There is much that was horrifying and absurd in the evidence of Dr Webberley. For me, the worst was this. No wonder she concludes gender dysphoria is commonplace - she trained herself to diagnose it for profit.
Nothing else explains sudden surge in referrals - andthat the patient cohort suddenly switched from boys to girls - but social contagion. What makes this different from the ‘Satanic Panic’, where some professionals similarly lost their minds, is it’s presentation as civil rights.
Another difference is that in the Satanic Panic is was the adults who suffered false imprisonment and the destruction of their careers. Here, we see children face the destruction of their once healthy bodies and they will carry this with them all of their lives.
If you aren’t familiar with the Satanic Panic, it’s an interesting study. You will note how a cohort grew, of adults whose livelihoods and professional reputations came to depend on marketing it as truth.
I have no asked this question four times and received no answer. Look - if your answer is 'because a male's need for validation is considered more important than a woman's right to safety and dignity' then just say so! I won't agree with you, but at least I know your position.
I am struggling to think what other possible answer there can be. We all presumably agree that people have a right to express their identity within the confines of existing civil and criminal law.
We all presumably agree that when different 'identities' compete in the same space and for the same resources, there is potential for tension and a need for monitoring, to ensure that one 'identity' doesn't overwhelm the other.
It’s very important that those who support medical transition for children understand precisely what this will inevitably involve. The child being discussed here was 10 years old. There was no discussion about impact on fertility.
Why not? Because a 10 year old child has no conception of life as a sexually functioning adult. They are unable to consent to giving away their fertility and their sexual function.
Webberley argues that you don’t need to bother with that because all we are talking about are puberty blockers which are completely harmless and reversible! Ignore for the moment that no one has any idea the impact on a 10 year old who takes PB for next 4 years as advised here.
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.
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.
So why do we bother having doctors, lawyers, plumbers or electricians etc? Experts are of course not infallible. Knowledge shifts and improves. But to suggest a 12 year old girl is capable of ‘informing’ a doctor about the impact of testosterone on her body is insane.
What we are seeing here is prime example of ex post facto rationalisation - I.e simply interpreting everything that happened as support for what you want to do. We all do it.
But experts are supposed to do it less often. skepticink.com/tippling/2013/…
Expertise and professional training is supposed to act as protection against the uncritical adoption of a moral position which then distorts facts to support it. An electrician who thinks electricity is governed by his own moral universe will soon be dead, for example.
Reminder. To assess if a child under 16 has ‘Gillick competence’ to consent to medical treatment is a highly fact specific assessment of an individual child, which must examine their understanding of the nature and consequences of the treatment.
No court can make a blanket decision that children of a certain age can or cannot consent - that would need an Act of Parliament. The High Court in Bell did NOT say children under 16 could NEVER consent to medical transition - they said it was ‘unlikely’.
It is utterly impossible that the Court of Appeal will say ‘hey kids, you rush out and get your puberty blockers now, it’s all good!’ That would be contrary to Supreme Court ruling in Gillick as well as offensive to sense.
1. Because ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are very different and to pretend they are not puts women at risk of harm. 2. Because a man’s wish to be validated is not automatically more powerful than a woman’s right to safety and dignity.
3. Because the conflation of ‘sex’ with ‘gender’ leads child into the lie that ‘sex’ is something they can change or dispose of with no consequences 4. Because those who support ‘gender ideology’ demand absolute capitulation or they will hurt you
5. Because the conflation of sex and gender is leading directly to the collapse of the rule of law, requiring us to raise over a million pounds in crowdfunding to put it right