UK High Court finally acts to block unsupervised use puberty blockers on children

[cardgame]

No ultimately it's letting kids decide things for themselves.

I remember being a kid and a teenager.

None of us were really qualified to determine what's best for us. Espicially being a teenager.

I don't think any court anywhere is going to rule that a child can over rule their parents.

There are places they can get help if their parents are really crap.

So what you're essentially arguing is that this counts as neglect or abuse. If the parents say no that's the end of it.

If it is neglect or abuse then the child would have to complain, investigation would be launched then the child would have to be removed from the parents.

You can't really force the parent to go along with it or the consequences of it if you could eg the parent then decided I can't look after my child and then signs it over to state care.

I swear I've already linked you this before

http://www.gjss.org/sites/default/files/issues/chapters/papers/Journal-07-02--02-Kennedy-Hellen.pdf

stop letting your anecdotes and presumably pride get in the way of science and objectivity.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Unfortunately this thread is yet another example of latent homophobic and transphobic beliefs within the gay male community.

It's not a matter of opinion that puberty is very harmful to those experiencing gender dysphoria.

It's not a matter of opinion that gender dysphoria can have an impact on the sufferers life, be it in the form of taking drugs, self harm or suicide.

But the op doesn't care about that, he's more interested in being able to sling out his animus against transpeople than he is about harm reduction within the trans and non binary community.

Look at the language used; "fad" "transsexual" "lifestyle" all tells that the ops bought into the right wing anti lgbt propaganda.

This thread should be locked; If it was about the lgb community it would be for homophobia, but for whatever reason it's still fashionable to **** on trans and non binary people.

 

[Senethro]

Kind of reminds me that there is no “final” victory. If you don’t keep pushing, then you won’t even stay in the same place.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Kind of reminds me that there is no “final” victory. If you don’t keep pushing, then you won’t even stay in the same place.

Ask any minority; our basic rights are under constant attack from those that hate, fear and dispise us.

 

[Zardnaar]

I swear I've already linked you this before

http://www.gjss.org/sites/default/files/issues/chapters/papers/Journal-07-02--02-Kennedy-Hellen.pdf

stop letting your anecdotes and presumably pride get in the way of science and objectivity.

That journal is irrelevant.

Main point is parents have to consent in one way or another.

That's the real issue even if the law let's the children do it without consent.

Which I don't see happening anywhere anytime soon.

Underage kids can't legally consent to sex, under 18 they can't consent to all sorts of stuff. What age do you propose they can consent to this using what logic?

See where I'm going with this? It's a conversation that needs to happen though.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

That journal is irrelevant.

Main point is parents have to consent in one way or another.

That's the real issue even if the law let's the children do it without consent.

Which I don't see happening anywhere anytime soon.

Underage kids can't legally consent to sex, under 18 they can't consent to all sorts of stuff.

See where I'm going with this? It's a conversation that needs to happen though.

So what you're telling me is that you're ignorant of informed consent.

And it's not a conversation that should be dominated by Cispeople, especially those with an axe to grind against the trans and non binary community like terfs or the op

It's a show of cowardice and a tacit acknowledgement that their rhetoric is bigoted from the op that they didn't bother to ask said question in the dedicated ask thread for transpeople and non binary people.

They made this thread with a specific aim and they achieved it. As long as you can hide your disgust with more flowery language it's acceptable to advocate for measures that are harmful to minority groups

 

[Zardnaar]

So what you're telling me is that you're ignorant of informed consent.

And it's not a conversation that should be dominated by Cispeople, especially those with an axe to grind against the trans and non binary community like terfs or the op

It's a show of cowardice and a tacit acknowledgement that their rhetoric is bigoted from the op that they didn't bother to ask said question in the dedicated ask thread for transpeople and non binary people.

They made this thread with a specific aim and they achieved it. As long as you can hide your disgust with more flowery language it's acceptable to advocate for measures that are harmful to minority groups

OP was cancer.

But if you want acceptance do you want to pick this hill to die on?

In effect you want the court to over rule parents yes?

