PJMedia:
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.
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). read more
So the British Courts actually made a decision that makes sense.
Somehow, that surprises me.
Don’t know exactly why, but it does.
They probably just didn’t see the need.
Liberalism is emasculating enough already.
We could make great advancements, not only for children but the entire world, if we could protect people from the spread of liberalism, but that would take much more than any court.
Great interview of Walt Heyer.
https://youtu.be/oJOuO9IxTdE