On bathrooms in general, I don't think I've ever spent time in a bathroom that didn't have stalls and privacy walls in my adult life. You'd have to do some intentional work to see anyone's anything, even in men's bathrooms. The idea that bathrooms must be single sex to protect women is strange to me.
Most places I go, I find the stall construction that Lamb Chopped describes, with the gap round the door. I've certainly never seen anything private through one - a flash of colour that indicates that there's someone inside, maybe, but you'd have to actually focus through the gap to try and see anything. The complete absence of door is something else - you'd have to make an effort not to look.
Most often when I hear women complain about sharing facilities with men, it's in reference to single-user unisex facilities in offices etc., and the complaints are with relation to men with poor aim and bad smells. In the same places, I hear men complain about the bin for sanitary items.
In rural Saskatchewan within my lifetime, rural facilities (church, Legion, curling rinks etc), women's washrooms would have 2 or 3 toilets. Men's typically an aluminum trough 6 or 8 feet long, sloped to one end, drain pipe going somewhere. No toilet.
Often I went outside myself, find a bush in the dark for myself. Standing guard for others who needed to squat. Pooping is not on the menu in such venues.
How do the designers of these facilities manage to forget people defecate - and that is probably more of an environmental issue that if they urinated in a bush.
Come to that who designs doorless toilets and thinks, that’ll be fine it will make no one uncomfortable - is this another of those God forbid anybody masturbates initiatives ?
Come to that who designs doorless toilets and thinks, that’ll be fine it will make no one uncomfortable - is this another of those God forbid anybody masturbates initiatives ?
I venture to suggest that the designers of public toilets never consider people's masturbatory comforts. Frankly I'm surprised enough that people apparently have sex in toilets. The mind boggles even more at the idea that people might get it on by themselves in there.
I had heard in the dim and distant past, that the doors on stalls in some boys boarding schools had half doors to discourage masturbation - but I am not sure if that is true.
Doors in loos in public parks, campgrounds, etc., tend to get damaged, destroyed, or ripped off (detached violently) by vandals. I think part of the lack of such doors is to prevent this. On the other hand many smaller and/or more remote campgrounds have pit toilets that hold only one person and latch shut (and smell like holy Hell but that's perhaps the price you pay). No peeking possible.
Boy scout facilities here are usually one or two holer long drops. No doors, but you do have to go around a divider to get to them--side by side. I dont ever think ive met a scout who would use the second at the same time, though.
We call the old fashioned ones outhouses. They are generally illegal now. By our laws they must not be holes in the ground which leak and ooze into ground water. They also don't need to smell anymore. We do fundraisers for parts of canoe routes that are well-frequented. They are lined pits with biological and chemical treatment. They don't smell at all. Large areas of the Canadian north are pristine. You may drink water out of lakes directly. (I'm not including high population areas east of the Great Lakes.
Notable in some places with high use of wilderness, you must carry your poop out with you along with your garbage. And there are inspections. Human feces are full of contaminants.
As for doors in boarding schools toilet stalls, I'm rare in my area of Canada to have gone to a boarding school as my parents worked overseas. We had doors. There were jokes about about jerking off, discussions of circle jerks (masturbation races to see who ejaculated first), discussions of corn-holing which seemed to reference corn cobs as anal dildos. Was never aware of any of these things being actual behaviour. The level of physical threat from teachers and violence from them (in front of class hit with paddles on buttocks while holding your knees) seemed to keep it at the level of stories. The Freudians would have suggested that they converted- sublimated- anything sexual into aggression. Boys did a lot of beatings of each other too. Occasional broken ribs and fingers. Bruises. Lots of fear.
That's probably true. Sexuality is rather oddly dealt with. Pornography. Sexual content in media. Advertisements. Sexualization of children/ adolescents. Coupled with puritanical demands for personal behaviour.
10 years or so ago I was working in a boarding school, where the final boys' house was being converted to individual shower stalls. According to the Housemaster this was popular with the parents but not the boys. According to him, once they got used to communal showers it was a popular social event, where they would sit and chat. And eat oranges.
I have what is technically called a Bashful Bladder, always have and at this age unlikely to change. OTOH, no problems with nudity in the showers after a game or swimming.
When I went to a public high school for parts my education, and at the local university swimming pool, the showers were all gang showers. Up to a dozen shower heads in a room. Part of doing physical activity was being in a locker room with others naked. Normal. It's been a while but last I was in a gang shower about half the guys wore bathing suits. Which is new. I was never super athletic but it was thought at one point that basic competence included both physical and intellectual competencies. And to be socialized amongst your peers. I wouldn't mind seeing this return. There's rather good data that many psychological and social problems are helped by physical activity. And there's a prevention angle.
