Transgender rights discussion

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

come on guys, you know what he meant. just add the word 'over' after 'feck me'. the doctors and the parents didn't feck him over by ignoring his wishes, despite the legal responsibility being with the parent.

young people are given treatment all the time, some of which can be risky. it's not unique to those requiring care in this area.

Still doesn't make sense?

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

This is true. Although the discussion is equally being poisoned by those on the opposite side of the debate implying that everyone who disagrees with is a transphobe.

That and wants to see kids harming themselves.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

i don't have those stats in front of me, but i'd be interested to see them if you have them. i'd say that sometimes it does for some individuals, but not for others. it stands to reason that if you're already suffering from gender dysphoria (and not all trans people do suffer from it, although most do) already, then the changes to your body as a result of puberty are only going to exacerbate that problem. however ultimately what is required is individual care. there shouldn't be a blanket approach, which is why we need to increase the quality and availability of services to young people.

I agree, I will look back through some studies I've read and try to dig them out. Obviously care of the individual comes first but a patient approach seems to be the consensus.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

I certainly hope not. A child doesn’t have the emotional maturity to make a decision about a difficult risk vs benefit scenario. Even if that decision is purely about their own health. Hence they’re not allowed to vote/drive a car etc

The role of the parents/doctors there would have been to steer the child towards making the best decision for their own long term health. Not to rubber stamp a decision left entirely up to someone too young to understand the various nuances involved. Someone who can’t possibly understand why a long term view is so important as they’ve not yet been able to establish a long term perspective on anything.

Which seems to bring us neatly back on topic…

Good post.

 

[stepic]

Still doesn't make sense?

you've not heard the expression to be fecked over? or to feck someone over?

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Yeah, rubber-stamped was a poorly chosen phrase. The process is clearly more nuanced than that. Ultimately, however, after presenting the options and evidence and availing them of your opinion it would seem to often be reasonable (or at least not unreasonable) to "let them" have the final say. I mean, I know you're a doctor and I'm not exactly coming at this from a position of great knowledge myself but I don't think you can just blithely assume incompetence just because the patient is under 16. This is what the Great Ormond Street website has to say about consent:

Isn't this in the instance to stop parents refusing life saving treatment for children under 16 on like religious grounds?

Like blood transfusions for Jehovah's witnesses?

Like this statement or consent is working in one direction @Pogue Mahone ?

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

you've not heard the expression to be fecked over? or to feck someone over?

I have but the context it was used didn't seem to fit. It's a small point and arguing over it will derail the thread so happy to leave it.

 

[Carolina Red]

I have but the context it was used didn't seem to fit. It's a small point and arguing over it will derail the thread so happy to leave it.

I think they meant exactly what they said, and I think they said it because the question has been asked of why should minors have the power / right to consent to something like this but not other things.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

I think they meant exactly what they said, and I think they said it because the question has been asked of why should minors have the power / right to consent to something like this but not other things.

Fair enough, it's all very odd.

 

[Alex99]

not every trans person experiences emotional pain or discomfort from being in the body they're living in, and not all trans people need to medically transition to express their identity. i think it's more rare than those who do, but pain or trauma is not an intrinsic property of being trans.

This doesn't really answer anything. You've just repeated the assertion that not every transgender person has (or has had) gender dysphoria.

What is it that makes someone transgender if not a feeling that their body does not match their gender? Is that not the key aspect of being transgender?

These are huge questions that are not being answered with this assertion that being transgender is not even necessarily about a discomfort about one's body.

i've asked for people to post proof of this alleged 'calling someone a transphobe' point at least three times now. please post proof or refrain from it, please.

As I said, you've danced around directly saying it. It is evident from a number of your posts, including this one, that you deliberately frame your views in such a way that anyone that disagrees with them must be a transphobe.

This is you, in this very post:

i am convinced, just as maniak is, that these 'edge cases' such as sports and young people are used deliberately by people who do not have trans people's interests at heart, as a way to rope in otherwise good people and start to insidiously build up anti-trans sentiment.

What exactly are you implying when you say that you are "convinced" that this debate is "used deliberately [...] to insidiously build up anti-trans sentiment" if not that the people engaging in these debates are transphobic?