As I said I'm not saying the drugs should be unavailable. I don't have kids but if I did I would expect to have that legal right.

For the record I would consent to starting the process and see what the experts say. Basically would expect to be kept in the loop.

 

[GenMarshall]

OP was cancer.

I recall that the OPer is gonna edit the OP when he gets the chance. So I wouldn’t crucify him so quickly for a miscommunication of his thoughts.

In effect you want the court to over rule parents yes?

That would open up a whole new can of worms if someone from DCF (Department of Children and Families) gets a court order. The parents/guardians, especially the conservative ones, would see it as the state infringing upon their parenting.

 

[Evie]

No ultimately it's letting kids decide things for themselves.

I remember being a kid and a teenager.

None of us were really qualified to determine what's best for us. Espicially being a teenager.

I don't think any court anywhere is going to rule that a child can over rule their parents.

Oh, any court anywhere, is that so?

Well, I can't speak for everywhere, but as it can be reasonably established that Québec is in fact, somewhere, and as I am somewhat versed in its legal system, let us test the claim

Now caveat, it has been some years since I got my law degree, and while I remain a member in good standing of the Quebec bar I am not in fact currently practicing, and what I say below should not be taken as formal legal advice (I'm legally required to say that part, since I'm not currently practicing).

But still, let us examine what the laws of *some*where say on this topic. I turn to my old friend, the Code Civil du Québec, which among very many topics regulates matters of bodily autonomy and healthcare (it is, in fact, essentially the first thing the second topic in the entire book, and the first in-depth section, coming up immediately after the general observations on fundamental rights.).

Well, let us begin with section 14:

Consent to care required by the state of health of a minor is given by the person having parental authority or by his tutor.

Well, that seems fairly clear...but what's that two sections above, in the section dealing with the duties of a person giving consent on the behalf of another?

A person who gives his consent to or refuses care for another person is bound to act in the sole interest of that person, complying, as far as possible, with any wishes the latter may have expressed.

Oh. Would you look at that. It seems parents have strict legal obligations when it comes to giving consent for their child...including considering any wish the child may express as a significant factor. AND not considering any factors that is not strictly the interest of the child.

But wait. If parents have limitations in how they can exercise consent, that would almost have to imply some control mechanism, wouldn't it? A way to make sure that parents failing to consider what they're obliged to, or considering things they have no right to, are made to follow the law...Or, say, if they try to deny consent without actually giving a reason for it...

Quoth section 16:

The authorization of the court is necessary where the person who may give consent to care required by the state of health of a minor or a person of full age who is incapable of giving his consent is prevented from doing so or, without justification, refuses to do so

Well, would you look at that. If the person who has authority to give consent refuses it without giving a (legally valid) justification, the court is specifically, by law, empowered to give that consent instead. Funny.

Oh, and just for the kicker fun? Here's the second paragraph of (appropriately numbered) Section 14...

A minor 14 years of age or over, however, may give his consent alone to such care. If his state requires that he remain in a health or social services establishment for over 12 hours, the person having parental authority or tutor shall be informed of that fact.

Oh. Oh my. Would you look at that. Fourteen and up, parental consent can die in a fire if the care is in response to a healthcare need. And as "such care" includes such things as abortion, it's a pretty safe bet that it does also include puberty blockers due to gender dysphoria.

And what if the care is somehow not deemed requirered by the state of health? Well...

A minor 14 years of age or over may give his consent alone to care not required by the state of his health; however, the consent of the person having parental authority or of the tutor is required if the care entails a serious risk for the health of the minor and may cause him grave and permanent effects.

Oh, nope, parental consent *still* dies in a fire unless there is a serious risk for the health of the minor AND the effects are grave and permanent.

And if they are? Well, we go right back in fact to that first part, about parents only being allowed take the interest of the child and the child's wishes into account, and the authority on whether a parent's refusal of consent is acceptable being...ah, yes. The courts.

