I am Janice Turner's No 1 fan - another excellent article

Just came across this and thought it might be of interest on this thread or the next one you discuss so leaving it here before I forget and go offline "Autism and Trans Identity (Part 1: personal experience + social factors)" :

So glad meeting went well.

PlonitbatPlonit

I believe that campaign is being headed by Ruth Serwatka, who was speaking today.

I haven't looked at it enough yet. But I think there is a swelling consensus that this is the group to back.

Part of the problem with all this is that women everywhere are certainly worried and wanting to do something, but there is not a cohesive, centred group behind whom they can get.

I get the feeling, that this one is it.

I will have more of a look tomorrow, but in the meantime, take a look.

I had naively assumed the age limit would stay in place, and that would at least protect children.

I don't know if anyone has posted a link to the campaign Woman's Place UK, which has the 'bio': " Violence against women and sex discrimination still exist. Women need reserved places, separate spaces and distinct services. Join our campaign to keep them." They are running a letter writing campaign about the gender identity legislation/consultation that women here might be interested in. www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=498012153886309&id=494295627591295

Glad that today was such a successful meeting - at last!

theendisnotnigh

Good thinking. I'll do it tomorrow. I don't have the time to pay 100% attention to it tonight.

@Datun
Is it worth starting a new thread - transgender issues and children ?There are specific issues wrt parents, schools, consent, drugs etc? Just a thought.

Oh, please someone explain what the hell 'transmasculine' is?

Shon Faye has just tweeted that at me

For certain issues, I couldn't care less if they discover the reason for trans. The fact that a transwoman has male pattern violence, a penis, and male socialisation is enough.

Some fantastic posts here. The prescribing of drugs, the hierarchy where women will still come at the bottom, because they cannot have anything if a man wants it first, however mediocre he is. And the mental health issue. Either they're suicidal and therefore have mental health issues. Or they're not, don't, and shouldn't require treatment.

Cake and eating it is the strapline for trans.

As an aside, I've just come back from the meeting in Brighton. All fine, no trouble. Heavily armed guards everywhere because of the Labour party conference.

But Stephanie Davis Arai raised something that I wonder if anyone here can help with? I've posted this on another thread, so cutting and pasting below:

Stephanie Davies Arai runs Transgendertrend and is particularly concerned over the effect on children.

She raised a chilling aspect of this is that hadn't occurred to me.

Currently, under the criteria to obtain a gender recognition certificate, you have to be over 18.

This part of the criteria, along with all the rest, will be dispensed with if they change the law. And they are wanting to change the protected characteristic from gender reassignment, to gender identity.

The effect of this will be that there is no lower age to identifying as the opposite sex. And it's protected.

She sees a situation where a five-year-old claims they are the opposite sex and the school have to affirm that, despite what the parents say. Because it's a protected characteristic.

I'll let that sink in.

Parental control over whether your child is viewed as transgender or not will be eliminated.

She also sees it as being used as a massive stick in a custody battle.

Women being blackmailed by a partner who can use this against them.

Stephanie is very switched on about everything to do with children and trans. Her website was set up to help parents of children who have gender dysphoria.

But if there is anyone who can unravel the legal implications of this aspect, I'd be really glad if they can analyse this.

The system can be very paternalistic about women and their medical needs/preferences, yet seems to have moved quickly to prescribing trans patients whatever they ask for

Totally agree and am not defending that for a moment.

"We know that certain parts of male brains and certain parts of female brains do behave differently....."
You see, this the the sneaky assumption coming in yet again. Which people think they will get away with because it is a commonly-held belief that men and women are different in the head (and that matters and is a good thing), as well as being different in the body (and that being a good thing too, innies and outies fitting as god designed them kind of thing and ignore the bonobos!).
Even if it were true (male brains and female brains that is), and even if the trans-brain hypothesis were true, why do we care? It is, let's face it, instead just a belief that we are our brains (and our bodies are mutable and reconfigurable), but that our brains, our essential selves are not mutable or reconfigurable.
That transwomen are 'real' women, and that physical differences or experiences don't matter. Because we don't need the trans-brain evidence, AFAIK for diagnostic purposes, or therapeutic purposes.
If TRAs weren't so focused on colonizing the 'real woman' territory and disappearing the significance of female non-brain biology, we wouldn't have an issue. If TRAs were instead happy to establish their own areas, we wouldn't really be that interested in why anyone was trans, but be fully behind any calls that people should not be discriminated against on the basis of their gender beliefs or how they chose to present, or that anyone who suffered distress or dysmorphia should receive relevant assistance.