Explain yourself.

this is all just nonsense frankly.

i have consistently stated that i don't have all the answers, but that we should be trying to promote inclusivity wherever we can, and work towards an acceptable solution for everyone. banning trans people from sports, or banning treatment for young people, is not the answer. hopefully you agree with that at least. they are blunt object solutions to a far more nuanced topic. i have expressed doubts in this thread about certain people - PhilQ being one from a year or two ago, who suggested trans people were not born trans, and have at times linked the type of language used today against trans people (not referring to just this thread) as being similar to that used against gay people 40-50 years ago. this isn't in any way a controversial statement.

Is it nonsense? You are blinded by your own ideological stance on this. You repeatedly reject and ignore evidence presented to you, and remain steadfast and stubborn in your views despite never actually offering any evidence of your own to support them. It was like getting blood out of a stone to get you to even acknowledge that the Tavistock Clinic had a number of failings, despite the evidence of this being repeatedly presented to you, and even then you demonstrated a fundamental lack of comprehension about what these failings meant for the service. You just kept parroting an irrelevant point about the staff doing their best.

It's all well and good claiming not to "have all all the answers" but you cannot repeatedly engage in bad faith debate with people presenting actual evidence to you, offer nothing of your own, all while throwing around accusations of people being "misleading" or "alarmingly sensationalist".

As you're responding to me, and have been almost exclusively for a while now, I simply have not advocated for "banning trans people from sports, or banning treatment for young people". This is once again a gross misrepresentation of what has been said to you, and yet another example of your infuriatingly stubborn refusal to actually engage with the posts you are pretending to respond to.

It has been repeatedly stated by myself and many others that we want children and young people to receive the best possible care. A huge part of this is the medical pathways being extensively researched and evidence based. It has been repeatedly highlighted to you that this is not the case. It is not advocacy for the banning of treatment for young people to point out that current care provision is woefully inadequate.

The issue you seem to be having here is conflation of your blind advocacy for the current treatments, despite the obvious gaps in the evidence supporting them, with these treatments actually being the best thing for these children. They cannot be considered as such, as the Cass Interim Report highlights.

As for the banning of transgender people from sports. This has again not been a suggestion from basically anyone in this thread. Once again it is your own stubborn refusal to acknowledge the solutions presented by sporting bodies, as such, instead conflating your blind advocacy for "inclusion at all costs" policy with this being the only option.

You acknowledge that this is a nuanced topic, bring up "blunt object solutions", yet show absolutely no sign of acknowledging the nuances in this topic or indeed how your own supposed "solutions" are in fact, quite "blunt" themselves.

You have once again failed to respond to any of the numerous things I, or others, have presented to you, and have now decided to present yet another strawman argument by bringing up an essentially random poster who, to my eyes, has barely taken part in this discussion, and by your own acknowledgment made comments "a year or two ago". What has this got to do with anything we've been (supposedly) discussing in relation to the Cass Interim Report?

our understanding is constantly evolving and developing. you say i'm just 'making things up' when leading medical groups worldwide recognise the medical necessity of treatments for gender dysphoria and indeed endorse such treatments. these groups include the likes of the American academy of nursing, oediatrics, physicians, counselling, american medical association, public health association, endocrine society, world medical association, the NHS, and many many others.

Yes, understanding is constantly evolving and developing, and yet, despite their now being increasing acknowledgment that our current treatment processes fall markedly short of the care standards you would expect, you remain unwavering in your support of these exact processes.

Leading medical groups worldwide recognise the medical necessity of treating gender dysphoria, yes. However, it has been pointed out to you on a ridiculous number of occasions now that there is not even a consensus on what gender dysphoria is. It has also been pointed out to you on a ridiculous number of occasions that the current treatment processes are severely inadequate.

I do say you are just making things up, because right here you list a number of groups as if at they all support your views. The NHS services have literally been exposed as being deeply flawed by the very report we have been talking about for ages. A report that you have quite clearly not read.

The American College of Pediatricians have quite literally said that:

Transgender Interventions Harm Children
No Evidence that Transgender Interventions are Safe for Children

https://acpeds.org/transgender-interventions-harm-children

You can read about it there.