Well, I suppose you could make the case that the courts may not be willing to apply the law as written in this case, but...funny thing about a written civil code like that is that courts can only ignore it if it's unconstitutional, and precedent is very, very clear on that. So the courts...really do have to exercise their power according to the law on that case. And the law spells out very clearly situation where the parent's refusal of consent should be overruled by the courts, so...

 

[Kyriakos]

At "fourteen or above", the person will already be in puberty anyway, and for quite some time. I thought this was about using blockers before puberty starts?

 

[Evie]

At "fourteen or above", the person will already be in puberty anyway, and for quite some time. I thought this was about using blockers before puberty starts?

Well, if you look at the first part of the post, THAT deals with what happens if the person is less than fourteen...

...and in that case the adult is *still* constrained to only considering the best interest of the child and the child's wishes (section 12), and the courts can intervene if consent is not given without a valid reason (Section 16). So, yes, courts *would* in some situation be required to overrule the parent and let the child proceed..

Also, when and where puberty start is highly variable - I was a late bloomer and had essentially no meaningful effect until sixteen or so, for example (which hilariously mean I could still have gotten blockers on time in the new UK system - but a lot of other people not). In addition, blockers can be beneficial even if puberty has already started ; a lot of changes take years, and some of the more damning ones (shoulders, thighs) happen fairly late in the process. And since one of the main use of blockers is in fact slowing down an overly precoious puberty (which necessitate blockers being effective even after puberty has started....)

Fourteen still gives a LOT of room for a lot of people.

 

[JohannaK]

Zardnaar, you are a horrible human being.

 

[Traitorfish]

People usually know quite young that they're trans, and blocking kids from having access to medication that severely cuts down on dysphoria later in life is not a good thing

The issue is that "knowing your trans" is something which is identified in retrospect, when you have transitioned and lived as that gender for a substantive period of time. Some people experience dysphoria as children or adolescents, but overcome it without transitioning; some people take steps towards transitioning but de-transition. Some of the behaviour which is retroactively identified as knowledge of a correct gender, such as adopting another gender during childhood play, may only be interpreted as such in light of eventual transition; it might otherwise be interpreted as early evidence of being gay or lesbian, of an artistic temperament, or simply as kids being weird.

If we can't be certain that dysphoria or gender non-conforming behaviour in children or adolescents is appropriately responded to by medical intervention, it necessarily follows that we should exercise caution in prescribing such intervention, and that our caution should increase to the degree that the consequences become more potentially severe.

To use what might be a crass analogy, you might find that a majority firefighters have wanted to be firefighters since they were kids; it does not follow that every kid who says they want to be a firefighter is going to become one, and it wouldn't be wise to treat it as self-evident that they were.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

The issue is that "knowing your trans" is something which is identified in retrospect, when you have transitioned and lived as that gender for a substantive period of time. Some people experience dysphoria as children or adolescents, but overcome it without transitioning; some people take steps towards transitioning but de-transition. Some of the behaviour which is retroactively identified as knowledge of a correct gender, such as adopting another gender during childhood play, may only be interpreted as such in light of eventual transition; it might otherwise be interpreted as early evidence of being gay or lesbian, of an artistic temperament, or simply as kids being weird.

If we can't be certain that dysphoria or gender non-conforming behaviour in children or adolescents is appropriately responded to by medical intervention, it necessarily follows that we should exercise caution in prescribing such intervention, and that our caution should increase to the degree that the consequences become more potentially severe.

I mean that's the reason puberty blockers are used, so that a child will be able to avoid puberty until they're of legal age to make an informed decision, rather than being forced to undergo a puberty that is permanent and could haunt them for the rest of their lives...

To use what might be a crass analogy, you might find that a majority firefighters have wanted to be firefighters since they were kids; it does not follow that every kid who says they are going to be a firefighter is going to become one, and it wouldn't be wise to treat it as self-evident that they were.

Don't go down this road.

 

[Zardnaar]

Oh, any court anywhere, is that so?

