Gender again. Sorry!

[newfhouse]

This boy

Man. I pick up those that use girl when they mean woman, and this diminishing of agency appears no different.

specifically has learning disabilities. That means that it is very likely that his decision making is at a very basic level and requires additional support.

As I said.

with appropriate competence safeguards

 

[AuroraSaab]

...but I'm sure you know best.

The video adds nothing to the facts that are already in the public domain on the case. Perhaps there is more to the case than has been disclosed so far but starting special needs young people on an irreversible medical pathway for something that isn't a physical health issue should be something that we should find concerning, I think anyway.

As to your link about amputating healthy limbs because of chronic body dysphoria or because your limb didn't fit in with your body identity, I can't imagine any ethical surgeon would condone such a treatment, even as a last resort. Even in your link as soon as it became clear that others would seek the same treatment the hospital banned the ops. It was an experimental treatment that they stopped immediately when they realised it wouldn't be a one-off case and that removing healthy body parts for mental distress is unethical.

If doctors won't operate on adults with limb dysphoria why are they doing double maestectomies on girls from 14 up in the US and at 18 in the UK?

 

[Bromptonaut]

The video adds nothing to the facts that are already in the public domain on the case. Perhaps there is more to the case than has been disclosed so far but starting special needs young people on an irreversible medical pathway for something that isn't a physical health issue should be something that we should find concerning, I think anyway.

What exactly are the special needs present in this case? Were processes put in place to mitigate for them?

The principle of Gillick competence etc and how to assess capacity, are well established.

Is there any evidence that proper process was not followed or is this just a hard case?

 

[icowden]

Man. I pick up those that use girl when they mean woman, and this diminishing of agency appears no different.

Sorry - I didn't watch the full video. My understanding of the word "young person" and "he" translates to "boy". Just as "young person" and "she" would translate to "girl". I think were he not a young person then the natural descriptor is "man".

Boys are younger than men. It's not diminishing of agency unless I am calling someone who is 43 a boy.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Sorry - I didn't watch the full video. My understanding of the word "young person" and "he" translates to "boy". Just as "young person" and "she" would translate to "girl". I think were he not a young person then the natural descriptor is "man".

Boys are younger than men. It's not diminishing of agency unless I am calling someone who is 43 a boy.

We happily refer to women of 43 as girls....

 

[Pale Rider]

If you want someone to introduce irrelevant claptrap to a thread, @newfhouse is your man.

 

[icowden]

We happily refer to women of 43 as girls....

You might - I don't.

 

[matticus]

If you want someone to introduce irrelevant claptrap to a thread, @newfhouse is your man.

He's very proud of his signature:
"hopelessly vague, virtue signalling nonsense"

 

[newfhouse]

Sorry - I didn't watch the full video. My understanding of the word "young person" and "he" translates to "boy". Just as "young person" and "she" would translate to "girl". I think were he not a young person then the natural descriptor is "man".

Boys are younger than men. It's not diminishing of agency unless I am calling someone who is 43 a boy.

He's reportedly 22, so very much an adult. In the context of a discussion about his decision making competence that is very relevant indeed.

 

[icowden]

He's reportedly 22, so very much an adult. In the context of a discussion about his decision making competence that is very relevant indeed.

As is the fact that he has learning difficulties. His age doesn't make much difference in that instance - dependent on what those learning difficulties are.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The young person was born female and has been a Tavistock patient since 2016.
I was mistaken in my initial response - they are not seeking testosterone and surgery. They've been approved already. The legal case was about education.

It's more that the case brought up questions about the quality of care that meant someone with such numerous and complex special needs had ended up being approved for testosterone and the surgical pathway at some point between 14 and 18.

I believe this is the record of the case, linked in this article:

https://archive.is/2023.08.22-11400...cle/wandsworth-councils-troubling-trans-case/

The young person is a 22 year old, born female. Chaotic childhood with a drug addicted mother, lived with grandma from 11, but when that broke down was housed in a series of care homes over a wide area, with either non attendance at various schools or attendance for limited periods, and exclusions. Cannot read and write.

(No idea why the copy and paste has put this in boxes I can't seem to remove)

"He has a total of 14 diagnoses and continues to have complex needs. His difficulties have been medically described as Mild Mental Retardation, Attachment Disorder, Emotion Dysregulation, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”), Oppositional Defiant Disorder (“ODD”) and (Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”), dyslexia, severe anxiety, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) and low self-esteem.