I'm not even going to bother looking into what the others are doing because this is quite clearly energy that you are not expending yourself.

Aside from the fact that you have repeatedly just made up things that I'm supposed to have said, you have also consistently misrepresented things and ignored evidence that contradicts your stance.

You posted at the very beginning of this thread that transgender athletes had been able to compete in the Olympics in 2004, but no transgender athlete had ever qualified until Laurel Hubbard. You completely ignored it when it was pointed out to you that the rules regarding access requirements had been drastically changed, and it was only the 2020 Olympics that would realistically see trans-athletes competing for the first time.

You quoted the IOC guidance as evidence for your stance, but when this was changed and acknowledged as inadequate, you suddenly went very quiet.

You repeatedly asserted that Lia Thomas was not dominating the women's category, but again, suddenly went very quiet on the matter when it was pointed out that Thomas had won in the vast majority of races.

More recently, you have repeatedly represented the Tavistock Clinic as an effective service running treatments extensively reviewed by medical experts, despite this quite blatantly not being the case.

i am convinced, just as maniak is, that these 'edge cases' such as sports and young people are used deliberately by people who do not have trans people's interests at heart, as a way to rope in otherwise good people and start to insidiously build up anti-trans sentiment. i'm saying this generally, not talking about anyone in particular in this thread. there is a sweeping anti-trans movement worldwide and especially in the UK, and it's saddens me that transphobic and now even wider LGBT+ abuse is on the rise in this country.

As I said earlier, what on earth is this if not skirting around directly calling individual posters, "transphobes"?

You are incapable of arguing in good faith. You are incapable of addressing the many, researched points that have been put to you. You are incapable of answering any of the reasonable questions asked of you.

At this point, it seems very clear that you are simply nothing more than a troll.

 

[VorZakone]

Those who have read the other thread about the replication crisis are well aware of how much shitty science and research is out there but also how misinterpreted they are.

It's October 2023. What is the latest, up-to-date, peer-reviewed, doublechecked/ whatever science on this subject? For example, what is the % that doesn't experience gender dysphoria anymore as they get older?

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Those who have read the other thread about the replication crisis are well aware of how much shitty science and research is out there but also how misinterpreted they are.

It's October 2023. What is the latest, up-to-date, peer-reviewed, doublechecked/ whatever science on this subject? For example, what is the % that doesn't experience gender dysphoria anymore as they get older?

He's vilified but the actual reporting and highlighting of the studies from Jesse Signal is fairly decent because he goes beyond the headlines and actually looks at and finds the data used to draw the conclusions.

 

[hobbers]

It's October 2023. What is the latest, up-to-date, peer-reviewed, doublechecked/ whatever science on this subject? For example, what is the % that doesn't experience gender dysphoria anymore as they get older?

Between the lack of available data (and test subjects), almost no long term investigations, political pressures, the pharma lobby and the plastic surgery lobby... Wouldnt fully trust any research paper in this area to be honest.

 

[berbatrick]

https://acpeds.org/transgender-interventions-harm-children

The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States, founded in 2002.[1][2] The group's primary focus is advocating against abortion rights and against rights for gay, queer, and transgender people. ACPeds promotes conversion therapy and purity culture.[3][4][1] As of 2022, its membership has been reported at about 700 physicians.[5][6][1]

i smelled it about a minute after seeing the page you linked. if they wanted to be a good denier of trans medicine, they'd smuggle in a lot of stuff about doubt, unknown results, missing data. instead they go straight forr harmful, permanent damage, etc. and then the homepage is a total give-away, "biological integrity" with male and female symbols, blue and pink, the works.

i wonder if your posting of this link confirm's @stepic assertion about how athletes are used as a wedge issue - this topic got you to uncritically accept and regurgitate conservative bile on the topic of transgenderism as a whole, without a second thoguht.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Isn't this in the instance to stop parents refusing life saving treatment for children under 16 on like religious grounds?

Like blood transfusions for Jehovah's witnesses?

Like this statement or consent is working in one direction @Pogue Mahone ?

