Tales Of The Great Stupid: Wow…Who Could Have Seen THIS Coming?

Children are being bombarded by media and social media propaganda asserting that a vast number of people are trapped in bodies having the “wrong” sex organs, and celebrating the “T’s in the LGBTQ+ interest-group-of-convenience as the cool new martyrs. Thus an increasing number of these children convince their woke and irresponsible parents, and doctors who would rather be politically correct than “do no harm,” to divert their fates from the natural biological path to something else, because everybody is doing it, or everybody is saying it’s the right thing to do. It shouldn’t take much to figure out this is a terrible trend based on terrible reasoning, but there are so many such trends and ideas flourishing now that it’s hard to bat them all away.

And so we have the case of 23-year-old Keira Bell in Great Britain, who is suing a National Health Service gender clinic that she says should have challenged her decision to transition to male as a teenager. A tomboy as a child, Keira says her determination to switch gender gradually built up as she found out more about transitioning online, and “one step led to another.”

Well, yes, that’s how most things work, unless adults, like parents and trained professionals, stop children from taking those next steps. She was referred to a clinic at the age of 16, and after three one-hour-long appointments she was prescribed puberty blockers. One step led to another until she had her breasts removed.

“I should have been challenged on the proposals or the claims that I was making for myself,” she now says. “And I think that would have made a big difference as well. If I was just challenged on the things I was saying.”

Keira decided to stop taking testosterone last year and now says she’s a female, but it’s juuuust a little late. She’s angry, and believes she’s a victim. “I was allowed to run with this idea that I had, almost like a fantasy, as a teenager…. and it has affected me in the long run as an adult. I’m very young. I’ve only just stepped into adulthood and I have to deal with this kind of burden or radical difference – in comparison to others at least.”

She’s a victim, all right…of bad and lazy parents, of unethical doctors, of an arrogant, destructive “woke” culture, of activists exploiting the young and naive for their own ends, of , in short, The Great Stupid, a period in Western culture where we have forgotten what works, and will have to re-learn the hard way what we once instinctively understood.

6 thoughts on “Tales Of The Great Stupid: Wow…Who Could Have Seen THIS Coming?

  1. 1. There is a 3 year waiting list for a first appointment. Before the 3 assessments, she had (or should have had) 3 years of psychiatric and psychological observation outside the specialist clinic. 16 is a bit late for prescribing puberty blockers, as much of puberty has already occurred, with associated psychological distress. It is (was) however the age of “Gillick Competence”, where patients can (could) be assumed capable of giving informed consent to reversible medical treatment, barring severe mental disability.

    2. She was 18 at the time of prescription of testosterone, before any irreversible changes could happen. 18 is (was) the age of legal adulthood in the UK, where informed consent to irreversible medical treatment could be given, barring severe mental disability.

    3. She was 20 at the time she requested and was permitted to have a double mastectomy, to remedy the problem of having bern prescribed puberty blockers too late, at Tanner stage 5-6. Patients of age 20 are again assumed to be capable of giving informed consent to irreversible medical treatment.

    4. Of the 3000 patients currently being treated by Tavistock (with 5500 on the waiting list – NHS guidelines specify a maximum 18 week delay, but currently it is 3 years and growing due to underfunding of this politically controversial area), 181 patients were prescribed puberty blockers in the period 2017-2019. While this has led to significant numbers of poor outcomes in those patients not so prescribed, fear of litigation has led to a very conservative approach. All those prescribed Puberty Blockers for Gender Dysphoria apparently did not desist, but went on to request cross sex hormones at the age of adulthood. I say “apparently” because records were not kept, there was no money to pay for follow up and the NHS deemed such studies to be outside Tavistock’s remit. The Court found this particularly damning, and I cannot disagree.

    5. Before 2016, Tavistock only prescribed puberty blockers from age 16, the age of Gillick Competence. There is therefore no data in a UK context for long term follow up of patients taking them under 16. Tavistock had to rely on the 3 decade long records of this therapy in various clinics in the Netherlands and the US (mostly in Boston), and the records of UK prescription of Puberty Blockers for conditions other than Gender Dysphoria (sometimes as young as 7). In none of those cases did the patient suffer any mental retardation of development, nor did they go on to request cross sex hormones.

    6. The learned judges accepted the argument of the plaintiff’s very capable legal team that taking puberty blockers (reversible effects) should be considered irreversible, as the Dutch and US records showed that when conservatively prescribed, patients with GD always went on to request cross sex hormones at adulthood. They ruled that Court intervention was therefore absolutely required for all patients under 16 (regardless of patients, parents and treating physicians opinions all agreeing on the necessity), and also “had a place” in cases of patients older than that.

    Tavistock has consequently ceased hormonal and puberty blocker treatment of existing patients, and has ceased taking on newly diagnosed ones. England and Wales now have no specialist NHS pediatric clinic dealing with Gender Dysphoria. Private clinics continue to operate, as does an NHS clinic in Scotland.

