I believe The Spectator is in danger of folding.

do nothing is not synonymous with immediately medicate, halt pubertal maturation, negatively affect cognitive development, sterilise and remove sexual function.

From the Spectator article above:

"Doughty said. “Do you think the use of the phrase “trans lobby” is an appropriate one?”

As it happens, Dr Carmichael in her lecture said some things that seem relevant here:
“Gender has become amazingly topical and we have to be really careful not to assume that anyone is exploring or questioning their gender is going to want to change their bodies in line with that. The extremes on either side are not helpful. We need to look at the grey areas in between. To do that we need to be able to talk and discuss these issues. All too often stakeholders become lobby groups.”

Low evidence base doesn't mean you do nothing, particularly when you have someone presenting in a clinical situation with traumatic distress. There is a role for transgender treatment alongside watch and wait. There is no alternative evidence base.

Yes R0wantrees I've posted links to similar interviews with PC before
tavistockandportman.nhs.uk/about-us/news/stories/gender-identity-development-service-on-bbc-radio-4s-womans-hour/

are sexually attracted to biological females, and who would, a decade or two ago, have grown up to consider themselves lesbians

and there are quite a few of those older lesbians who have since gone on to consider themselves men:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN4a0O7jGHc
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ9K3gldMnI
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdIqt1-x2w8
www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7s0WgwCYiQ
www.youtube.com/watch?v=folkFya_2d8

Polly Carmichael has described the evidence base for medical transition in minors as "low or very low".

An earlier article in The Spectator by James Kirkup raised some of the current issues around treating children and young people:
(extract)

"Dr Polly Carmichael, who runs the GIDS, in a recent talk to the Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health. In her thoughtful hour-long lecture, she said this:

“The rapid rise in the number of assigned females…. exemplifies the importance of keeping discourse open and allowing different voices to be heard.

“You might say the increase in the numbers of assigned females coming forward is [because] that it’s easier for females to talk about their gender-diverse feelings so what we are seeing is an increase in awareness getting towards a better representation of the true prevalence of this among females.

“A converse explanation, a question: are there issues for young women around how they perceive their gender? There has been a worry by some that people who would previously have had an outcome around sexuality are now having an outcome around gender.”

(In other words, these are girls who do not readily identify with the predominant idea of femininity and are sexually attracted to biological females, and who would, a decade or two ago, have grown up to consider themselves lesbians.) Dr Carmichael’s conclusion:

“The truth is we don’t know, but we need discussion in order to be thinking about what this could mean.”

Just in case that’s not clear, let me sum it up: the country’s leading centre for the care of gender-variant children says its caseload has risen more than twentyfold (35 times for girls) in less than a decade. The head of that centre doesn’t know why that’s happened and says the question needs further discussion."

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/why-are-some-mps-trying-to-shut-down-the-transgender-debate/

embedded link to Dr Carmichael's talk:
soundcloud.com/user-664361280/dr-polly-carmichael-developments-and-dilemmas

I'm not going to waste my time on you further, apart from to ask, why do you bother?

Hi McWoodle. I bother because I want to challenge some of the misinformation I see here about trans people.

I also come here to read opinions I don't necessarily agree with and to learn things as well.

The AAP is the lead organisation for pediatricians in the US. I don't think their policies could accurately be described as supporting a cult. They represent over 50,000 professionals. They also present evidence.

And the way you used the word 'slide' sounds like you're describing me as some sort of slithering deceptive serpent.

Actually, Supermatchgame, there are plenty of right wing mumsnetters already - even on the feminist board. I'm not one of them - but they're here.

The whole of Mumsnet is v lively come election time - people from all viewpoints/walks of life are here.

Hi SupermatchGame. Interesting to see you slide into this thread.
I mean the horrific harm being done to children mentally and physically by the cult you support. I'm sure you are aware of the issues so let's not fanny around.
The doctors will get rich for a while - then the lawyers will get even richer.
Children will be left with lasting damage, but that doesn't seem to concern you.
Not sorry to day it - I'm not going to waste my time on you further, apart from to ask, why do you bother?

And no one has mentioned the harm being done to children in the name of this bizarre ideology.

Sorry McWoodle by bizarre ideology do you mean evidence based care?
www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/AAP-Statement-in-Support-of-Transgender-Children-Adolescent-and-Young-Adults.aspx

you’re so blinded by your focus on trans issues. Right-wing policies are, overwhelmingly, bad for women.

Yes Sloth don't forget the 8th Rule of Transphobia: The right-wing are wrong about everything except transgender people.

I think it is vital to be exposed to a range of opinions. I didn't realise how fundamental self-id was until it was hammered home by Mumsnet. Now I realise how wrong I was. Everything else hinges on this debate.
And no one has mentioned the harm being done to children in the name of this bizarre ideology.