I think that's certainly one element of it, yes, but it does seem like there's at least a somewhat developed metric by which a person under sixteen can be recognised competent enough to make their own medical decisions:

Children under the age of 16 can consent to their own treatment if they're believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what's involved in their treatment. This is known as being Gillick competent.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/

Gillick competence (Of which I have never before heard) is described here. Basically a medical professional decides if the kid is capable of deciding and it seems to basically operate on a case by case basis:

There is no set of defined questions to assess Gillick competency. Professionals need to consider several things when assessing a child's capacity to consent, including:

• the child's age, maturity and mental capacity
• their understanding of the issue and what it involves - including advantages, disadvantages and potential long-term impact
• their understanding of the risks, implications and consequences that may arise from their decision
• how well they understand any advice or information they have been given
• their understanding of any alternative options, if available
• their ability to explain a rationale around their reasoning and decision making.

Remember that consent is not valid if a young person is being pressured or influenced by someone else.

Children's capacity to consent may be affected by different factors, for example stress, mental health conditions and the complexities of the decision they are making. The same child may be considered Gillick competent to make one decision but not competent to make a different decision.

If you don't think a child is Gillick competent or there are inconsistencies in their understanding, you should seek consent from their parents or carers before proceeding.

In complex medical cases, such as those involving disagreements about treatment, you may wish to seek the opinion of a colleague about a child’s capacity to consent (Care Quality Commission, 2019).

Young people also have the right to seek a second opinion from another medical professional (General Medical Council, 2020).

 

[stepic]

What is it that makes someone transgender if not a feeling that their body does not match their gender? Is that not the key aspect of being transgender?

as i said, you can have a feeling that your body does not match your gender (which, yes, is key to being trans) but not every trans person experiences emotional pain or discomfort from it. it is the pain/trauma aspect that is associated with the dysphoria.

What exactly are you implying when you say that you are "convinced" that this debate is "used deliberately [...] to insidiously build up anti-trans sentiment" if not that the people engaging in these debates are transphobic?

you cut off the quoted paragraph before the very next sentence where I explicitly stated: i'm saying this generally, not talking about anyone in particular in this thread.

the point is clear. using wedge topics to ensnare otherwise good people is a common tactic and is not just relevant to this topic.

 

[The Corinthian]

Between the lack of available data (and test subjects), almost no long term investigations, political pressures, the pharma lobby and the plastic surgery lobby... Wouldnt fully trust any research paper in this area to be honest.

There's quite a bit of research done on the causal link between GD and neurological and psychiatric disorders such as autism, schizophrenia, bipolar, depression, anxiety disorder. ADD is one that they've found doesn't have a strong link.

 

[berbatrick]

There's quite a bit of research done on the causal link between GD and neurological and psychiatric disorders such as autism, schizophrenia, bipolar, depression, anxiety disorder. ADD is one that they've found doesn't have a strong link.

that's the good trans research, not affected by the replication crisis or external pressures!

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

I think that's certainly one element of it, yes, but it does seem like there's at least a somewhat developed metric by which a person under sixteen can be recognised competent enough to make their own medical decisions:



Gillick competence (Of which I have never before heard) is described here. Basically a medical professional decides if the kid is capable of deciding and it seems to basically operate on a case by case basis:

Yes but in a specific circumstance where if they were overruled, they may not receive life saving treatment.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

There's quite a bit of research done on the causal link between GD and neurological and psychiatric disorders such as autism, schizophrenia, bipolar, depression, anxiety disorder. ADD is one that they've found doesn't have a strong link.

I'd be mindful of the phrase link, moreso comorbities, is this the right word? As in a cluster of different MH issues.

 

[The Corinthian]

I'd be mindful of the phrase link, moreso comorbities, is this the right word? As in a cluster of different MH issues.

It's a genuine causal link though -

Schizophrenia:

Gender identity disorder (GID), recently renamed gender dysphoria (GD), is a rare condition characterized by an incongruity between gender identity and biological sex. Clinical evidence suggests that schizophrenia occurs in patients with GID at rates higher than in the general population and that patients with GID may have schizophrenia-like personality traits. Conversely, patients with schizophrenia may experience alterations in gender identity and gender role perception. Neurobiological research, including brain imaging and studies of finger length ratio and handedness, suggests that both these disorders are associated with altered cerebral sexual dimorphism and changes in cerebral lateralization. Various mechanisms, such as Toxoplasma infection, reduced levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), early childhood adversity, and links with autism spectrum disorders, may account for some of this overlap. The implications of this association for further research are discussed.

