict between the support of autonomy and the protective role of the court.
As we have explained above, we consider this treatment to be one where the protective role of the court is appropriate.
If I am understanding the court decision and the Guardian article right the NHS is saying that they will not administer puberty blockers as a treatment for gender dysphoria without the informed consent of the person receiving the treatment. The court is saying that someone under the age of 18 is not usually able to give informed consent and normally when a child cannot give informed consent you seek consent from the parents or guardians instead. Arguments were made that parents could not consent to this treatment but since NHS refuses to provide this treatment without the informed consent of the child the court refused to decide on this point. It should be noted here that the NHS also refuses to provide this treatment when the parents do not consent. See #41 "His clinic has never sought to apply to the Court under its inherent jurisdiction
“against” parental opinions because he is concerned that would cause familial frictions."

In response to this situation, the NHS should have changed its rules to get informed consent from the parents and as much consent as is possible from the child. Since they already refuse to treat any child whose parents do not consent this would not have denied anyone treatment. Instead they just decided to refuse to treat anyone under 16. I think this is NHS's fault more then the courts, they are using the court's decision as an excuse to cut their wait list.

Unless of course the court actually intended to say that parents can not consent to their children receiving puberty blockers but guardians appointed by judges can. In which case the decision is stupid because loving parents will always have a better idea about what is good for their children then court appointed guardians or judges.

Broomstick wrote: 2020-12-04 04:26pm
Such an understanding must include “the immediate and long-term consequences of the treatment, the limited evidence available as to its efficacy or purpose, the fact that the vast majority of patients proceed to the use of cross-sex hormones, and its potential life-changing consequences for a child”.
Wow, putting the cart before the horse - puberty blockers are not what is leading to "cross sex hormones", gender dysphoria is.
“It is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers,” the judges added. “It is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers.”
The "long term consequences of puberty blockers" is that you experience puberty a little later than you might otherwise. This smells a lot like transphobia and also the assumption people under 18 are completely and totally incompetent and should have no say in how they are treated.
There is “a very high likelihood” that children who start taking hormone blockers, they added, will later begin taking cross-sex hormones, which they say cause “irreversible changes”.
Yeah, that's kind of the point of gender transition treatment. :roll:
The Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) at the Tavistock clinic has been providing puberty blockers to children as young as 10 assessed as suffering from gender dysphoria, the judges noted.
And? So? Puberty does start as young as 8 or 9 for some people (actually, even earlier but then it's "precocious puberty. How early? World record for youngest woman to give birth is six years old, there's something "irrevocable" for you.) You start puberty blockers when the body starts puberty, which these days can be pretty damn early.
I would like to note that "precocious puberty" is treated by a different part of the NHS and no one thinks the kids experiencing it can consent to puberty blockers. The parents consent for the kids.

There is a small inconsistency in your responses. The idea that "the only 'long term consequences of puberty blockers' is that you experience puberty a little later" is incompatible with the idea that puberty blockers are the first stage in gender transition treatment. The whole subject is something of a red herring though since its only relevance to the decision is whether in consenting to puberty blockers the child is consenting to delaying puberty or to starting gender transition treatment. The two are very different things
Broomstick wrote: 2020-12-04 04:26pm
Diagnosis of gender dysphoria involves children demonstrating at least six of a series of behavioural traits as well as an “associated significant distress or impairment in function, lasting at least six months”.

Those patterns of behaviour include:

• A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender.

• A strong preference for wearing clothes typical of the other gender.

• A strong preference for cross-gender roles in make-believe play or fantasy play.

• A strong preference for toys, games or activities stereotypically used or engaged in by the other gender.

• A strong preference for playmates of the other gender.

• A strong rejection of toys, games and activities typical of one’s assigned gender.

• A strong dislike of one’s sexual anatomy.

• A strong desire for the physical sex characteristics that match one’s experienced gender.
Well, goddamn, I hit all the ones I bolded.... I guess I'm borderline trans or something? Except I'm not experiencing distress over any of it. I did once or twice, like when my second grade teacher wanted me medicated because SHE found my "unladylike" behavior distressing....
I really really really hope you don't count as borderline trans. Failure to conform to society's gender norms should not get you any medical diagnosis!
Broomstick wrote: 2020-12-04 04:26pm
A spokesman for the Tavistock and Portman NHS trust said the trust would seek permission to appeal against the ruling, adding: “The trust is disappointed by today’s judgment and we understand that the outcome is likely to cause anxiety for patients and their families.
Anxiety? I'd be expecting more than a few meltdowns.

I mean, goddamn, I was done with puberty by 13 or 14, if I had been trans gender lack of puberty blockers until 16 would basically mean why the hell bother?

Strikes me as a bunch of people who find trans gender people "icky" and want to "protect" children by denying them care that could help them.
Obviously no one can prove that this isn't what is happening but genuine disagreement over the nature of the human person and the efficacy of an experimental treatment seems more likely in this case. Better to let the decision be made by a consensus of the child and the parent and the doctor, since that seems to be what NHS was doing, including in the case of the plaintiff, I don't really see why the courts need to be involved.