In 2021, he was diagnosed with disturbance of activity and attention, minimal impairment of behaviour and reactive attachment disorder of childhood.

The combined impact of those conditions is that AI is unlikely to be able to live unsupported. The judgment says: ‘Mental health professionals have previously advised he may likely need 24-hour support in the foreseeable future.’ ".

Archived judgement here:

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2023/2088

How did a child with such a huge list of other issues end up on a medical and surgical pathway? Partly because the Tavistock model is affirmation and treatment via the medical route. That's what they do. They don't do therapy as far as I know. If you are accepted as a patient, the puberty blocker and cross sex hormone route is what they offer and what you will get.

I'd have qualms about a special needs person of 22, who is under the care of the authority, and can't live alone, getting testosterone and surgery without a very long period of therapy, if at all. I find it very worrying that someone with all that going on was started down that pathway at 14.

 

[classic33]

The young person was born female and has been a Tavistock patient since 2016.
I was mistaken in my initial response - they are not seeking testosterone and surgery. They've been approved already. The legal case was about education.

It's more that the case brought up questions about the quality of care that meant someone with such numerous and complex special needs had ended up being approved for testosterone and the surgical pathway at some point between 14 and 18.

I believe this is the record of the case, linked in this article:

https://archive.is/2023.08.22-11400...cle/wandsworth-councils-troubling-trans-case/

The young person is a 22 year old, born female. Chaotic childhood with a drug addicted mother, lived with grandma from 11, but when that broke down was housed in a series of care homes over a wide area, with either non attendance at various schools or attendance for limited periods, and exclusions. Cannot read and write.


(No idea why the copy and paste has put this in boxes I can't seem to remove)




The combined impact of those conditions is that AI is unlikely to be able to live unsupported. The judgment says: ‘Mental health professionals have previously advised he may likely need 24-hour support in the foreseeable future.’ ".

Archived judgement here:

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2023/2088

How did a child with such a huge list of other issues end up on a medical and surgical pathway? Partly because the Tavistock model is affirmation and treatment via the medical route. That's what they do. They don't do therapy as far as I know. If you are accepted as a patient, the puberty blocker and cross sex hormone route is what they offer and what you will get.

I'd have qualms about a special needs person of 22, who is under the care of the authority, and can't live alone, getting testosterone and surgery without a very long period of therapy, if at all. I find it very worrying that someone with all that going on was started down that pathway at 14.

That's the second person who's early life problems you've seen entitled to put online. Only this time you seem to feel that it backs your claims up, so it's okay.

You "ask" the question of how did someone end up where they did, then proceed to render your verdict. Who the hell are you to be doing that?*
Are you certain the person did get seen where you claim, or is it just another wild assumption on your part?

*Especially given the demonisation of the other person by yourself.

 

[multitool]

That's the second person who's early life problems you've seen entitled to put online. Only this time you seem to feel that it backs your claims up, so it's okay.

To be fair to Aurora, if you care this passionately about this young person's welfare then it is OK to use them, named, in order to score cheap points on an irrelevant Internet debate.

 

[AuroraSaab]

That's the second person who's early life problems you've seen entitled to put online. Only this time you seem to feel that it backs your claims up, so it's okay.

They aren't named. The issues that came to light via the court case were covered in the mainstream press it seems. The ruling and details are all in the public domain in the court link. You can't be seriously suggesting that there can be no discussion of matters arising from court cases because the cases contain personal details.

You "ask" the question of how did someone end up where they did, then proceed to render your verdict. Who the hell are you to be doing that?*

Would you prefer that cases where there is concern about the quality of medical care were ignored or swept under the carpet? Are we just to accept that doctors know best 100% of the time?

Are you certain the person did get seen where you claim, or is it just another wild assumption on your part?

*Especially given the demonisation of the other person by yourself.

I quoted from the judge's ruling. It's the official document of the case. How have I demonised someone by quoting what the judge wrote in the ruling? It says a lot about you that you think the judge's account of a young person's very sad life is demonising them. That's you making that judgement, not me. More importantly, why do I still see your posts when you are on ignore?

 

[AuroraSaab]

To be fair to Aurora, if you care this passionately about this young person's welfare then it is OK to use them, named, in order to score cheap points on an irrelevant Internet debate.

What's their name? You have accused me of naming them, so repeat it here.