See the original thread here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4288795-Helen-Webberley?
And now Helen Webberley is back in court as the GMC seeks to extend her suspension until August 2022
Gender GP thread starts here:
twitter.com/GenderGP/status/1466049063099510790
GenderGP @ GenderGP
We're covering the hearing re Dr Webberley. There has been a failure of the GMC to disclose the full bundle, counsel for the GMC is explaining this is due to page limits put on submissions.
GMC Counsel is requesting an extension of the suspension for a period of 8 months. Dr Helen's counsel asks why the case won't finish for a year. GMC Counsel says that question is irrelevant to today's hearing.
12:48 AM · Dec 2, 2021·Twitter Web App
And Helens own Twitter here:
twitter.com/MyWebDoctorUK/status/1465727253392805893
Dr Helen Webberley 🏳️⚧️🧜♀️🏳️⚧️ @ MyWebDoctorUK
I have been unable to work as a doctor since May 2017 because of the GMC investigation into my work. The original restrictions were in place for 18 months and that has been extended many times to allow for delays and processes.
3:29 AM · Dec 1, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
Helen Webberley - hearing continues
ItsLateHumpty · 04/12/2021 00:13
tabbycatstripy · 25/04/2022 13:18
But then even so, a tendency towards developing one ‘gender identity’ or the other given the presence of a particular neurological structure wouldn’t necessitate a child ‘changing sex’ (which you can’t do). Some people are gender non-conforming. I don’t see why that means they must also to infertile, have osteoporosis, have parts of themselves physically modified (unless that is their adult preference). A child of 12 can’t understand these issues and there is no suggestion that any firm effort was made to find out if they did.
Iknowitisheresomewhere · 25/04/2022 12:31
Well. I have skim read and it is not as damning as it might be.
I am actually surprised by some of it:
Thus, gender dysphoria is no longer to be regarded as a mental illness. This is because transgenderism itself is now regarded as a somatic (i.e. bodily; corporeal; physical) state of being, not a state of mind. This re-thinking is based on evidence that gender identity is innate, rather than learned:
• Males (persons with an XY karyotype) who are raised as girls due to developmental sex abnormalities or following trauma to the penis in infancy (due, for example, to botched circumcision) experience gender dysphoria in childhood and are discontent with the feminine phenotype and gender role imposed upon them.
• Male (XY) foetuses exposed to abnormally low levels of androgens in utero are more likely to develop into transwomen. Female (XX) foetuses exposed to abnormally high levels of androgens in utero are more likely to develop into transmen.
• Adult transgender individuals often report a lifelong history of gender dysphoria which they had hidden in their formative years due to shame and/or social/family pressures.
• There is post-mortem evidence that the structural neurobiology of the brain is involved in the establishment of gender identity.
110. The enlightened thinking embraced in ICD11 regarding the somatic nature of transgenderism is not reflected in Endocrine Society Guidelines 2009, which states, contrary to ample extant evidence, that ‘One’s self-awareness as male or female evolves gradually during infant life and childhood.’ This view of the aetiology of transgenderism is repeated verbatim in the 2017 update of the Endocrine Society’s Clinical Practice Guideline. Even the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) stated that gender dysphoria is ‘developmental’ in nature in their 1998 publication Guidance for the management of gender identity disorders in children and adolescents.
111. The Tribunal finds that the reluctance of the Endocrine Society and others to embrace enlightened views of transgenderism is symptomatic of the tendency in all professions to be slow to move with the times. This inertia in respect to medical attitudes to transgenderism mirrors past attitudes to homosexuality, which was classified by the APA as a mental illness until the 1973 edition of their DMS.
112. ICD11 came into effect in January 2022 and with it the reclassification of gender dysphoria from a mental illness to a condition related to sexual health. This did not mean, of course, that the nature of gender dysphoria itself changed on 1 January 2022: it is merely the system of nosology that changed. Importantly, the Tribunal finds that at the material time (2016/17), those with an interest in transgender healthcare, such as Dr Webberley, would have been aware that there was a growing body of opinion that gender dysphoria should cease to be considered a psychiatric disorder. Thus:
• The drive to change the medical approach to gender dysphoria was given impetus when WPATH released a statement in May 2010 urging the ‘de-psychopathologisation of gender nonconformity worldwide’.
• In the same year, gender reassignment became a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.
• The new thinking embodied in ICD11 during its drafting and consultation phase had provoked comment in the medical literature since at least 2012.
• Dr Dean, in his oral evidence, referred to an e-learning module hosted at the material time by the Royal College of General Practitioners and stated: ‘It made a strong emphasis on the, excuse the long word, de-psychopathologisation, that being transgender diverse isn't a disorder, that it isn't a mental health condition, that gender diverse people may experience mental health, common mental health problems more frequently than the general population, but that is not inherent in them being gender diverse.’ Dr Webberley completed that e-learning and was therefore aware of the evolving opinion in transgender healthcare that being transgender is not a mental illness.
I am not sure I agree that some of the thinking referred to here is 'enlightened'.
Imnotavetbut · 25/04/2022 14:58
I've had a flick through but 205 pages is a lot to get through. I think the tribunal findings actually sum up well where we're at: transgender healthcare is in a mess. HW has been found competent to prescribe hormones because the guidance, training and policies are in such a mess. We're always finding holes in the pretzel logic that goes on and that diabolical nonsense upthread wrt hormone washes is just a small example of what the tribunal were having to work with. The 'diagnosis' in itself does not stand up to logic and therefore it's no wonder that the treatment pathways and GIDS are in such a mess. So whilst there are a lot of not proven allegations, the ones that are proven are important because they are at the core of what a Doctor should be doing, eg:
- physical examinations
- gaining consent
- record keeping
- assessing capacity
The GMC counsel didn't seem to do a very good job, however, again I think this is because of the confusion that's being dealt with (in part). Trying to drill down on something so wishy washy is like trying to nail jelly or argue with a toddler about cutted up pear. But, the tangible aspects were mainly found proven and that is a good thing. Javid needs to get a wriggle on and get addressing these issues before others spot the gap in the market, learn from HWs incompetence and start dishing out the hormones.
Sorry, in a rush, but those are my initial (not very well articulated!) thoughts so far.
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.