Austism:

The current literature shows growing evidence of a link between gender dysphoria (GD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This study reviews the available clinical and empirical data. A systematic search of the literature was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO and Scopus; utilizing different combinations of the following search terms: autism, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), Asperger's disorder (AD), co-morbidity, gender dysphoria (GD), gender identity disorder (GID), transgenderism and transsexualism. In total, 25 articles and reports were selected and discussed. Information was grouped by found co-occurrence rates, underlying hypotheses and implications for diagnosis and treatment. GD and ASD were found to co-occur frequently - sometimes characterized by atypical presentation of GD, which makes a correct diagnosis and determination of treatment options for GD difficult. Despite these challenges there are several case reports describing gender affirming treatment of co-occurring GD in adolescents and adults with ASD. Various underlying hypotheses for the link between GD and ASD were suggested, but almost all of them lack evidence.

Although caveat - there's still a lot of research to be done in this field.

that's the good trans research, not affected by the replication crisis or external pressures!

So you're in academia right? What's your take? Is the research valid or not?

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Yes but in a specific circumstance where if they were overruled, they may not receive life saving treatment.

Could you cite from where you get that limitation? That does not seem to be a stipulation in any of the guidance I have read. It seems to be a rule for if they refuse treatment, not for if they consent.

 

[hobbers]

There's quite a bit of research done on the causal link between GD and neurological and psychiatric disorders such as autism, schizophrenia, bipolar, depression, anxiety disorder. ADD is one that they've found doesn't have a strong link.

Yes and these links are quite easy to spot, but it's much more difficult to get a biological understanding of what's going on when dysphoria is co-occurring with other mental illnesses.

And I dont know if there's much of a drive to get a biological understanding because that's not where the money is. Also politically challenging when you might end up bracketing gender dysphoria with more stigmatised mental illnesses, there's always a lot of unscientific pushback.

 

[Alex99]

The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States, founded in 2002.[1][2] The group's primary focus is advocating against abortion rights and against rights for gay, queer, and transgender people. ACPeds promotes conversion therapy and purity culture.[3][4][1] As of 2022, its membership has been reported at about 700 physicians.[5][6][1]

i smelled it about a minute after seeing the page you linked. if they wanted to be a good denier of trans medicine, they'd smuggle in a lot of stuff about doubt, unknown results, missing data. instead they go straight forr harmful, permanent damage, etc. and then the homepage is a total give-away, "biological integrity" with male and female symbols, blue and pink, the works.

i wonder if your posting of this link confirm's @stepic assertion about how athletes are used as a wedge issue - this topic got you to uncritically accept and regurgitate conservative bile on the topic of transgenderism as a whole, without a second thoguht.

This just highlights an issue I have with this debate (and indeed, lots of other debates these days).

I don't agree with a lot of (or even pretty much all of) the views held by this organisation. That does not necessarily mean that the points raised by what is still an organisation of medical professionals on this specific page are not salient. It's common these days for people to act like you have to 100% agree with what a person or organisation say, or 100% disagree. The reality is that sometimes these parties may have a point, even if they can be wildly off the mark in other areas.

I would concede that the actual headline of that piece is somewhat sensationalist, and state that I don't particularly agree with all of the language used. There's also a small part where they reference unpublished studies, which I find odd. However, the subheading "No Evidence that Transgender Interventions are Safe for Children" is pretty much supported by the Cass Interim Report reviewing NHS gender care, and there are also a number of other referenced points made on that page that are also supported by the Cass Interim Report.

It's interesting that accuse me of being uncritical in my posting of it, when you've quite clearly not read it within the context of the wider debate that's happened in here.

as i said, you can have a feeling that your body does not match your gender (which, yes, is key to being trans) but not every trans person experiences emotional pain or discomfort from it. it is the pain/trauma aspect that is associated with the dysphoria.

