Thread by @SVPhillimore

There was significant confusion - for me at least - about what the 'parental loophole' case established. I think there was an argument it was only meant to apply for children already referred to treatment, thus to protect prescribing GPs who weren't under contract with the Tavi.

https://twitter.com/Jackstarbright/status/1440601059034951689

I am very glad that there has been a 'pause' in referrals and hope this time has been used wisely to actually consider the best way forward on the best evidence. I am sorry for that (very, very) small percentage of children for whom medical transition is required.

But on utilitarian principles, I am relieved that there is respite for the (much, much greater numbers) of children who are seeking medical transition to alleviate some other form of mental distress or are getting swept up in social contagion.

We have got to come out of this with practice and procedure that is fit for purpose. There is no going back from medical transition. Cross sex hormones are irreversible and have life long and very significant consequences.

What the evidence from the Webberley tribunal confirms, is that the drive to medicate pre pubescent children is to attempt to protect their 'fu*kability' in adult life; they will 'present' as the stereotype of the 'gender' to which they wish to be.

As Webberley said - the males who wish to be females will be spared the indignity of having 'big shoulders' or 'big feet'. I will remain very firmly of the view that we need to challenge these ridiculous stereotypes and encourage children to love their healthy bodies.

I am a disabled middle aged woman. If my worth is judged on the sexual market place alone, I am worth nothing. But that is not how any of us should be judged. I hope we are at the beginning of a journey now to encourage all to find peace and acceptance in their own body.