"It should be obvious what I meant" is usually said whenever it's not.
Which is suspiciously like a retort from someone who missed an obvious point.
Whatever, out societies are fucked up with how we think about the body and sex.
There is a summary of a court decision from "The Judiciary of England and Wales"" about the Tavistock gender clinic. Links to both the summary and full judgement may be found Here.
The following is of note in the summary:
5. .... highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers. It was also doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blocking drugs.
6. In respect of young persons aged 16 and over, the legal position is that there is a statutory presumption that they have the ability to consent to medical treatment. 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, the court recognised that clinicians may well regard these as cases where the authorisation of the court should be sought before starting treatment with puberty blocking drugs.
Yes, trans kids under 16 are stuck, and even after that, possibly treatment could be denied. I don't know what trans kids will do, probably go black market or the internet. I guess the transphobes are delighted. More suicides, probably. Happy days.
They may not have the ability to consent, but presumably a best interest decision could be made on their behalf. I take it that the reference to a court decision therefore relates to the court of protection ?
(This in a country where we hold children criminally liable for their actions from the age of 10, if I were a defence lawyer I’d now be arguing lack of capacity on the basis of this judgement for any criminal allegation ....)
I'm not a lawyer, but have seen that reasoning to commit an act can be differently understood as a determining a life-long choice. Hence we also see criminal responsibility at a lower age than allowing a child to make a place of residence decision after divorce.
I read the longer decision briefly. The court references what might be termed carelessness or even neglect to collect data where they could, and to not pay attention to other data. The court makes reference to experts and to articles which summarizes data.
Some of what is written in it and the final decision as rendered looks to me like the court felt the clinic was not attentive to the developmental level of children. There is a paragraph where the court noted that autism spectrum disorder is over-represented.
How does this decision affect things then in UK. Is there an appeal possible to another higher court? Can a court order people to practice differently professionally who were not part of the case, or is it merely advisory to them?
It is possible you are more likely to be trans if you are autistic.
I thought the whole point of puberty blockers was to make space for children to develop and mature and not have to make an early decision about gender if they felt uncomfortable ?
It is possible you are more likely to be trans if you are autistic.
I thought the whole point of puberty blockers was to make space for children to develop and mature and not have to make an early decision about gender if they felt uncomfortable ?
The first one - someone can be both trans and autistic is probably agreeable, but we do not know the nature of relationship between these.
The second one - that puberty blockers may make space to delay gender decisions doesn't take into account the risks according to the court.
There is a third point, made in the judgement about the proportion of children treated was equal for born boys and girls, and then has shifted to much higher proportion of girls. This is not explained by the clinics.
From the longer judgement: (PB means puberty blocking hormones, CSH means cross sex hormones, GIDS means the UK gender identity development service).
The judgement does not support the use of puberty blockers as without possible harm.
52. There is some dispute as to the purpose of prescribing PBs. According to Dr Carmichael, the primary purpose of PBs is to give the young person time to think about their gender identity. This is a phrase which is repeated on a number of the GIDS and Trust information documents.
In #56, this
...so it is said, it is possible for a young person to come off the PBs at any point and not proceed to taking CSH. On one view, this is correct. However, the evidence that we have on this issue clearly shows that practically all children / young people who start PBs progress on to CSH.
From #60, this
...the history of the use of PBs relied upon in this context is from the treatment of precocious puberty which is a different condition from GD, and where PBs are used in a very different way.
The context that data about PBs comes from children who have progressed to puberty far too early, with data showing safety to delay puberty for precociously developing children, not for a transgender/trans questioning group. The risks for early onset puberty in that group wan not discussed; I wonder what those risks are.
The judgement goes on in #63 to quote the info sheet the clinic provides to young people which indicates they don't know the effects of puberty blockers, listing development of sexual organs, bone, physical stature, memory, concentration, feelings about trans, fertility. And then onward to note the contradictions in claims of no negative effects to possibly effects.
The review of evidence in the judgement concludes that "...lack of a firm evidence base for their use is evident from the very limited published material as to the effectiveness of the treatment..." (#71)
Yes, I wonder if the judges considered the effects of not having treatment? I guess that's not part of their remit, but presumably the Tavi's barrister made that point. Also, I thought the question of under-age treatment had been settled by Gillick. Children can decide to have an abortion, but not hormone blockers.