Nicholas
User avatar
Jub
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4396
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by Jub »

Nicholas wrote: 2020-12-05 04:21pmThis intrigued me enough that I went and looked at the court decision https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-on ... nd-others/ and I think you are unduly alarmed by this and blaming the wrong people. First the program currently (Nov. 2019) has a 22-26 month waiting list and puberty blockers are an experimental treatment. In light of these two things claiming "people will die because of this" is unfounded. They might but we really don't know and the two year waiting list argues that treatment is not urgent.
1) Blockers aren't an experimental treatment. They've been in use since the 70's for other purposes.

2) Many people skirt the waiting list and order their hormones from online retailers and self dose based on information that can be found online. This is less true for children but it isn't uncommon for teens to use these methods even against their parents' wishes.

3) Look at the suicide rate for trans people versus the rest of the population both before and after they start taking hormones. You'll see that being able to live as their chosen gender and getting the correct hormones greatly reduces those suicide rates and that blockers will indeed save lives.
In which case the decision is stupid because loving parents will always have a better idea about what is good for their children then court appointed guardians or judges.
Gay conversion therapy is often inflicted on children/teens by these same 'loving parents' and identifying as LGBT is a leading cause of teenage homelessness.

Please do some actual research which includes talking to trans people before continuing to speak on this topic. Your viewpoints on the subject are ignorant at best and TERFy at worst and neither is a good state to be in.
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28724
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by Broomstick »

Nicholas wrote: 2020-12-05 04:21pm
Broomstick wrote: 2020-12-04 04:26pm
Such an understanding must include “the immediate and long-term consequences of the treatment, the limited evidence available as to its efficacy or purpose, the fact that the vast majority of patients proceed to the use of cross-sex hormones, and its potential life-changing consequences for a child”.
Wow, putting the cart before the horse - puberty blockers are not what is leading to "cross sex hormones", gender dysphoria is.
“It is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers,” the judges added. “It is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers.”
The "long term consequences of puberty blockers" is that you experience puberty a little later than you might otherwise. This smells a lot like transphobia and also the assumption people under 18 are completely and totally incompetent and should have no say in how they are treated.
There is “a very high likelihood” that children who start taking hormone blockers, they added, will later begin taking cross-sex hormones, which they say cause “irreversible changes”.
Yeah, that's kind of the point of gender transition treatment. :roll:
The Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) at the Tavistock clinic has been providing puberty blockers to children as young as 10 assessed as suffering from gender dysphoria, the judges noted.
And? So? Puberty does start as young as 8 or 9 for some people (actually, even earlier but then it's "precocious puberty. How early? World record for youngest woman to give birth is six years old, there's something "irrevocable" for you.) You start puberty blockers when the body starts puberty, which these days can be pretty damn early.
I would like to note that "precocious puberty" is treated by a different part of the NHS and no one thinks the kids experiencing it can consent to puberty blockers. The parents consent for the kids.

There is a small inconsistency in your responses. The idea that "the only 'long term consequences of puberty blockers' is that you experience puberty a little later" is incompatible with the idea that puberty blockers are the first stage in gender transition treatment.
Puberty blockers are reversible. Once you stop them you go through puberty. That's the reason they're used with precocious puberty.

Yes, they are a first step in gender transition when used for gender dysmorphia. They also can be stopped if, with counseling, it turns out there is some other problem or if the person decides not to transition for any reason whatsoever.

Again, the long term consequences come NOT from the puberty blockers but from other treatments used after them for gender issues.
Nicholas wrote: 2020-12-05 04:21pm
Broomstick wrote: 2020-12-04 04:26pm
Diagnosis of gender dysphoria involves children demonstrating at least six of a series of behavioural traits as well as an “associated significant distress or impairment in function, lasting at least six months”.

Those patterns of behaviour include:

• A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender.

• A strong preference for wearing clothes typical of the other gender.

• A strong preference for cross-gender roles in make-believe play or fantasy play.

• A strong preference for toys, games or activities stereotypically used or engaged in by the other gender.

• A strong preference for playmates of the other gender.

• A strong rejection of toys, games and activities typical of one’s assigned gender.

• A strong dislike of one’s sexual anatomy.