Well, I can't speak for everywhere, but as it can be reasonably established that Québec is in fact, somewhere, and as I am somewhat versed in its legal system, let us test the claim

Now caveat, it has been some years since I got my law degree, and while I remain a member in good standing of the Quebec bar I am not in fact currently practicing, and what I say below should not be taken as formal legal advice (I'm legally required to say that part, since I'm not currently practicing).

But still, let us examine what the laws of *some*where say on this topic. I turn to my old friend, the Code Civil du Québec, which among very many topics regulates matters of bodily autonomy and healthcare (it is, in fact, essentially the first thing the second topic in the entire book, and the first in-depth section, coming up immediately after the general observations on fundamental rights.).

Well, let us begin with section 14:



Well, that seems fairly clear...but what's that two sections above, in the section dealing with the duties of a person giving consent on the behalf of another?



Oh. Would you look at that. It seems parents have strict legal obligations when it comes to giving consent for their child...including considering any wish the child may express as a significant factor. AND not considering any factors that is not strictly the interest of the child.

But wait. If parents have limitations in how they can exercise consent, that would almost have to imply some control mechanism, wouldn't it? A way to make sure that parents failing to consider what they're obliged to, or considering things they have no right to, are made to follow the law...Or, say, if they try to deny consent without actually giving a reason for it...

Quoth section 16:



Well, would you look at that. If the person who has authority to give consent refuses it without giving a (legally valid) justification, the court is specifically, by law, empowered to give that consent instead. Funny.

Oh, and just for the kicker fun? Here's the second paragraph of (appropriately numbered) Section 14...



Oh. Oh my. Would you look at that. Fourteen and up, parental consent can die in a fire if the care is in response to a healthcare need. And as "such care" includes such things as abortion, it's a pretty safe bet that it does also include puberty blockers due to gender dysphoria.

And what if the care is somehow not deemed requirered by the state of health? Well...



Oh, nope, parental consent *still* dies in a fire unless there is a serious risk for the health of the minor AND the effects are grave and permanent.

And if they are? Well, we go right back in fact to that first part, about parents only being allowed take the interest of the child and the child's wishes into account, and the authority on whether a parent's refusal of consent is acceptable being...ah, yes. The courts.

Well, I suppose you could make the case that the courts may not be willing to apply the law as written in this case, but...funny thing about a written civil code like that is that courts can only ignore it if it's unconstitutional, and precedent is very, very clear on that. So the courts...really do have to exercise their power according to the law on that case. And the law spells out very clearly situation where the parent's refusal of consent should be overruled by the courts, so...

Different country than the OP posted and different here as well.

Have puberty blockers been tested in a Canadian court?

 

[Zardnaar]

Zardnaar, you are a horrible human being.

Thanks from you that is a badge of pride.

 

[JohannaK]

When you keep saying that parents should unilaterally have the power to deny their children potentially life-saving medical treatment, you are by default a monster.

 

[JohannaK]

I wonder if you also think parents should be able to deny their child say, cancer treatment, or if you're just being a raging transphobe.

 

[Zardnaar]

I mean that's the reason puberty blockers are used, so that a child will be able to avoid puberty until they're of legal age to make an informed decision, rather than being forced to undergo a puberty that is permanent and could haunt them for the rest of their lives...




Don't go down this road.

It's called nature. If the drugs didn't exist we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Who gets to take those drugs in pretty much every country I can think of boils down to who can afford it or if they're provided by the state and consent.

Children legally can't consent. Multiple countries have an age of consent when it comes to sex so similar theory applies.

From a legal PoV everywhere discriminates in age to some degree. You have to be 18 to vote or 14/16/18 to have sex etc. You have to be XYZ to have a job. It's not discrimination based on age.

That's basically what society has laid down. Sure you can change that doesn't have to be set in stone but I don't see to many places letting kids chose whatever and that applies to more than just puberty blockers.

Maybe 14 in some areas is about as low as it would go.

 

[Zardnaar]

When you keep saying that parents should unilaterally have the power to deny their children potentially life-saving medical treatment, you are by default a monster.

They're not going to die if they don't take it that's weaksauce arguement.