Haven’t read the entire UK decision, and probably won’t have time to do so for a while. Para 135 seems to be very important to the overall result - we don’t really understand this, so we’re going to err on the side of conservatism. On a quick reading, they seem to mistrust the clinical evidence. I think they may badly underestimate the potential negative consequences of inaction - deciding to do nothing is a decision with potentially serious negative consequences in the normal course of any situation where medical intervention may be required.
Yes, I wonder if the judges considered the effects of not having treatment? I guess that's not part of their remit, but presumably the Tavi's barrister made that point. Also, I thought the question of under-age treatment had been settled by Gillick. Children can decide to have an abortion, but not hormone blockers.
A couple of points. The Court would be making its decision on the evidence presented to it, and paragraphs 10 and 11 of the decision set out a summary of that evidence. It's not for the Court to make any independent search for evidence and it would be very wrong for it to do so. The second, which arises directly from your quotation is that the Court would go from that evidence to the submissions based on that evidence, and submissions are not evidence.
Yes, I wonder if the judges considered the effects of not having treatment? I guess that's not part of their remit, but presumably the Tavi's barrister made that point.
A couple of points. The Court would be making its decision on the evidence presented to it, and paragraphs 10 and 11 of the decision set out a summary of that evidence. It's not for the Court to make any independent search for evidence and it would be very wrong for it to do so.
I still need to read the decision properly, but if the clinical evidence was to the effect that the treatment is medically appropriate, then surely it's a common-sense inference that bad things may happen if treatment is withheld. I don't think it would be considered ethical in 2020 to refuse treatment to some patients just to prove that point.
What's not entirely clear to me, not being familiar with UK law (or for that matter with the law of medical consent), is who the Court is saying can consent. Is it a matter for the parents? for the courts? for nobody until the kid reaches the age of 18 and the ship has sailed? I'll hold off on further comment until I've read the decision, though if somebody knows the answer to that question it might help me with my reading.
This is from the Court's summary of the decision:
3. The court in this case was concerned with the legal requirements for obtaining consent for the carrying out of medical treatment. The court was not concerned with deciding whether there were benefits or disbenefits in treating children with gender dysphoria with puberty blocking drugs. The legal issue in the case concerned identifying the circumstances in which a child was competent as a matter of law to give
valid consent to treatment.
4. The court held that in order for a child to be competent to give valid consent the child would have to understand, retain and weigh the following information: (i) the immediate consequences of the treatment
in physical and psychological terms; (ii) the fact that the vast majority of patients taking puberty blockingdrugs proceed to taking cross-sex hormones and are, therefore, a pathway to much greater medical
interventions; (iii) the relationship between taking cross-sex hormones and subsequent surgery, with the implications of such surgery; (iv) the fact that cross-sex hormones may well lead to a loss of fertility; (v) the
impact of cross-sex hormones on sexual function; (vi) the impact that taking this step on this treatment pathway may have on future and life-long relationships; (vii) the unknown physical consequences of taking
puberty blocking drugs; and (viii) the fact that the evidence base for this treatment is as yet highly uncertain.
5. The court considered that it was highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers. It was also doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15
could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blocking drugs.
6. In respect of young persons aged 16 and over, the legal position is that there is a statutory presumption that they have the ability to consent to medical treatment. 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, the court recognised that clinicians may well regard these as cases where the authorisation of
the court should be sought before starting treatment with puberty blocking drugs.
My Wikipedia-level understanding of Gillick competence is that it relates to a minor’s ability to consent to medical treatment independently of their parents - because parental consent is usually required for medical treatment for a minor. If I’m right about that, this case is really about the role of parents in the decision-making process. If the parents are on board, then puberty blockers can be prescribed at the young person’s request and (obviously) if believed by the clinician to be medically appropriate. If they’re not on board, then not. Can someone tell me if this is right?
My Wikipedia-level understanding of Gillick competence is that it relates to a minor’s ability to consent to medical treatment independently of their parents - because parental consent is usually required for medical treatment for a minor. If I’m right about that, this case is really about the role of parents in the decision-making process. If the parents are on board, then puberty blockers can be prescribed at the young person’s request and (obviously) if believed by the clinician to be medically appropriate. If they’re not on board, then not. Can someone tell me if this is right?
That's my reading of it. It didn't arise in relation to gender, but contraception and abortion. Well, Gillick herself was trying to stop contraception being given to under 16s, interpreted as encouraging sex in minors. So if parents are on board for puberty blockers, this isn't a problem? However, some trans people are interpreting the new ruling as the state trying to squash trans people, and the anti-trans groups as trying to "erase" them. There is chatter about an investigation into the Tavistock, and of course, many lurid rumours.
