Monday, December 7, 2020

UK Anti-Trans Ruling Provides an Excuse For the Religious Set to Trot Out Anti-Trans Vomit

Nicole Russell, Defender of the Faith™, is obsessed with transgender people. She writes: UK Issues Landmark Ruling Protecting Kids From Life-Altering Hormone Replacement Therapy. The Genesis 1:27 set is excited.
The High Court ruled that treatments often used to aid gender “transitions”—like puberty blockers and other sex-change hormones—are too experimental and are no longer able to be administered to anyone 16 years old or younger without permission from the court.

This is an incredible ruling for those who have been spreading the word for years about the dangers of transitioning.
The Court has ruled that children under 16 are not capable of providing informed consent for gender-affirming medical interventions.
However, the Court has ruled that there will be a stay on implementation of its judgment until the later of December 22 or the determination of any appeal.
The Court's ruling does not mention parental consent. I agree that minors under 16 cannot provide informed consent. However, parents can fully appreciate the benefits and consequences of various interventions. The Court did not address parental consent.

Further ambiguity exists because the Court did not address minors who are already receiving treatment. Abruptly stopping puberty blockers or hormones could cause considerable distress.

I contacted Fenella Morris QC, lead counsel for the defendants in the case, Bell v. Tavistock. I received an auto-reply that she is in court and unavailable until December 15.

Russell's “dangers of transitioning” is not based on the wellbeing of children. It is based on scripture. The real danger is preventing children in severe distress, due to gender incongruence, from transitioning. That puts kids at significant risk for self-harm.

The American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees with Ms. Russell. Its clinical practice guidelines call for the “gender-affirming care model.”

I also see from the ruling that one of our domestic religious crackpots, Paul Hruz, testified in this case and was considered credible. In this country an attorney for a transgender youth wrote in a brief opposing Hruz's qualifications as an expert witness:
Dr. Hruz is an Associate Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. He is proffered as an expert witness based on his study of “existing literature related to the incidence, potential etiology and treatment of gender dysphoria.” … Translated, it appears to mean that he has read some things about it. Dr. Hruz admits that he has not treated any transgender patients, patients with gender dysphoria, conducted peer-reviewed research about gender identity, transgender people, or gender dysphoria; and is not a psychiatrist, a psychologist, nor mental health care provider of any kind, who could speak knowledgeably about the effects of Defendant’s discriminatory policy on transgender students, let alone Plaintiff.
Nicole Russell continues
This is an incredible ruling in a controversial case many lawmakers in the U.S. have been following. In fact, informed and motivated by Bell’s story, Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif., introduced legislation in August that would prohibit these procedures from being performed on minors in this country.

The existence of HR 8012, as a result of Bell’s powerful story, is an important move forward in the United States’ ability to protect children from being forced to take puberty blockers or other hormones without proper education and that may have irreversible effects and produce irreparable harm.
In this country, every attempt to preclude interventions for transgender youth has failed. Doug LaMalfa is a farmer and political opportunist. H.R.8012 has only 12 cosponsors. It was dead on arrival. The bill never made it to committee. The reason these effort fail is because sane people are smart enough to rely on the judgment of expert clinicians.

Russel prattles on:
For years, the U.K. has been zealously embracing transgender ideology while demonstrating a laissez-faire attitude toward the harmful effects of hormone replacement therapy. This ruling puts the brakes on that hazardous approach and protects children and their bodies.
“Transgender ideology” is code for a conservative Christian religious objection to the existence of transgender people.

In this country, when it comes to the treatment of children, we trust the judgment of the doctors and parents of gender-diverse youth. Government has no right to intervene.

Related content:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.