And I will once again, for the millionth time, point out that a major flaw in the current structures is a lack of consensus as to what exactly gender dysphoria is.

I would argue that any amount of feeling that your body does not match your gender is gender dysphoria, but it's quite clear that there is not universal agreement on this.

you cut off the quoted paragraph before the very next sentence where I explicitly stated: i'm saying this generally, not talking about anyone in particular in this thread.

the point is clear. using wedge topics to ensnare otherwise good people is a common tactic and is not just relevant to this topic.

It is very convenient for you (and maniak) to be repeatedly talking generally about a debate, while engaging in that very same debate, but not be referring to the people you are debating with.

 

[maniak]

It is very convenient for you (and maniak) to be repeatedly talking generally about a debate, while engaging in that very same debate, but not be referring to the people you are debating with.

I made a general post, I didn't even quote anyone when I made that statement.

But just to make it clear, I believe we have genuine transphobes posting in this thread, I'm not trying to weasel my way out of anything.

 

[The Corinthian]

But just to make it clear, I believe we have genuine transphobes posting in this thread, I'm not trying to weasel my way out of anything.

Who?

 

[maniak]

Who?

I can't prove it so it would be in extreme poor taste to mention names.

 

[Alex99]

I made a general post, I didn't even quote anyone when I made that statement.

But just to make it clear, I believe we have genuine transphobes posting in this thread, I'm not trying to weasel my way out of anything.

If you're not trying to weasel out of anything, name these posters.

 

[Alex99]

I can't prove it so it would be in extreme poor taste to mention names.

Ah, okay. So you're just entering the debate with a blind assumption that those in opposition to you are doing so in bad faith.

 

[maniak]

If you're not trying to weasel out of anything, name these posters.

Since it's just my feeling about them, what benefit would that bring?

 

[Alex99]

Since it's just my feeling about them, what benefit would that bring?

I'm just glad we've now cleared up that you are not engaging the debate in good faith.

 

[The Corinthian]

I can't prove it so it would be in extreme poor taste to mention names.

No one’s asking you to prove anything. You said you believe some posters in this debate are transphobic and I’m asking who they are.

So who are they?

 

[maniak]

Ah, okay. So you're just entering the debate with a blind assumption that those in opposition to you are doing so in bad faith.

It's not a blind assumption because I formed that opinion after interacting with them and seeing what they wrote.

I don't enter this thread assuming everyone that disagrees with me is a transphobe. Some people I disagree with have made interesting points and seem to be debating in good faith.

 

[maniak]

I'm just glad we've now cleared up that you are not engaging the debate in good faith.

Mate, I don't engage with someone I believe to be a transphobe. I engage with people who seem to be arguing in good fate. So if I engage, you can assume it's in good faith, otherwise you won't read a word from me.

 

[Alex99]

But just to make it clear, I believe we have genuine transphobes posting in this thread, I'm not trying to weasel my way out of anything.

Also, is this you?

I wasn't referring to this thread, but my general interactions with people on this topic, online and real life.

Fair enough, if it wasn't clear, now it is. I meant all general discussions, not this thread.

 

[maniak]

No one’s asking you to prove anything. You said you believe some posters in this debate are transphobic and I’m asking who they are.

So who are they?

I don't believe anything good can come out of my answer, so I won't give one. Let me know what good can come of it and maybe it'll change my mind.

 

[maniak]

Also, is this you?

Yes, I include this thread as part of my interactions online.

 

[Alex99]

Yes, I include this thread as part of my interactions online.

So when you said, and I quote, "I wasn't referring to this thread," you were, in fact, referring to this thread?

 

[The Corinthian]

I don't believe anything good can come out of my answer, so I won't give one. Let me know what good can come of it and maybe it'll change my mind.

This is like the 90% thing all over again. Whenever you’re pushed on what you post you go into hiding (like now) or say it’s in generalities (like the 90% thing).

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Could you cite from where you get that limitation? That does not seem to be a stipulation in any of the guidance I have read. It seems to be a rule for if they refuse treatment, not for if they consent.

I'm talking about the consent rules. Sorry, more so it seems clear the rule is so it will be always be protecting the child.