• A strong desire for the physical sex characteristics that match one’s experienced gender.
Well, goddamn, I hit all the ones I bolded.... I guess I'm borderline trans or something? Except I'm not experiencing distress over any of it. I did once or twice, like when my second grade teacher wanted me medicated because SHE found my "unladylike" behavior distressing....
I really really really hope you don't count as borderline trans. Failure to conform to society's gender norms should not get you any medical diagnosis!
Not these days, no - but I'm old enough to remember a time when it DID. Further expansion on that spoilered so those not interested can skip my experience and I don't detract too much from the main topic with my tangent.
Spoiler
As I've mentioned before, I had at least one teacher during my school years who strongly advocated that I be medicated because SHE found my behavior so disturbing. There was also a deep, deep fear that I would be not just a tomboy but {whisper} homosexual {/whisper}. In those days, homosexuality was considered pretty much how people these days regard pedophilia, and homosexuals could be criminally charged and wind up in jail. Even if not imprisoned, being a known "pervert" would drastically decrease the careers open to you, you could be fired at a whim, turned out of your home on a whim, and get no sympathy from the authorities or society at large. So for many my tomboy ways were seen as potentially early signs of perversion and criminality. The fact my oldest sister was a lesbian only made matter worse - there was already one pervert in the family, so clearly the risk was high for another! (It's also how I became conversant with the anti-homosexual bigotry in those days - not only did I see my sister and her partners attacked, their car tires slashed, bricks thrown through their home's windows, and death threats made against them, on the school playground I was regularly beaten for having a "dyke" sister. The reaction of the authorities to all of this? :::shrug::: What do you EXPECT from being a pervert/having a pervert in the family? In other words, the societal message was that such mistreatment was the appropriate and normal response. All of that, a mere 40 years ago.)

I am also aware of girls/women whose families were much less open minded and/or accepting than mine who were confined against their will to psychiatric facilities where they were medicated, forced to adopt exaggerated signs of femininity (clothes, make-up, etc.), and indeed given a medical, that is, psychiatric diagnosis. Which might be why my parents sent me to "charm school" not once but twice - mom didn't mind my tomboy proclivities withing the household, but wanted me to be able to act the lady - and it was, very much, acting on my part. But she was right. Being able to act like the sort of lady that young women were expected to be very much aided me in my early life by, essentially, allowing me to blend in where and when that was useful or safer.

But I am not trans because I self-identify as the sex I was assigned at birth - female - and I'm quite happy with that. Seems to me that one of the essential requirements for being labeled "trans gender" is being UNsatisfied with one's assigned-at-birth gender. Which is why I'm a "tomboy" - a woman with a lot of "male" traits and preferences - and not trans.
Nicholas wrote: 2020-12-05 04:21pm
Broomstick wrote: 2020-12-04 04:26pm
A spokesman for the Tavistock and Portman NHS trust said the trust would seek permission to appeal against the ruling, adding: “The trust is disappointed by today’s judgment and we understand that the outcome is likely to cause anxiety for patients and their families.
Anxiety? I'd be expecting more than a few meltdowns.

I mean, goddamn, I was done with puberty by 13 or 14, if I had been trans gender lack of puberty blockers until 16 would basically mean why the hell bother?

Strikes me as a bunch of people who find trans gender people "icky" and want to "protect" children by denying them care that could help them.
Obviously no one can prove that this isn't what is happening but genuine disagreement over the nature of the human person and the efficacy of an experimental treatment seems more likely in this case. Better to let the decision be made by a consensus of the child and the parent and the doctor, since that seems to be what NHS was doing, including in the case of the plaintiff, I don't really see why the courts need to be involved.
I don't, either.

And puberty blockers can't properly be described as "experimental" - they've been used for decades and their effects and side effects are well known at this point. They aren't considered "experimental" for other conditions, just gender identity disorders. Of course, even 10 years ago most medical people probably didn't even acknowledge GID in adolescents and younger, hell, some of them still don't.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 16329
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by Batman »

Spoilered bit not working.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
User avatar
Jub
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4396
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by Jub »

Batman wrote: 2020-12-05 06:29pm Spoilered bit not working.
It's a board-wide issue. Spoilers don't work in a post that also uses quotes but you can quote her post to see the spoiled text.
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28724
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by Broomstick »

Yeah, I keep forgetting about that. Well, if you want to read that bit you can, but those who don't can EASILY skip over it!
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 16329
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by Batman »

I know and I did but it's still something that needs fixing
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
Nicholas
Youngling
Posts: 113
Joined: 2018-07-17 09:03am

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by Nicholas »

Jub wrote: 2020-12-05 05:39pm
Nicholas wrote: 2020-12-05 04:21pmThis intrigued me enough that I went and looked at the court decision https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-on ... nd-others/ and I think you are unduly alarmed by this and blaming the wrong people. First the program currently (Nov. 2019) has a 22-26 month waiting list and puberty blockers are an experimental treatment. In light of these two things claiming "people will die because of this" is unfounded. They might but we really don't know and the two year waiting list argues that treatment is not urgent.
1) Blockers aren't an experimental treatment. They've been in use since the 70's for other purposes.

2) Many people skirt the waiting list and order their hormones from online retailers and self dose based on information that can be found online. This is less true for children but it isn't uncommon for teens to use these methods even against their parents' wishes.

3) Look at the suicide rate for trans people versus the rest of the population both before and after they start taking hormones. You'll see that being able to live as their chosen gender and getting the correct hormones greatly reduces those suicide rates and that blockers will indeed save lives.
In which case the decision is stupid because loving parents will always have a better idea about what is good for their children then court appointed guardians or judges.
Gay conversion therapy is often inflicted on children/teens by these same 'loving parents' and identifying as LGBT is a leading cause of teenage homelessness.