From what I have read, in theory, under the Dutch protocol which has stood the test of time and continuing research, young people aged 13 or more can be placed on puberty blockers to pause puberty while they explore their gender dysphoria. What happens in the Netherlands then depends on the results of those explorations. They have recently compared their current criteria against earlier criteria as they were concerned by the number of natal females presenting and found consistency. (I did read the research and could probably find it again.)
What was being challenged here was the Tavistock protocol, which purported to trial the Dutch protocol in 2010/11, but did not follow that protocol exactly. The concern is that when young people start taking puberty blockers with GIDS, aged 10, 13 or 16, those young people are almost certainly committed to transition - which is what that judgement is saying. That starting the puberty blockers is the first step on a pathway that is rarely left. From the commentary on Twitter, the court case refused to take evidence from Stonewall and Mermaids.
The Tavistock was investigated in 2019, BBC article discussing the findings leading on the turnover of staff and feeling that concerns were being shut down. An independent review of the Gender Identity Services was announced in September 2020. link and a second Care Quality Commission investigation was announced in October link to Guardian coverage of October court hearing
This is a link to Keira Bell's crowdfunding page from September 2020 where she lays out her challenges. She's also challenging the memorandum of understanding that covers psychological support of gender dysphoria as it does not allow challenging of young people's dissatisfaction with their assigned gender.
The other bit of research that is being bandied about is showing that taking puberty blockers leads to loss of bone density. (The research has been obfuscated in the past by using average numbers not the gender and age linked bone densities that are usually used.)
There is a problem with this judgement driving a coach and horses through Gillick in its attack on GIDS and the Tavistock use of puberty blockers.
There are other issues - speculatively, GIDS has been under attack from Mermaids for not proceeding fast enough, from the staff turnover there seem to have been internal struggles. Generally in the UK there is a major shortage of adolescent and child mental health and psychological support available. I wonder if another driver is that local services are diagnosing gender dysphoria without investigating further, just referring to GIDS to get the young person off their books then GIDS do not provide psychological support as their protocol assumes proper investigation locally before referral.
The young people I knew further back than this both had a lot of local psych support and one was never referred to GIDS as the local psych felt their problems were not gender dysphoria.
However, some trans people are interpreting the new ruling as the state trying to squash trans people, and the anti-trans groups as trying to "erase" them. There is chatter about an investigation into the Tavistock, and of course, many lurid rumours.
Given the way transphobes weaponise the handful of detransitioners it's no great leap to arrive at that interpretation. There have been real warning signs from the current UK government that they intend to chart a more transphobic path.
Yes, my wife just said I am wrong on Gillick, and the Tavi will have to restrict treatments considerably, even with parental approval. But it's going to appeal. Trans kids must be feeling like shit. Internet sales of hormone blockers will soar.
Yes, my wife just said I am wrong on Gillick, and the Tavi will have to restrict treatments considerably, even with parental approval. But it's going to appeal. Trans kids must be feeling like shit. Internet sales of hormone blockers will soar.
because forcing people to improvise medical solutions in the face of government obstruction works so well in other areas.
I suspect the Tavistock would not have lost this case had it been able to prove that it either or both:
could demonstrate that use of puberty blockers did not inexorably progress to gender hormones and transition;
could show that the young people in their service had sufficient psychological support to explore their doubts and these were listened to when expressed
The fact that this has been tried in such a way to challenge Gillick is really unhelpful.
Comments
Most places I go, I find the stall construction that Lamb Chopped describes, with the gap round the door. I've certainly never seen anything private through one - a flash of colour that indicates that there's someone inside, maybe, but you'd have to actually focus through the gap to try and see anything. The complete absence of door is something else - you'd have to make an effort not to look.
Most often when I hear women complain about sharing facilities with men, it's in reference to single-user unisex facilities in offices etc., and the complaints are with relation to men with poor aim and bad smells. In the same places, I hear men complain about the bin for sanitary items.
Often I went outside myself, find a bush in the dark for myself. Standing guard for others who needed to squat. Pooping is not on the menu in such venues.
Come to that who designs doorless toilets and thinks, that’ll be fine it will make no one uncomfortable - is this another of those God forbid anybody masturbates initiatives ?
