Royal College of Psychiatrists Statement

Without gender being a biological truth, the document is meaningless. Why and how have the RCP decided this? On what evidence?

Spartacus I wonder if the evidence they're basing it on is the hundreds of thousands of people worldwide presenting to them with a condition that would strongly suggest it is a biological reality - for them, at least. And I mean that as a genuine suggestion, I can't think of why else a group of psychiatrists (who obviously spend all day trying to decipher the contents of the human mind) might believe something to actually exist within the human mind; I guess lots of people for whom that appears to be the case is probably the best sort of evidence they get.

Not saying that is what they're basing it on of course, just pontificating.

Yes, "sex assigned at birth" is a bit ridiculous, but I think it's just used as a turn of phrase these days. I agree that if broken down it's nonsensical, but we all know what they're getting at.

It implies that cis children should presumably be encouraged to live and behave in accordance with their birth sex

I didn't read it that way! I thought it implied that one might feel the need to encourage a transgender child to "conform" to their biological sex, and that instead of doing so they should be allowed to be divergent.

So rather than saying, "transgender kids should be treated this way but other kids should be treated the opposite way" they're actually saying, "transgender kids should be treated this way as opposed to being treated the opposite way"; does that make sense?

But this is the Royal College of Pyschiatrists.

The most eminent authority on how brains work.

And they are saying it is not a disorder to not identify with gender.

Which is a good position as long as the body disphoria element is still medicalised as a disorder. Otherwise GRC, medical treatment, anything is unnecessary for trans people entirely.

Which is bad for everyone, I think?

What hope is there? Margaret McCartney has waded in with a piece on trans medicine for the bmj (link in the dr webberley thread), which is fantastic news. If you don't know who she is, shes a gp who campaigns for evidence based medicine, and she's pretty much gone 'errr problem here'.

It reads like well intentioned bollocks from people who have never thought before about what the concept of 'gender' actually means. We are ALL 'gender-diverse' you muttonheads!
They need to get some education from the people who have been thinking and writing about 'gender' for the last 50 years or so, ie academic feminists.

OK.

Gender diversity per se is not a disorder

I’m fine with that, as I think gender norms are shit.

But the WHO should

*declassify any terms they use to describe transgender as a mental health disorder”

troubles me.

So “transgender” is officially uncoupled from disphoria which IS a mental health condition, yes? Otherwise there would be no need to alter bodily?

My initial thoughts are that this is slightly but very significantly different to the 'if they tell you, believe them and take all steps to ensure that they are treated as if they were the other sex' position...

What I don't understand is how a group of pyschiatrists can get together and categorically accept that gender is not a social construct but is a biological truth. Which is what this document does. Without gender being a biological truth, the document is meaningless. Why and how have the RCP decided this? On what evidence? Gender as truth is being written into medical documents without any evidence and presented as a fait accompli.

the College believes that a watch and wait policy, which does not place any pressure on children to live or behave in accordance with their sex assigned at birth or to move rapidly to gender transition, may be an appropriate course of action when young people first present

It’s pretty weaselly, in my opinion.

Why not say watch and wait is an appropriate policy when children first present?

What utter bilge. It comes from the position that there are two options - trans gender, and cis gender. So they have already jumped several steps ahead without any evidence that I can see listed.

Rat - the bit you mentioned - yes a watch and wait policy is good. But sex assigned at birth?? Sex is not assigned at birth, it is observed. It says that no pressure should be placed on trans-gender or gender diverse children to live or behave in accordance with their sex (and this bit is specifically for pre-pubertal children). Good, of course it shouldn't. Is that kindness only extended to trans children? It implies that cis children should presumably be encouraged to live and behave in accordance with their birth sex. Or if they think that all children should be allowed to express gender-divergent behaviour, however they 'identify', then what is even the point of that statement?

I don't think I have explained myself well but that paragraph is particularly infuriating.

the College believes that a watch and wait policy, which does not place any pressure on children to live or behave in accordance with their sex assigned at birth or to move rapidly to gender transition, may be an appropriate course of action when young people first present.

This sounds okay though, right?