Please do some actual research which includes talking to trans people before continuing to speak on this topic. Your viewpoints on the subject are ignorant at best and TERFy at worst and neither is a good state to be in.
1) Everyone agrees that blockers have been used for other purposes and that there effects when used for these purposes are well documented. Given the complex and contested nature of the relationship between body, mind and gender it doesn't follow from this that their use with trans children and teens is not experimental. Given the choice between believing some random person on-line and a British Court I will believe the British Court. From #134 of the judgement:
Firstly, there is real uncertainty over the short and long-term consequences of the treatment with very limited evidence as to its efficacy, or indeed quite what it is seeking to achieve. This means it is, in our view, properly described as experimental treatment.


2) That people are skirting the waiting list by buying medication on line supports my point that this decision is unlikely to cause as much harm as loomer thinks.

3) If you have a study for trans children and teens using blockers that would be relevant. Studies looking at adults using hormones and other methods to live as their chosen gender aren't relevant. Unless you can provide such a study I see no reason to doubt the Court's conclusion #23:
One of the issues raised in these proceedings is the non-existent or poor evidence base, as it is said to be, for the efficacy of such treatment for children and young persons with GD.
4) I don't know what point you are trying to make with your comments about abused and abandoned children. The NHS refused to provide blockers to children and teens without parental consent before this decision, that policy was not in any way effected by this decision. Unless you mean to say that the NHS should not provide blockers to trans children and teens when the children/teens, their parents/guardians and their doctors all agree they would benefit from them this issue of abuse is irrelevant.

Nicholas
User avatar
Jub
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4396
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by Jub »

Nicholas wrote: 2020-12-05 07:29pm1) Everyone agrees that blockers have been used for other purposes and that there effects when used for these purposes are well documented. Given the complex and contested nature of the relationship between body, mind and gender it doesn't follow from this that their use with trans children and teens is not experimental. Given the choice between believing some random person on-line and a British Court I will believe the British Court. From #134 of the judgement:
When have courts ever been bastions of scientific thought?
2) That people are skirting the waiting list by buying medication on line supports my point that this decision is unlikely to cause as much harm as loomer thinks.
These workarounds are a lot like coathanger abortions. They can work, and even work well, but they carry risks. It would be far better to have these people get treatment in a timely fashion than to have them self medicated.
3) If you have a study for trans children and teens using blockers that would be relevant. Studies looking at adults using hormones and other methods to live as their chosen gender aren't relevant. Unless you can provide such a study I see no reason to doubt the Court's conclusion #23
https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=hor ... i=scholart

Do it yourself next time asshole.
4) I don't know what point you are trying to make with your comments about abused and abandoned children. The NHS refused to provide blockers to children and teens without parental consent before this decision, that policy was not in any way effected by this decision. Unless you mean to say that the NHS should not provide blockers to trans children and teens when the children/teens, their parents/guardians and their doctors all agree they would benefit from them this issue of abuse is irrelevant.
The NHS should allow youth, along with a medical expert, to make these choices regardless of what a guardian (legal or biological) thinks. Their body, their choice. I'd say the same about a kid needing an abortion.
User avatar
loomer
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4260
Joined: 2005-11-20 07:57am

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by loomer »

Nicholas wrote: 2020-12-05 04:21pm
loomer wrote: 2020-12-03 02:54am
Disastrously wrongheaded. Court orders are an inappropriate intervention in this arena, as they involve scrutizining people's most intimate suffering in a callous system that, at best, is overworked and ambivalent, and at worst, actively hostile. Pulling it for very young children is moderately understandable, but restricting it even for those past the age of 16 is utterly unconscionable. To boot, every single patient under 16 who's already on the medication will be subjected to an invasive review process, during which they will be denied their medication and which will either lead to a refusal to treat or the aforementioned court order scrutinization. People will die because of this.

Now would be an excellent time to donate to Mermaids.
This intrigued me enough that I went and looked at the court decision https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-on ... nd-others/ and I think you are unduly alarmed by this and blaming the wrong people. First the program currently (Nov. 2019) has a 22-26 month waiting list and puberty blockers are an experimental treatment. In light of these two things claiming "people will die because of this" is unfounded. They might but we really don't know and the two year waiting list argues that treatment is not urgent.
The claim that people will die is based on the lived reality of trans people telling me precisely that. It's also based on the study in Pediatrics (doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1725) that found that suicidal ideation rates for trans youth decrease when puberty blocking medication is made available. The efficacy of these medications - and of hormone treatments - decreases the longer you wait, and every hurdle in the way is one more day of suffering.