I venture to suggest that the designers of public toilets never consider people's masturbatory comforts. Frankly I'm surprised enough that people apparently have sex in toilets. The mind boggles even more at the idea that people might get it on by themselves in there.
If you're interested, there are books about pooping in the bush. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/77377.How_to_Shit_in_the_Woods
Notable in some places with high use of wilderness, you must carry your poop out with you along with your garbage. And there are inspections. Human feces are full of contaminants.
As for doors in boarding schools toilet stalls, I'm rare in my area of Canada to have gone to a boarding school as my parents worked overseas. We had doors. There were jokes about about jerking off, discussions of circle jerks (masturbation races to see who ejaculated first), discussions of corn-holing which seemed to reference corn cobs as anal dildos. Was never aware of any of these things being actual behaviour. The level of physical threat from teachers and violence from them (in front of class hit with paddles on buttocks while holding your knees) seemed to keep it at the level of stories. The Freudians would have suggested that they converted- sublimated- anything sexual into aggression. Boys did a lot of beatings of each other too. Occasional broken ribs and fingers. Bruises. Lots of fear.
This looks a whole lot like blaming the victim. "GK, if you weren't so uptight, you'd be happy to have people watch you piss."
Whatever, out societies are fucked up with how we think about the body and sex.
About this we are in agreement.
The following is of note in the summary:
(This in a country where we hold children criminally liable for their actions from the age of 10, if I were a defence lawyer I’d now be arguing lack of capacity on the basis of this judgement for any criminal allegation ....)
I read the longer decision briefly. The court references what might be termed carelessness or even neglect to collect data where they could, and to not pay attention to other data. The court makes reference to experts and to articles which summarizes data.
Some of what is written in it and the final decision as rendered looks to me like the court felt the clinic was not attentive to the developmental level of children. There is a paragraph where the court noted that autism spectrum disorder is over-represented.
How does this decision affect things then in UK. Is there an appeal possible to another higher court? Can a court order people to practice differently professionally who were not part of the case, or is it merely advisory to them?
I thought the whole point of puberty blockers was to make space for children to develop and mature and not have to make an early decision about gender if they felt uncomfortable ?
I believe both of those things also.
The second one - that puberty blockers may make space to delay gender decisions doesn't take into account the risks according to the court.
There is a third point, made in the judgement about the proportion of children treated was equal for born boys and girls, and then has shifted to much higher proportion of girls. This is not explained by the clinics.
From the longer judgement: (PB means puberty blocking hormones, CSH means cross sex hormones, GIDS means the UK gender identity development service).
The judgement does not support the use of puberty blockers as without possible harm.
In #56, this
From #60, this
The context that data about PBs comes from children who have progressed to puberty far too early, with data showing safety to delay puberty for precociously developing children, not for a transgender/trans questioning group. The risks for early onset puberty in that group wan not discussed; I wonder what those risks are.
The judgement goes on in #63 to quote the info sheet the clinic provides to young people which indicates they don't know the effects of puberty blockers, listing development of sexual organs, bone, physical stature, memory, concentration, feelings about trans, fertility. And then onward to note the contradictions in claims of no negative effects to possibly effects.
The review of evidence in the judgement concludes that "...lack of a firm evidence base for their use is evident from the very limited published material as to the effectiveness of the treatment..." (#71)
The judgement goes on to discuss age of consent.
Really strong bones are useless to someone who has just killed themselves.
The decision to have an abortion is entirely different in nature as is the previously noted decision of residency location in divorce.
If someone is suicidal this is something to treat.
Ha! Someone's going to need ointment for that burn.
A couple of points. The Court would be making its decision on the evidence presented to it, and paragraphs 10 and 11 of the decision set out a summary of that evidence. It's not for the Court to make any independent search for evidence and it would be very wrong for it to do so. The second, which arises directly from your quotation is that the Court would go from that evidence to the submissions based on that evidence, and submissions are not evidence.
I still need to read the decision properly, but if the clinical evidence was to the effect that the treatment is medically appropriate, then surely it's a common-sense inference that bad things may happen if treatment is withheld. I don't think it would be considered ethical in 2020 to refuse treatment to some patients just to prove that point.
What's not entirely clear to me, not being familiar with UK law (or for that matter with the law of medical consent), is who the Court is saying can consent. Is it a matter for the parents? for the courts? for nobody until the kid reaches the age of 18 and the ship has sailed? I'll hold off on further comment until I've read the decision, though if somebody knows the answer to that question it might help me with my reading.
