Gender again. Sorry!

[multitool]

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

LOL.

Read the post again. I haven't accused you of anything, let alone naming anyone.

 

[classic33]

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.


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?



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?

You did note that I said it was the second time you'd put someone else's early life for all to see. Because it suited your agenda, on both occasions.

Suggest you read the last part of that post you're answering again. You appear to have missed something important.

 

[Deleted member 159]

No 2 at Tavistock is opening a private clinic to continue the exemplary work of his former place of employment.

The shoot

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...oss-sex-hormones-teenagers-couple-months.html

 

[multitool]

Just mirrors the rest of NHS really. Desperate people forced to go private because state services unable to offer care.

Life under the Tories.

 

[icowden]

That's the second person who's early life problems you've seen entitled to put online.

No, I'm pretty sure that it was the national newspapers. That's very generous to Aurora, but as far as I am aware she is not the editor of The Spectator

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?*

Again, I'm pretty sure that Aurora was agreeing with the editorial in the Spectator which analysed the Judgement and detail

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

Did you actually read the article? It's in the summary Judgement. Are you suggesting the Court made it up?

The judge summed up this young person:-

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 Spectator summed up thusly:-

Here, it seems appropriate to summarise the facts set out in that court judgment as they relate to the person known as AI. This is a 22-year-old with more than a dozen diagnosed clinical conditions, who cannot read or write, who cannot function independently and who may well require 24-hour support in order to live. This person has been approved for surgery to remove healthy breast tissue, as well as for hormone treatment that the NHS says can lead to blood clots, gallstones and infertility.

And yet you find it troubling that Aurora can agree with the contention of the article that it is questionable that an individual who is unable to live independently, and who cannot read nor write is able to give consent for life changing, irreversible surgery. Not only that but yet again this young person is a biological female with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Emotional difficulties. Many people would say that this person needs support from both Care Facilities and the CAMHS, not medication and surgery.

 

[classic33]

No, I'm pretty sure that it was the national newspapers. That's very generous to Aurora, but as far as I am aware she is not the editor of The Spectator


Again, I'm pretty sure that Aurora was agreeing with the editorial in the Spectator which analysed the Judgement and detail

Did you actually read the article? It's in the summary Judgement. Are you suggesting the Court made it up?

The judge summed up this young person:-

The Spectator summed up thusly:-


And yet you find it troubling that Aurora can agree with the contention of the article that it is questionable that an individual who is unable to live independently, and who cannot read nor write is able to give consent for life changing, irreversible surgery. Not only that but yet again this young person is a biological female with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Emotional difficulties. Many people would say that this person needs support from both Care Facilities and the CAMHS, not medication and surgery.

The piece linked to isn't The Spectator, but to someone who styles themselves as the "gossip columnist" for The Spectator, on their own seperate website.

I find the way in which she lays out the early life of yet another person, to suit her narrative. Yet she goes on about empathy for others, dignity and privacy, but uses other peoples life stories when she feels like doing so.

Where's the privacy, dignity let alone empathy when it comes to a minor. That she demands and then insists that only she is showing any. Demonising a minor for their early life is something only she has done. She'd do well to remember that.

 

[Deleted member 159]

Many people would say that this person needs support from both Care Facilities and the CAMHS, not medication and surgery.

Exactly,

the last thing this child needs is irreversible surgery and drugs. Yes this person is a child in mental ability

 

[multitool]

Without looking into the specifics of this case (or indeed any case involving young people) how do you know that they weren't referred by CAHMS in the first place?

 

[icowden]

Without looking into the specifics of this case (or indeed any case involving young people) how do you know that they weren't referred by CAHMS in the first place?

Usually such referrals from from the GP due to the way that funding works in the NHS. However, why does it matter? What is being challenged is that on receipt of the referral, the Gender Clinic has gone down the route of considering surgical intervention even though there are questions as to the capacity of this person to make life changing decisions.

 

[Unkraut]

Where's the privacy, dignity let alone empathy when it comes to a minor. That she demands and then insists that only she is showing any. Demonising a minor for their early life is something only she has done. She'd do well to remember that.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Isn't this an inversion of who is being demonised? It isn't the minor who is the target of the criticism, it is the system and those who run it who want to go down the road of irreparable surgical damage to someone who by all accounts is incapable of making a decision of such importance, as would be true of anyone who has not reached mature adulthood.

Adults seeking to mutilate minors in the name of an ideological delusion isn't a moral good, it's evil. It's not an issue of rights but right and wrong. If FGM is wrong how can transgender surgery be right? If the issue is one of consent, then the person giving consent has got to genuinely be in a position to do so, and to my mind that rules out children in general and specifically all those with a known mental incapacity.

For whose benefit is this being done? The genuine interests of the child or to satisfy the desires of adults?

 

[Ian H]

The person concerned is said to have learning difficulties, not disabilities. The former doesn't imply a lack of intelligence.

 

[multitool]

Usually such referrals from from the GP due to the way that funding works in the NHS. However, why does it matter? What is being challenged is that on receipt of the referral, the Gender Clinic has gone down the route of considering surgical intervention even though there are questions as to the capacity of this person to make life changing decisions.

It matters in the sense that somebody said they should receive more CAMHS. They may well have already done so.

Mental healthcare for the young (especially CAMHS) is verging into extinction (another Tory success). You cannot ask for provision that does not exist.

I've no issue with many of the criticism of GIDS because it strikes me that most of them revolve around a lack of provision rather than wrong provision.

 

[icowden]

The person concerned is said to have learning difficulties, not disabilities. The former doesn't imply a lack of intelligence.

Although one could argue that if they can neither read nor write, it's going to very hard for them to learn things, which in turn does suggest that a considered thought about the implications of surgery may not be within their capacity, especially when coupled with the suggestion that they need 24 hour care.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Although one could argue that if they can neither read nor write, it's going to very hard for them to learn things, which in turn does suggest that a considered thought about the implications of surgery may not be within their capacity, especially when coupled with the suggestion that they need 24 hour care.

The capacity to (a) think rationally and progressively and (b) to read and write at the level of those thoughts are not exclusive of one another.

It's entirely possible that this man's reading/writing would be much better advanced had he been given the write help as a youngster.

I regularly meet people who have issues with literacy but have comprehension and emotional intelligence way beyond their peers.

EDIT - Write help was a slip but I'll let it stand....

 

[icowden]

The capacity to (a) think rationally and progressively and (b) to read and write at the level of those thoughts are not exclusive of one another.

But coupled with a requirement for 24 hour care and multiple additional diagnoses, it does suggest that letting this young woman opt for surgery as part of her apparent desire to become a man, may not be in her best interests.