Oh, they're not actually experimental treatments, by the way. They're well understood, and it's only their widespread application to trans youth that's novel.
Second, the court decision says children under 18 cannot give informed consent to puberty blockers because not having completed puberty they are not mature enough to understand the effects. There are two possible consequences to that. First, parental consent is required. Second, court approval is required.
Yeah, no shit, sherlock. Did you think I was unaware of this? Did you not notice that the actual consequence that has occurred is that court approval is now required?
About parental consent the court had this to say #47:
If a child cannot give consent for treatment because they are not Gillick competent then the normal position in law would be that someone with parental responsibility could consent on their behalf. Mr Hyam sought at one point to argue that a decision as to giving PBs would fall outside the scope of parental responsibility because of the nature of the treatment concerned. However, the GIDS practice in relation to acting on parental
consent alone is quite clear. In the response to the pre-action protocol letter the defendant said:

“36. There is a fundamental misunderstanding in your letter, which states that parents can consent to pubertal suspension on behalf of a child who
is not capable of doing so. This is not the case for this service, as is clear from the above. Although the general law would permit parent(s) to
consent on behalf of their child, GIDS has never administered, nor can it conceive of any situation where it would be appropriate to administer
blockers on a patient without their consent. The Service Specification confirms that this is the case.”

It follows that is not necessary for us to consider whether parents could consent to the treatment if the child cannot lawfully do so because this is not the policy or practice of the defendant and such a case could not currently arise on the facts.
About court approval the court had this to say #147 & #149:
We do however recognise that in the light of the evidence that has emerged, and the terms of this judgment, clinicians may well consider that it is not appropriate to move to treatment, such as PBs or CSH, without the involvement of the court. We consider that it would be appropriate for clinicians to involve the court in any case where there may be any doubt as to whether the long-term best interests of a 16 or 17 year old would
be served by the clinical interventions at issue in this case.

The decisions in respect of PBs have lifelong and life-changing consequences for the children. Apart perhaps from life-saving treatment, there will be no more profound medical decisions for children than whether to start on this treatment pathway. In those circumstances we consider that
it is appropriate that the court should determine whether it is in the child’s best interests to take PBs. There is a real benefit in the court, almost certainly with a child’s guardian appointed, having oversight over the decision. In any case, under the inherent jurisdiction concerning medical treatment for those under the age of 18, there is likely to be a conflict between the support of autonomy and the protective role of the court.
As we have explained above, we consider this treatment to be one where the protective role of the court is appropriate.
If I am understanding the court decision and the Guardian article right the NHS is saying that they will not administer puberty blockers as a treatment for gender dysphoria without the informed consent of the person receiving the treatment. The court is saying that someone under the age of 18 is not usually able to give informed consent and normally when a child cannot give informed consent you seek consent from the parents or guardians instead. Arguments were made that parents could not consent to this treatment but since NHS refuses to provide this treatment without the informed consent of the child the court refused to decide on this point. It should be noted here that the NHS also refuses to provide this treatment when the parents do not consent. See #41 "His clinic has never sought to apply to the Court under its inherent jurisdiction
“against” parental opinions because he is concerned that would cause familial frictions."
Yes, broadly correct - people under 18 may have difficulties with giving informed consent (except we usually recognize anyone over the age of 16 as being able to do so for the vast majority of medical procedures, and that's basically an end date - your ability to give informed consent for medical procedures starts to be recognized consistently at around 12-13, though it requires additional time and effort to ensure that understanding is present and remains subject to oversight until 16. This decision actually goes against common practice and case law on this point by suggesting that Gillick competency for anyone under the age of 16 for puberty blockers is essentially impossible, and subject to meddling based on clinician's judgment even after. Requiring that this informed consent go beyond puberty blockers into hormone treatment (even where that treatment has not been commenced) to achieve this state of affairs should tell you plenty about the actual strength of the argument when based on puberty blockers alone.
In response to this situation, the NHS should have changed its rules to get informed consent from the parents and as much consent as is possible from the child. Since they already refuse to treat any child whose parents do not consent this would not have denied anyone treatment. Instead they just decided to refuse to treat anyone under 16. I think this is NHS's fault more then the courts, they are using the court's decision as an excuse to cut their wait list.
And? It actually doesn't matter why the NHS has chosen to go beyond what the court's have stated. What matters is the impact. Now, let's consider this again: 'Oh, just get parental consent.' You are aware of the high degree of alienation trans youth experience from their families, right? I mean, you realize that's an issue, right? Oh, and you do realize that 'what they should have done' doesn't matter compared to what they have done, which is to force people into the court system to have their most intimate pain scrutinized?

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you've never had your existence medicalized, judicialized, and scrutinized. I have. And it's hard. It makes you want to give up, take a knife, and just end yourself, because at every turn you are faced with people who at best condescend to you, and at worst, hate or envy you. It takes your agency and shreds it, and it makes every day of your life harder, because even when you win, you know they'll be back for you. They'll drag you into the reviews again, into the inquisitorial scrutiny of people who have no idea what your life is like, who have no idea what it means to be the way you are, or how hard it is just to get up in the mornings at the best of times, let alone when you're being harassed by the instruments of state power. They don't know that their six o'clock meeting to review your case isn't just an hour for you like it is for them, but months of terror, panic sweats, and despair. They have no idea of the brutal pain that the interrogation of your very existence produces not just for that hour, but for years after the fact - of the perpetual self-doubt, self-loathing, and medical trauma it produces. Mine wasn't for my gender (fortunately, the government doesn't give a shit about agender people who don't need surgery or hormones), but my crippleness. I still can't go to a doctor without nearly breaking into tears, and I had a great doctor when I went through the inquisition - the most lovely, supportive person you could want! The experience was still so utterly dehumanizing, so utterly alienating, so utterly invasive that when I get even just a letter from the people responsible for managing disability services, I have to fight off panic attacks and usually have to read them three or four times over because I start to dissociate mid-way through.