    Private treatment at £20,000 plus £300 a month is far cheaper than running a £40,000-£60,000 case through the Family Court in order to get possibly get the permission to access the free treatment guaranteed by the NHS.

    Various groups other than Tavistock are recording the effects of this ruling on those on the waiting list, and the effects of going “cold turkey” on those under treatment. This is a scientific goldmine, as the high mortality and morbidity rates have precluded such an experiment from being performed since 1966, when the data led to the conclusion that such a thing was grossly unethical.

    Disclaimer; I am currently helping a family in the UK with caselaw and medical references. Their daughter, female at birth, female birth certificate etc has 17BHSD, and is thus destined to undergo a masculinising puberty very soon, unless she has medical treatment to prevent it. The situation is pretty desperate.

  2. ” The decision of the High Court in Bell v & anor v The Tavistock & Portman NHS Foundation Trust & ors [2020] EWHC 3274 (Admin) has given rise to both jubilation and outrage. Detransitioners and their gender critical allies feel vindicated by judicial recognition that treatment of children with puberty blockers is experimental and dangerous; trans activists characterise the decision as an attack on the fundamental rights of all trans people.

    The Court’s decision

    On the face of it, given the scope of the decision, both reactions are surprising. The court didn’t actually decide that Keira Bell had been rushed into treatment that she wasn’t able to understand, or order the Tavistock to pay her compensation for the permanent damage to her body caused by the treatment she received. It didn’t even order the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) at the Tavistock to stop treating children with puberty-blockers, or to change the information it gave them before it started treatment. What it decided was that teenagers under 16 will very rarely have capacity to give informed consent to treatment with puberty blockers, and children of 13 and under almost never. And that even in the case of young persons of 16 or 17, it may be necessary to seek court authorisation to proceed with treatment.

    But children often receive medical treatment for which they lack capacity to give their own informed consent. An infant needing an operation can’t consent: its parents typically consent on its behalf. A child of primary school age may be able to argue more fluently than its parents would always wish, but still may not be equipped to weigh up the pros and cons of serious medical treatments. So what’s the big deal, if children lack capacity to consent to puberty blockers? Why can’t their parents just consent on their behalf, in the usual way?

    The Tavistock’s policy

    Paragraph 47 of the judgment quotes from a letter sent by the Tavistock’s lawyers in response to the initial threat of litigation:

    ” Although the general law would permit parent(s) to consent on behalf of their child, GIDS has never administered, nor can it conceive of any situation where it would be appropriate to administer blockers on a patient without their consent. ”

    In context, it is clear that they are not saying merely they wouldn’t administer blockers to a child who didn’t want them: but that they wouldn’t administer blockers except to a child who had capacity to consent on his or her own behalf to the treatment. In other words, the Tavistock’s own policy was (and is) that parental consent isn’t enough: the informed, effective consent of the child patient is required. That’s why the court’s decision that children will very rarely be able to give such consent matters so much: if the Tavistock won’t act on the basis of parental consent alone, then children won’t be treated unless either they can themselves validly consent, or a court decides that the treatment is in their best interests”

    From https://legalfeminist.org.uk/2020/12/27/puberty-blockers-and-parental-consent/

    I can recommend that site, even though I disagree with many of the author’s conclusions and assertions later in that article. The author is intellectually honest, scarily intelligent, and open to cogent, well reasoned argument, backed up by citations and facts.

    The author is also a lawyer with 25 years experience, and so arguments better be cogent and well reasoned, or they will be swiftly and quite mercilessly shredded.

  3. No one has to tell the parents…
    They can get an abortion at 13 without letting parents know the doctors are required not to tell the parents. I could see them getting the hormone blockers without parents knowing. There’s a good interview here about how so many are encouraging our children to do these things. Parents can and should stand up, and know what’s going on for sure, but it’s not helping the kids. The kids can get taken away for “child abuse” and it happens anyways. It’s sickening, this trend. I’m glad she won.


    • “They can get an abortion at 13 without letting parents know the doctors are required not to tell the parents.”

      It varies from state to state in the U.S. However, nationwide it’s easier, or at least not as difficult, for minors to get an abortion than it is to get a tattoo.

      Aspiring underage tattoo recipients:

      “According to data through March 2015 compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least 45 states have laws prohibiting minors from getting tattoos, with the majority of those states allowing it if there’s parental consent. For example, Florida law requires written, notarized consent of a minor’s parent or legal guardian in order to tattoo a minor.”

      Aspiring underage abortion recipients:

      ”According to Guttmacher Institute, a group that tracks abortion policy and statistics, a majority of states require consent and/or notification. In 37 states, minors need parental consent and/or notification, while 11 states and Washington D.C. require neither.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.