A UK court has ruled that children as young as 13 years old can take puberty blockers as long as they "understand" the full consequences of the treatment. The bizarre thing about this case is that, in the UK, this is being viewed as a setback for the LGBT revolution!
The case came about when Keira Bell sued Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, the UK National Health System's lone gender identity development service for children. Basically, a government-funded gender experimentation center.
The Daily Mail explains the case made by Keira Bell:
Ms Bell, a 23-year-old woman who began taking puberty blockers when she was 16, was injected with testosterone at 17 and had a mastectomy aged 20, before 'detransitioning'.
She claimed she was treated like a 'guinea pig' at the clinic, and said doctors failed to carry out a proper psychiatric assessment and should have challenged her more over her decision to transition to a male as a teenager.
Her lawyers had argued that children going through puberty cannot properly consent to taking puberty blockers.
They said there was 'a very high likelihood' that children who start taking hormone blockers will later begin taking cross-sex hormones, which they say cause 'irreversible changes'.
TL;DR: As a teen, Keira Bell transitioned from female to male and grew up to regret the change. She has now brought legal action to prevent doctors from doing to others what they did to her, prescribing puberty blockers to someone who could not understand and consent due to their age.
The court ruled with Ms. Bell. Now teenagers as young as 13 can only be given puberty blockers if they understand what they are doing.
The court ruled that, 'in order for a child to be competent to give valid consent, the child would have to understand, retain and weigh' a number of factors, including 'the immediate consequences of the treatment in physical and psychological terms'.
The child would also need to understand that, 'the vast majority of patients taking puberty blocking drugs proceed to taking cross-sex hormones and are, therefore, a pathway to much greater medical interventions'.
The judges said in their ruling: 'It is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers.
'It is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers.
'In respect of young persons aged 16 and over, the legal position is that there is a presumption that they have the ability to consent to medical treatment.
'Given the long-term consequences of the clinical interventions at issue in this case, and given that the treatment is as yet innovative and experimental, we recognise that clinicians may well regard these as cases where the authorisation of the court should be sought prior to commencing the clinical treatment.'
According to a court, it is "highly unlikely' a child 13 and user could legally consent and "doubtful" that a 14 or 15-year-old could make this type of a decision, however, at 16 they have reached a legal age of consent in the UK.
We are now living in a world where a court ruling that a 13-year-old child can consent to hormone therapy to stop puberty in hopes of changing their gender is a defeat for the LGBT revolution.
Welcome to Bizarro World.
In this "devastating" decision which Trans activist, Lui Asquith, from the trans children's charity Mermaids, dubs "a new era of discrimination," the activist laments that young children who are going through puberty will have to prove to a court that they understand the long-term consequences of these life-altering decisions. Asquith also says, "it cannot be exaggerated" the impact this decision has on young "trans" people.
'It's frankly a potential catastrophe for trans young people across the country and it cannot be exaggerated the impact that this might have, not only on the population of trans young people that require hormone blockers, but it may potentially open the floodgates towards other questions around bodily autonomy and who has the right to govern their own body.'
It cannot be exaggerated?
Really?
This argument, according to Asquith, isn't just limited to the trans issue but "other questions around bodily autonomy".
What on earth could this be referring to? This is about the issue of the ability to consent, isn't it? What other issues about consent does this organization think needs to be extended to 13-year-old kids?
One hates to even imagine.
The LGBT revolution views this as a setback, and it is in some small way, but the ruling of the court still leaves open the possibility of a court deciding that children as young as 13 will be able to make medical decisions regarding puberty and gender transition.