This is what the NHS intends to visit upon every young trans person currently prescribed the blockers, and every one under 16 who's already on them. But hey - loving parents and stuff, right?
Unless of course the court actually intended to say that parents can not consent to their children receiving puberty blockers but guardians appointed by judges can. In which case the decision is stupid because loving parents will always have a better idea about what is good for their children then court appointed guardians or judges.
See again the issue of alienation. Also, protip: Not all parents are loving, let alone accepting of queerness or transness in their kids, in the first place. Fuckwit. Or did you think the massively disproportionate representation of queer and trans youth in the homeless youth population of the UK (and, y'know, everywhere else) was just because us queers and enbies and transfolk just love the great outdoors and the brisk cool air of sleeping under a bridge?
"Doctors keep their scalpels and other instruments handy, for emergencies. Keep your philosophy ready too—ready to understand heaven and earth. In everything you do, even the smallest thing, remember the chain that links them. Nothing earthly succeeds by ignoring heaven, nothing heavenly by ignoring the earth." M.A.A.A
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28724
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by Broomstick »

Nicholas wrote: 2020-12-05 07:29pm 1) Everyone agrees that blockers have been used for other purposes and that there effects when used for these purposes are well documented. Given the complex and contested nature of the relationship between body, mind and gender it doesn't follow from this that their use with trans children and teens is not experimental. Given the choice between believing some random person on-line and a British Court I will believe the British Court.
What a load of horseshit. Courts are full of lawyers, not scientists. they are NOT reliable sources of scientific or medical information.

If there is anything experimental about using puberty blockers with trans kids it's because only now is ANYTHING being done for this population. Hell, their very existence wasn't recognized a generation ago, and often discounted even today.

There's probably some fancy term for this I don't happen to recall when I'm typing this at 3 am, but it's not the puberty blockers the advocates of this are truly aiming at, they want to prevent any form of gender identity counseling/therapy in children. It's like anti-abortion people in the US who don't directly target the legality of abortion but rather impose onerous health regulations on clinics providing those services as a way to drive them out of business, all done out of a patronizing, condescending, and infantalizing "concern" for the women which really has nothing to do with their well-being and everything to do with advancing an agenda. This roadblock to kids with GID is NOT actually done out of concern for their well-being, it's done to eliminate a therapeutic approach some people don't like and to hell with the suffering involved, the agenda of ending trans therapy for minors is more important. Because there is some deluded notion that "natural" is better (so.... we shouldn't treat childhood cancer because chemotherapy has risks, just let nature take it's course? Fuck natural.) or maybe a notion that GID is "just a phase" and if you force these kids to go through a "natural" puberty they'll magically adjust and be good little normal people. We know what the results of that will be - more self-harm, more suicides, more surgery for the survivors and life-long hell for those whose natural puberties result in a body that will never pass as their internal gender no matter how much treatment they undergo. We know this because until recently that was the ONLY path for trans people.

I'm sorry that so many find GID "icky" or disturbing or have visceral reactions to trans treatment, but it has become apparent that outcomes are better with it than without it. That doesn't mean everyone who undergoes trans treatment is going to become a perfectly adjusted human being - they're human after all, and as imperfect as the rest of us. I find amputation pretty damn squicky myself but I'd never deny to someone who's limb is rotting off, or so deformed that removal and replacement with a prosthetic will give them better function than the messed up "natural" crap they would otherwise deal with. Likewise, it's not about whether you or I or anyone else is "comfortable" with trans treatment, it's about whether or not it yields a better result for the person involved. No matter how old or young that person is.
Nicholas wrote: 2020-12-05 07:29pm
Firstly, there is real uncertainty over the short and long-term consequences of the treatment with very limited evidence as to its efficacy, or indeed quite what it is seeking to achieve. This means it is, in our view, properly described as experimental treatment.
Well, in that case let's forego vaccination for covid-19 because we have no fucking way to determine the long-term consequences of either a disease only a year old or a vaccine only a month old! No, we're not going to have solid information on this until the first generation of "blocker babies" grows up and lives a few more decades - but if we don't try it we'll NEVER know. And it's not like someone pulled this treatment randomly out of their ass, the rationale for it is based on known factors.

Also, that bullshit about "quite what it is seeking to achieve" - holy fuck, I'm not trans but it makes my blood boil. It is VERY well known what the goal of blocker therapy in GID is: it's to delay puberty and prevent irrevocable and irreversible changes in a person until they are old enough to EITHER truly understand and consent to irreversible changes as they transition to their inner gender as opposed to the one assigned at birth OR after years of counseling, treatment, and living as that gender they decide that no, they don't want to transition, discontinue blockers, and undergo puberty naturally. What a fucking weasel phrasing.

