Two cases have now been decided in the wake of the Cass Review concerning the decision of 16 year olds to take cross sex hormones. In both, the court declined to intervene.
'Assigned at birth' is the most ludicrous phrase, but a pointer to the thought process of whoever says it. Either they believe it, meaning they lack intelligence, or they use it because others do, like a fashion, meaning they are gullible or vein or shallow or worse. Oh what a mind-virus this ideology is. We have aspirin for headaches. We need a tablet for gender ideology, available over the counter! 'Gender-profen'? What a world.
"Assigned at birth" is terminology that came about due to advocacy by and on behalf of people with Disorders of Sexual Development. It was intended to be used to clarify what actually happened in those extremely rare cases where sex genuinely could not be determined at birth.
The term was deliberately and strategically exploited and popularised by transactivists, many of whom argued that "transexualism" and "transgenderism" were due to "brain intersex". Even so, it is remarkable how quickly the term became widespread and then routine in medical literature.
Looking at Google Ngrams, it chugged along being used rarely between 2006 and 2014 then climbed steeply, overtaking "sex at birth" and "birth sex" in 2017.
I keep meaning to write up what I discovered researching the history of this term. I will get around to it one day.
Imagine the wonderful things the Tories could have done with their 80 MP majority had they not decided to run the country to the ground. If I had all the power in the world I would forbid social and medical transition until the age of 30.
Surely the threshold for consent is relative to the gravity of the decision. It may be presumed for a therapeutic or physical necessity, but something with permanent long term consequences, either needs parental consent or a best interests decision - in either case the ‘child’ cannot give its own consent. Even getting a tattoo needs parental consent as headstrong impressionable teenagers cannot imagine themselves as mature adults regretting their bodywork a decade hence.
Thanks for clarifying. You’d think the FLRA applied to necessary medical treatment. A teenager with an emergency appendicitis or sports injury. Not for a mental health condition where the prognosis is uncertain and the treatment long lasting and even more uncertain. If capacity isn’t the issue, then surely there is a question of contractual capacity and understanding the terms - even if someone else is paying for the treatment. After all, the bigger the decision, the higher the threshold of understanding. You don’t buy a house without a solicitor and surveyor advising you. And if you buy a dud house, at least your body is intact. You’d think as well that the law would gave some interest in protecting vulnerable young people.
Sex is determined at fertilization, when an X or Y bearing sperm joins with an X bearing ovum. When the developing embryo implants, 5 days later, is when pregnancy begins. Differentiation of reproductive systems mean that by 12 weeks external genitalia are visible in utero which is what has given rise to the myth that we all start as female. No our unique DNA is decided at the moment of fertilization, and we all came from a cell the size of a full stop....how amazing is that!!!
'Assigned at birth' is the most ludicrous phrase, but a pointer to the thought process of whoever says it. Either they believe it, meaning they lack intelligence, or they use it because others do, like a fashion, meaning they are gullible or vein or shallow or worse. Oh what a mind-virus this ideology is. We have aspirin for headaches. We need a tablet for gender ideology, available over the counter! 'Gender-profen'? What a world.
"Assigned at birth" is terminology that came about due to advocacy by and on behalf of people with Disorders of Sexual Development. It was intended to be used to clarify what actually happened in those extremely rare cases where sex genuinely could not be determined at birth.
The term was deliberately and strategically exploited and popularised by transactivists, many of whom argued that "transexualism" and "transgenderism" were due to "brain intersex". Even so, it is remarkable how quickly the term became widespread and then routine in medical literature.
Looking at Google Ngrams, it chugged along being used rarely between 2006 and 2014 then climbed steeply, overtaking "sex at birth" and "birth sex" in 2017.
I keep meaning to write up what I discovered researching the history of this term. I will get around to it one day.
Imagine the wonderful things the Tories could have done with their 80 MP majority had they not decided to run the country to the ground. If I had all the power in the world I would forbid social and medical transition until the age of 30.
Surely the threshold for consent is relative to the gravity of the decision. It may be presumed for a therapeutic or physical necessity, but something with permanent long term consequences, either needs parental consent or a best interests decision - in either case the ‘child’ cannot give its own consent. Even getting a tattoo needs parental consent as headstrong impressionable teenagers cannot imagine themselves as mature adults regretting their bodywork a decade hence.
S8 FLRA allows a child over 16 to consent as if an adult; the Gillick test does not apply to them.
Thanks for clarifying. You’d think the FLRA applied to necessary medical treatment. A teenager with an emergency appendicitis or sports injury. Not for a mental health condition where the prognosis is uncertain and the treatment long lasting and even more uncertain. If capacity isn’t the issue, then surely there is a question of contractual capacity and understanding the terms - even if someone else is paying for the treatment. After all, the bigger the decision, the higher the threshold of understanding. You don’t buy a house without a solicitor and surveyor advising you. And if you buy a dud house, at least your body is intact. You’d think as well that the law would gave some interest in protecting vulnerable young people.
Which is why I hope an appeal against this decision will be successful.
Good luck! Without being overly cynical, I expect resistance is influenced to some degree by fear of the litigation floodgates being opened.
a disgrace ; assigned at birth is just wrong - sex already exists in the woman's womb - the law is an ass
Sex is determined at fertilization, when an X or Y bearing sperm joins with an X bearing ovum. When the developing embryo implants, 5 days later, is when pregnancy begins. Differentiation of reproductive systems mean that by 12 weeks external genitalia are visible in utero which is what has given rise to the myth that we all start as female. No our unique DNA is decided at the moment of fertilization, and we all came from a cell the size of a full stop....how amazing is that!!!