Thursday, December 3, 2020

British Court Stands against Child Sacrifice

With any luck it will be the first among many. A court in Great Britain has stood up to defend children from the transgender rights madness. It has declared that children are not competent to consent to taking puberty blocking drugs.

Tyler O’Neil has offered a comprehensive analysis of the decision:

On Tuesday, Britain’s High Court defended young children from the transgender movement’s rush to give kids experimental drugs that put them on a path to chemical castration. The court laid out a framework for considering whether minors under age 18 might be able to give informed consent to receive experimental so-called “puberty-blocking” drugs intended to treat gender dysphoria (the persistent condition of identifying with a gender opposite one’s biological sex).

In a groundbreaking ruling that should set the standard for such complex issues, Dame Victoria Sharp concluded that puberty-blockers are experimental, that their effects are not “reversible” as transgender activists claim, and that in order to consent to receive such drastic treatment, children must understand adult concepts that are almost certainly beyond their grasp.

Be clear about the conclusion. Puberty blocking hormones produce irreversible damage. Reminds us of Abigail Shrier’s book, Irreversible Damage. 

The case was brought by a trans woman who decided to transition into manliness. She consulted at the Gender Identity Development Service at the Tavistock Clinic. As it happens, the Tavistock began as a clinic offering talk therapy, especially psychoanalytic treatments. 

The case involved Quincy Bell — a woman who received puberty-blocking drugs at a 16 and then proceeded to get a mastectomy, only to reject her transgender identity as male — and the mother of an autistic daughter who appears to identify as male. The women brought a case against the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, which runs Britain’s Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS).

Bell’s personal testimony to the impact of these hormones is frightening:

GIDS set Bell on a path to puberty-blockers at age 16 and she started taking testosterone at 17. By age 20, she realized “the vision I had as a teenager of becoming male was strictly a fantasy and that it was not possible. My biological make-up was still female and it showed, no matter how much testosterone was in my system or how much I would go to the gym. … I felt like a fraud and I began to feel more lost, isolated and confused than I did when I was pre-transition.”

In the current climate, where censorship of any dissenting opinions is immediately denounced as transphobia, it took some considerable courage for Bell to testify to her/his experience.

The court decided against the clinic, which is of course going to appeal the case:

The court concluded that any child under 16 will face “enormous difficulties” in giving consent to receiving experimental transgender drugs, and therefore it is “highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent.” The court also ruled that it is “doubtful” a child aged 14 or 15 could consent to such a procedure. While 16- and 17-year-old children are legally presumed to have the ability to consent, the court suggested that clinicians should consult with the courts in such cases.

Hopefully, this is only the first case that will put an end to our current form of child sacrifice.


JPL17 said...

This Bell v. Tavistock case really is groundbreaking, thank you for posting, Stuart. Let's hope it's affirmed on appeal, and that it opens the floodgates to mass tort litigation against the entire trans-psycho-medical complex. (Bell v. Tavistock is not itself a tort case.) Sadly, given the cowardice of our U.S. politicians, the only way to kill this monster will be through the greed of trial lawyers, combined with their skill in getting juries to ignore the absurd trans propaganda fed to them by the media, HR departments and politicians, and to see the true horror and exploitation inherent in trans ideology, puberty blockers and surgeries.

Sam L. said...

I am rather amazed that the court would do this. Still, it's proof there is still some intelligence in Old Blighty.