3. The court in this case was concerned with the legal requirements for obtaining consent for the carrying out of medical treatment. The court was not concerned with deciding whether there were benefits or disbenefits in treating children with gender dysphoria with puberty blocking drugs. The legal issue in the case concerned identifying the circumstances in which a child was competent as a matter of law to give
valid consent to treatment.
4. The court held that in order for a child to be competent to give valid consent the child would have to understand, retain and weigh the following information: (i) the immediate consequences of the treatment
in physical and psychological terms; (ii) the fact that the vast majority of patients taking puberty blockingdrugs proceed to taking cross-sex hormones and are, therefore, a pathway to much greater medical
interventions; (iii) the relationship between taking cross-sex hormones and subsequent surgery, with the implications of such surgery; (iv) the fact that cross-sex hormones may well lead to a loss of fertility; (v) the
impact of cross-sex hormones on sexual function; (vi) the impact that taking this step on this treatment pathway may have on future and life-long relationships; (vii) the unknown physical consequences of taking
puberty blocking drugs; and (viii) the fact that the evidence base for this treatment is as yet highly uncertain.
5. The court considered that it was highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers. It was also doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15
could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blocking drugs.
6. In respect of young persons aged 16 and over, the legal position is that there is a statutory presumption that they have the ability to consent to medical treatment. 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, the court recognised that clinicians may well regard these as cases where the authorisation of
the court should be sought before starting treatment with puberty blocking drugs.
My Wikipedia-level understanding of Gillick competence is that it relates to a minor’s ability to consent to medical treatment independently of their parents - because parental consent is usually required for medical treatment for a minor. If I’m right about that, this case is really about the role of parents in the decision-making process. If the parents are on board, then puberty blockers can be prescribed at the young person’s request and (obviously) if believed by the clinician to be medically appropriate. If they’re not on board, then not. Can someone tell me if this is right?
That's my reading of it. It didn't arise in relation to gender, but contraception and abortion. Well, Gillick herself was trying to stop contraception being given to under 16s, interpreted as encouraging sex in minors. So if parents are on board for puberty blockers, this isn't a problem? However, some trans people are interpreting the new ruling as the state trying to squash trans people, and the anti-trans groups as trying to "erase" them. There is chatter about an investigation into the Tavistock, and of course, many lurid rumours.
What was being challenged here was the Tavistock protocol, which purported to trial the Dutch protocol in 2010/11, but did not follow that protocol exactly. The concern is that when young people start taking puberty blockers with GIDS, aged 10, 13 or 16, those young people are almost certainly committed to transition - which is what that judgement is saying. That starting the puberty blockers is the first step on a pathway that is rarely left. From the commentary on Twitter, the court case refused to take evidence from Stonewall and Mermaids.
There have been concerns about the Tavistock protocol for using early pubertal suppression since it was established as a trial/pilot/study/? (various terms have been used) - link to Health Research Authority report on the investigation
The Tavistock was investigated in 2019, BBC article discussing the findings leading on the turnover of staff and feeling that concerns were being shut down. An independent review of the Gender Identity Services was announced in September 2020. link and a second Care Quality Commission investigation was announced in October link to Guardian coverage of October court hearing
This is a link to Keira Bell's crowdfunding page from September 2020 where she lays out her challenges. She's also challenging the memorandum of understanding that covers psychological support of gender dysphoria as it does not allow challenging of young people's dissatisfaction with their assigned gender.
The other bit of research that is being bandied about is showing that taking puberty blockers leads to loss of bone density. (The research has been obfuscated in the past by using average numbers not the gender and age linked bone densities that are usually used.)
There is a problem with this judgement driving a coach and horses through Gillick in its attack on GIDS and the Tavistock use of puberty blockers.
There are other issues - speculatively, GIDS has been under attack from Mermaids for not proceeding fast enough, from the staff turnover there seem to have been internal struggles. Generally in the UK there is a major shortage of adolescent and child mental health and psychological support available. I wonder if another driver is that local services are diagnosing gender dysphoria without investigating further, just referring to GIDS to get the young person off their books then GIDS do not provide psychological support as their protocol assumes proper investigation locally before referral.
The young people I knew further back than this both had a lot of local psych support and one was never referred to GIDS as the local psych felt their problems were not gender dysphoria.
Given the way transphobes weaponise the handful of detransitioners it's no great leap to arrive at that interpretation. There have been real warning signs from the current UK government that they intend to chart a more transphobic path.
because forcing people to improvise medical solutions in the face of government obstruction works so well in other areas.
The fact that this has been tried in such a way to challenge Gillick is really unhelpful.