It's the attempted disappearance of the significance of known female biology and genetics that is the problem, and this required belief in hidden aspects of supposed female biology, and 'innate gender'.

Not having a go at you Selma but it's interesting how often the 'it's their body' defence does not apply to women. In labour for instance. I've just left hospital and it was a major faff to get the high strength painkillers I'm on at the moment prescribed for me at home. The system can be very paternalistic about women and their medical needs/preferences, yet seems to have moved quickly to prescribing trans patients whatever they ask for.

SomeDyke that's an excellent post re study samples. Plenty of food for thought.

But women get refused various drugs for a variety of reasons all the time

Not usually when an NHS consultant has recommended the drug. Occasionally a GP will decline to prescribe something complicated because they don't have the expertise to monitor it (or because their CCG has banned it) but then the consultant can prescribe it themselves.

Btw, Janice T noes we are fans! twitter.com/VictoriaPeckham/status/912788907426762752

bet you 20p she's already a mumsnetter

I mean you're one doctor and so it's not about you personally, but about how - as in the example - women are refused HRT - and they are - and trans people are not. That sort of thing.

I suspect the cosmetic surgery stuff causes ructions as well. Women can't get breast reductions often - I'm not sure how easy it is for a TIM to get "top" surgery.

I was refused a certain type of contraceptive pill because of increased risks even though I'd been happy on it for years.

But women get refused various drugs for a variety of reasons all the time

Poster upthread was refused HRT
I've heard of many women who have been refused drugs that have nasty effect on foetuses as they are of child bearing age, even when they are not sexually active / not straight / have completed their families etc
I'm sure there's more

It reminds me of when India Knight or Kelley Maloney was on Loose Women

I think you mean India Willoughby. India Knight is both a woman and gender critical so we must not send bad vibes her way

So is there a reason why doctors really don't care about the effects of giving these drugs to trans people?

What on earth makes you think we don't care? But GPs are in a difficult position if an NHS gender specialist clinic has prescribed the hormones to start with. Technically we are not obliged to prescribe, but it would be very unusual to refuse to prescribe what a consultant has recommended - normally the only reason we refuse is if it's some exotic drug not usually given in primary care - which of course cannot be said of HRT.

Also, for mature adult trans people, I am not sure it would be right to refuse. I might think they are making a unwise choice, but it's not my body. As long as they have had proper counselling about risk, I don't think it is unethical to prescribe. My worry would be much more about prescribing to children and teenagers.

It's because of this:

Neuroscience is a relatively new science and one we don't yet have much knowledge of

that this:

Are you denying that transgender may occur in the brain?

is simply an assertion with little meaning. Some of the changes being proposed have such massive potential consequences that I'd like to see some evidence. Since learning more and gathering evidence is such a good thing, let's have everyone, people from the trans community, rad-fems, etc, get behind research into what leads to gender dysmorphia. And also whether gender dysmorphia is common to everyone who is seeking to transition. And that would be just the start.

I don't at all have an issue with some people being transgender and I have no take on where it stems from (genetic, social, whatever). I do have an issue with someone claiming to be a biological woman on the basis of clothes and makeup.

Neuroscience is a relatively new science and one we don't yet have much knowledge of. However, that does not mean it is without merit. Reducing what we do know to pink brain blue brain is nonsense. We know that certain parts of male brains and certain parts of female brains do behave differently....we just don't fully understand how or what mechanisms are attributing to those differences. I really don't see why some of you have such an issue with this? Are you denying that transgender may occur in the brain? We simply do not yet have the necessary knowledge to understand why some people are transgender.

So is there a reason why doctors really don't care about the effects of giving these drugs to trans people? And why the trans community is sticking its fingers in its ears and going lalala can't hear you when people try to warn of the dangers? I saw somewhere that the average age of a ladyboy is around 40 due in some measure to these hormones being so bad for them (and other reasons of course).