It's the refusal to even discuss it and the utter contempt they have shown - and still are showing - for women that has been so very, very revealing.

I don't know if there's any way back for me. 'The feeling's gone and I just can't get it back.'

Exactly how I feel.

SlothSlothSloth My comment wasn't to you. You can offer a gazillion opinions on my opinion, my opinion is to ignore you and do what I feel is right.

As far as I'm concerned it's not the support for self ID alone. If the left had reached that conclusion after a proper debate in which all voices were allowed a say then maybe, just maybe I would have been able to accept it - or at least I might have stayed and argued.

It's the refusal to even discuss it and the utter contempt they have shown - and still are showing - for women that has been so very, very revealing.

I don't know if there's any way back for me. 'The feeling's gone and I just can't get it back.'

The bottom line is, no woman should ever have to justify their views or opinions

This really isn’t how things work. Everyone, woman or not, is entitled to their own opinion, and equally everyone else is entitled to offer their own opinion on that opinion if they wish. No one is forcing you to justify anything.

I agree, we can agree to differ, Sloth.

As I've already said, IMO it is the biggest threats to women's rights and women's equality in a hundred years.

I think we’ll never agree, because to me self-ID is regressive and honestly absurd, but other issues are far more urgent. I’m sure we are on the same page on many other issues though.

The bottom line is, no woman should ever have to justify their views or opinions. They are ours and we own no-one an explanation.

"I wish you would all stop promoting right-wing nonsense"

Heaven forbid people occasionally checked out what the other "side" is saying, familiarised themselves with their opinions, arguments and beliefs....

Minimising it to call it one point of feminism doctrine.

As I've already said, IMO it is the biggest threats to women's rights and women's equality in a hundred years.

I will vote for the least worst party - the party that I consider least likely to bring it in. If they all do - I'll spoil my vote.

I cannot, in all conscience, vote for Labour - a party that expels women for their gc opinions, and has made self ID policy already.

Honestly. It's so so limiting to only ever agree with people is you agree on everything. You have to listen to a variety of viewpoints, on all subjects - not just dismiss this person, because they're not left wing, or that person, because they're not feminist.

Increasingly there are so many major issues with no clear right/left position. Not only self id but also brexit. So yes, tribalism is of limited use, and always has been. But being able to support a party that is gutting services for vulnerable women, simply because they may (jury still out on this) agree with you on one point of feminist doctrine, is a very privileged position to be in.

Babyitsawildworld I also read different sources. Not the spectator generally but I certainly read the Times and the Telegraph from time to time (insofar as paywalls allow), as well as the guardian and many others, although I increasingly disagree with the guardian’s editorial line as well. I think my point is being a bit lost, probably because I’m not conveying it very well. It’s less about whether the Spectator specifically is too right wing to countenance supporting (for me it is, but obviously this varies depending on your politics) and more about a general trend of GC feminists bigging up right-wing things/people because of the single issue of self-ID. When history (and the present to be honest) shows right wing policies are very bad for women.

And I don’t feel rage towards you at all. But like i said, i do feel frustration when I see someone post excitedly about for example a Rod Liddle article on trans issues, because I can imagine how this would put me off engaging further if I was new to the debate.

As far as Jordan Peterson in particular is concerned, I personally do not understand how you could find him “interesting” when most of his views are the same re-hashed, sexist evolutionary psychology nonsense we’ve been suffering from thinly veiled MRAs for decades. But everyone has different tastes.

Honestly. It's so so limiting to only ever agree with people is you agree on everything. You have to listen to a variety of viewpoints, on all subjects - not just dismiss this person, because they're not left wing, or that person, because they're not feminist.

Absolutely.

I'm very much of the centre - can see good and bad policies in each of the two major parties, read the Spectator and the New Statesman. I like my prejudices challenged.

But the one thing that really turns me off the left is its fucking self-righteousness + now, of course, it's total disdain for the rights and safety of women.

To return to the OP, I do hope the Speccie doesn't fold.

Though some of their contributors are undoubtedly fuddy-duddies (Charles Moore's columns have given me a deeper appreciation of Craig Brown's pastiches of his style in the Eye), they do seem to be the publication that's currently doing the best job of offering a range of views.

For example, last year there was an open letter from the writer to his Corbynista nephew. Some good points were made, but he was beginning to overreach towards the end. Next issue featured the reply of the Corbynista nephew! Slightly mischievous, but a balance that you're unlikely to see in the Mail or the Graun.

Regarding the current ding-dong, it strikes me that the GC debate is like the Brexit one in that, whichever side you take, you find yourself deeply frustrated with some politicians on 'your' side that you previously respected whilst simultaneously finding that politicians belonging to parties hitherto beyond your political pale are making decent points.

To chuck up all this brave new world of new thinking regarding difficult issues in favour of blind political tribalism is, in my opinion, a mistake.