Yes, most of the kids who go on puberty blockers for GID are going to transition - that's because you don't get to the point of blockers unless you've already been screened for GID on some level. They don't hand them out to everyone.
Nicholas wrote: 2020-12-05 07:29pm 2) That people are skirting the waiting list by buying medication on line supports my point that this decision is unlikely to cause as much harm as loomer thinks.
Right. Because self-medication NEVER causes any harm, right? :roll:

A lot of medications require prescriptions because they carry risks, require medical monitoring, may or may not be appropriate for the person, and the average person does NOT have the knowledge or training to prescribe safely.

People "skirting the waiting list" is a sign of unmet need, it's never a good thing, and there are people harmed because they simply don't know enough to self-medicate safely.
Nicholas wrote: 2020-12-05 07:29pm
One of the issues raised in these proceedings is the non-existent or poor evidence base, as it is said to be, for the efficacy of such treatment for children and young persons with GD.
Well, yes, if you have never treated kids with this disorder up until the past few years there won't be any evidence base for the treatment! Holy fuck, by that rationale we should NEVER, EVER try a new treatment for anything! Just give up on new medical techniques and medications because, OMG, we have no evidence on the effectiveness of something we've never done before!
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
bilateralrope
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5938
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by bilateralrope »

Nicholas wrote: 2020-12-05 07:29pm2) That people are skirting the waiting list by buying medication on line supports my point that this decision is unlikely to cause as much harm as loomer thinks.
How much does it cost when bought online ?

How much when it's provided through the NHS ?

How many families can't afford the increased price ?
User avatar
KraytKing
Jedi Knight
Posts: 582
Joined: 2016-04-11 06:39pm
Location: US East Coast

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by KraytKing »

Nicholas wrote: 2020-12-05 07:29pm
2) That people are skirting the waiting list by buying medication on line supports my point that this decision is unlikely to cause as much harm as loomer thinks.
Gonna dogpile you because fuck you, but really only this point. Broomstick, Jub, loomer, you guys have made excellent work of the rest of this bullshit.

This is such a moronic thing to say. Jesus. It really stood out, first and second time reading your post. People aren't SUPPOSED to skirt the waiting line, if they are it means the system is broken! If you build a path through a park and everyone cuts around it, then you built the path in the wrong spot. It doesn't mean that you build ANOTHER path in a different wrong spot because "people will just keep cutting the corners to get where they need to go," and it certainly doesn't mean you rope off the route people seem to prefer. The simile isn't quite accurate, though, because as Broomstick pointed out, straying off the path is more risky. Yet another reason to correct your fucking mistake and change the system to match what is actually needed.
If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
--Mace

The Old Testament has as much validity for the foundation of a religion as the pattern my recent case of insect bites formed on my ass.
--Solauren

I always get nervous when I hear the word Christian.
--Mountain

Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10172
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by Solauren »

You know, re-reading the original post, it seems to me the problem is:

The clinc in question wasn't doing there job when it came to the use of puberty blockers. Specifically, their requirement to explain, in detail, the effects (short, medium, and long term) of all the aspects of gender-transition.

This isn't about regulating gender transition in of itself. It's about a clinic/the National Health Service in the UK not doing their job properly, and the courts having to step in to make sure they fucking well do it. Since we're dealing with chemicals that radically affect your body, health professionals absolutely need to be making sure that everyone understands, in full, what they are getting into.
(It can completely kill your sex-drive, and your ability to orgasm even if it doesn't kill it.)

I know two transgendered individuals, one of 'each transition'. (They actually meet at a support group and are a couple). They had to go through a period of counciling and support meetings, etc, (I don't remember the exact time-frame) before they were able to start any of the physical aspects.
They are now more comfortable with themselves as a result (and Jay rocks a mean mustache).

Apparently, it's not unheard of for people that think they have gender dysphoria, or other identity issues, to change their mind.
I admit, I have no idea how reliable this particular newsorganizatione is;
https://news.sky.com/story/hundreds-of-young-trans-people-seeking-help-to-return-to-original-sex-11827740

I find it interesting that the above article, and the originally posted article is about transgendered individuals in the United Kingdom. It the, situation, is as large as the article is hinting, then clearly, someone in the National Health Services in the UK is not doing their job.
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.

It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
User avatar
Jub
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4396
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by Jub »

Those news stories are almost purely bullshit designed to drum up the next wave of trans panic. You can tell because they never state any hard numbers for how often the de-transition happens and if they do they never express it as a percentage of those who have transitioned. If these were actually about healthcare standards you'd see proper medical studies being published about it.
User avatar
loomer
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4260
Joined: 2005-11-20 07:57am

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by loomer »

Solauren wrote: 2020-12-08 05:41pm You know, re-reading the original post, it seems to me the problem is:

The clinc in question wasn't doing there job when it came to the use of puberty blockers. Specifically, their requirement to explain, in detail, the effects (short, medium, and long term) of all the aspects of gender-transition.

