Lisa Nandy interview demonstrates she still doesn't understand Safeguarding yet & neither do the other Labour leadership candidates.

Hey Lisa! How about, as an elected MP, listening to more than one side.

How about listening to Dr Marcus Evans and Dr David Bell and Kirsty Entwistle - all ex-Tavistock clinicians and experts in this field.

How about listening to parents of gender-non conforming children and young adults who are desperate to prevent permanent harm being done to their children in the name of an ideology that insists on an affirmation only pathway following self-diagnosis.

How about listening to detransitioners who - let's face it - are most certainly the people that know.

"Self identifying is a really, really important part of the right of people to say - I know better than a psychiatric assessment who I am."

It's a way of negating anyone who has medical and clinical expertise in this area. The individual always knows best - no matter what.

"Self identifying is a really, really important part of the right of people to say - I know better than a psychiatric assessment who I am."

And in bold, because it's just so. fucking. stupid.

"Self identifying is a really, really important part of the right of people to say - I know better than a psychiatric assessment who I am."

I don't even know where to start. It's just batshit.

Does nandy actually believe this "Self identifying is a really, really important part of the right of people to say - I know better than a psychiatric assessment who I am."

And if so does she apply this to any other area of psychiatry?

If someone who is psychotic identifies as mentally well do we not only allow but in fact encourage them to go off their meds? If not, why not? Surely they know better than the psychiatrist assessing them?

Another times article I've just seen regarding labour and this whole debacle.

I don't subscribe though so can't read it all:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-at-war-over-debate-on-trans-rights-q9tqn8t5n

As a business development manager Jess may have had contact with women using services collecting evidence for funding applications through interviews, focus groups or the observation of activities. In a small organisation you get a pretty good idea of the issues anyway. But I do agree that both women, maybe Lisa Nandy more so, have presented as if they have frontline experience. And I didn't realise Lisa Nandy had quite such a connected background, which makes me even crosser she's taking rights away from working class women who are less likely to be able to buy themselves out of difficult situations.

Sorry this is better:

GRC changes dropped? www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3829568-GRC-changes-dropped

There's a thread already but this is the times report.

go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d19ad4fe-54d9-11ea-a869-24971f770bf3?shareToken

Ah well, there we go, they're all rubbish.

Luckily I've just seen a times article that says the opposite will be happening.

Re homelessness, this is when "intersectionality" really does need to be thought of and the fact that huge numbers of trans people have other mh conditions and/ or asd will certainly be a factor. Many have also sadly been victims of csa.

Citing a study to support the findings of the same study has got to be the ultimate example of "begging the question". I bet they do it every bit as often as they cite surveys masquerading as studies, confident that most people do not check.

I'm probably naive to be even slightly hopeful but I noticed in some sort of husting thing with Emily T and the rest she was the only one to say that she'd use an independent enquiry to look at antisemitism. I would hope she'd use the same approach to anything around this debate. Hope...

I'm not labour but I'd thought from the start I'd probably vote KS. I suspect he's keeping Schtum as he knows he's out of his depth.

Mockers is right, I think Jess also had a political Grandfather.

The only think I have noticed is that she's started to say that women's spaces must be protected, and Labour must be able to serve both communities, just no real illustration of how.

I'm really thinking this is all her very first baptism into any of this debate at all. And she's not being shown the violence on the tra side as all those around her are only showing the be kind and we are vulnerable bits.

Sorry @SpartacusLangClegicus, x posted.

The original research is here. And it is indeed about young people, not whole population. They also seem to cite "AKT 2015" to support that intitial claim (so they seem to be citing AKT 2015 as evidence that AKT2015 is well founded upon other data, which... what? I have never seen a circular citation in my own field. People cite their own previous studies, of course, but they don't cite a study as evidence for itself... is that normal in some fields?) and Cull, et al, 2006.

A more reliable set of data is an overview by the government, less than a year old, of all the relevant research. Including the two studies above. That seems to indicate that more often than not, it's multi-factorial. That makes sense. A child from a sane, loving home who happens to be LGBT is unlikely to end up homeless. One who grew up in care, and is accordingly vulnerable, would have to contend with homophobia or transphobia without that buffer and sanctuary. And autism is correlated with both homelessness, and increased probability of LGBT, too. Again, multi-factorial.

It seems pretty logical that LGBT young people are more at risk of homelessness, especially with the Cull et al study having being published in 2006, so it relies on evidence from around the Millennium which was a more homophobic time. Hopefully, hopefully, things are better now (then again, rates of homelessness are rocketing. So LGBT founded bigotry may have fallen, but overall homelessness won't have done). I also know a transwoman of 58 whose family - mother and sibling - cut off all contact in real horror and rage. Awful people, and I can't imagine they'd have been any pleasanter 30 years earlier. It does happen. I just don't think claims that someone's LGBT status is always primarily causal, or citing exact statistical levels of LGBT homelessness (without that applying to young people especially, and which not actually supported by the available data they seem to be relying on, anyway, and when that data is made up mostly of vox pops and not weighted for statistical probability) is as robust as it might be, and that undermines the legitimacy of the claims. As with a lot of the manipulative way data is used around these issues.

I used to be a member of Momentum - but am backing Starmer. Was thinking of backing Nandy until I found out how strongly she backs this policy.

Upton Sinclair — 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

When politicians and journalists repeat a false claim, after having had the facts of the matter explained to them, I am always reminded of this 100 year old quote.

@transdimensional - yeah, that's probably fair. I'm jaded by my own exposure to Momentum bros. One grandly pronounced that it's transphobic to say that women's voices aren't being heard when only transwomen are heard, because transwomen ARE women so saying any other sort of woman needs input is hideously bigoted.

This man would also self-identify as a feminist.

But yeah, I am probably just sick to the back teeth of the Momentum lot I know. (All RLB fans.) The rot goes rather deeper, doesn't it. I mourn the party that once sought to uplift women, and knew what they were.