This isn't about regulating gender transition in of itself. It's about a clinic/the National Health Service in the UK not doing their job properly, and the courts having to step in to make sure they fucking well do it. Since we're dealing with chemicals that radically affect your body, health professionals absolutely need to be making sure that everyone understands, in full, what they are getting into.
(It can completely kill your sex-drive, and your ability to orgasm even if it doesn't kill it.)
And the evidence for this mass malpractice you allege is...?
I know two transgendered individuals, one of 'each transition'. (They actually meet at a support group and are a couple). They had to go through a period of counciling and support meetings, etc, (I don't remember the exact time-frame) before they were able to start any of the physical aspects.
They are now more comfortable with themselves as a result (and Jay rocks a mean mustache).
As a small point of clarification, transgendered has lost way to transgender as a preferred way of identifying people now. That aside, that's nice, but irrelevant unless you have evidence that patients at the Tavistock clinic were not provided an appropriate degree of therapeutic supports prior to commencing transition.
"Doctors keep their scalpels and other instruments handy, for emergencies. Keep your philosophy ready too—ready to understand heaven and earth. In everything you do, even the smallest thing, remember the chain that links them. Nothing earthly succeeds by ignoring heaven, nothing heavenly by ignoring the earth." M.A.A.A
User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8709
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by Starglider »

It seems after three or four decades of virtually unopposed libfem advance, the radfems have managed to hold the line - here, limiting to curb trans penetration into female sports, and blocking gender self ID in Scotland. Presumably with the much mooted but rarely seen alliance of convenience with conservatives. It remains to be seen if it's just a speedbump or a long-term shift of momentum - Ovarit et al certainly believe the later, of course.
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28724
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by Broomstick »

TERF's existed back in the 1970's when I used to argue with my oldest sister about the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival excluding trans women (not that we used those exact terms - the language was different back then) but not trans men. I couldn't wrap my head around it then and it still makes no sense to me now. TERF's aren't new but they are more vocal and now known the mainstream instead of just some of the feminists and lesbians.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8709
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by Starglider »

Broomstick wrote: 2020-12-09 04:43amTERF's existed back in the 1970's when I used to argue with my oldest sister about the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival excluding trans women (not that we used those exact terms - the language was different back then) but not trans men. I couldn't wrap my head around it then and it still makes no sense to me now. TERF's aren't new but they are more vocal and now known the mainstream instead of just some of the feminists and lesbians.
TERFS seem pretty straightforward: the majority had one or more bad experiences with men (usually coercion, sometimes rape) and want to exist without men as much as possible as a result. Transwomen have male socialisation, testosterone, sometimes penises, so the fear and/or disgust response is triggered. All of the 'burn/kick/lynch/shame/fire TERFs' stuff all over Tumblr, Twitter etc isn't helping.
User avatar
Jub
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4396
Joined: 2012-08-06 07:58pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by Jub »

Starglider wrote: 2020-12-09 02:16pmTERFS seem pretty straightforward: the majority had one or more bad experiences with men (usually coercion, sometimes rape) and want to exist without men as much as possible as a result. Transwomen have male socialisation, testosterone, sometimes penises, so the fear and/or disgust response is triggered. All of the 'burn/kick/lynch/shame/fire TERFs' stuff all over Tumblr, Twitter etc isn't helping.
The issue here is that TERFs, rather unlike their chosen targets, aren't a visible minority struggling for basic acceptance. No trans person has any desire to impose on anybody else, they want to be able to piss in a public restroom without any hassle and access services and spaces designated for people of their gender. That's literally it.
User avatar
Darth Yan
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2488
Joined: 2008-12-29 02:09pm
Location: California

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by Darth Yan »

Jub wrote: 2020-12-09 04:36pm
Starglider wrote: 2020-12-09 02:16pmTERFS seem pretty straightforward: the majority had one or more bad experiences with men (usually coercion, sometimes rape) and want to exist without men as much as possible as a result. Transwomen have male socialisation, testosterone, sometimes penises, so the fear and/or disgust response is triggered. All of the 'burn/kick/lynch/shame/fire TERFs' stuff all over Tumblr, Twitter etc isn't helping.
The issue here is that TERFs, rather unlike their chosen targets, aren't a visible minority struggling for basic acceptance. No trans person has any desire to impose on anybody else, they want to be able to piss in a public restroom without any hassle and access services and spaces designated for people of their gender. That's literally it.
Pretty much. Yeah you may have gotten hurt, but that doesn't justify being horrible to others. At some point you loose sympathy when you start oppressing others (and frankly TERFS DESERVE to be fired. If you're a bigot you should loose your job.)
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28724
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

Post by Broomstick »

Maybe - but don't bigots have to eat, too? Depriving someone of the means to live is pretty cruel, even if they are an evil jackass. What are you going to do with all the unemployed bigots?
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
Post Reply