Ben Cooper QC - Lawyer of the Week (in the Times)

"But crack on dismissing her because ‘well, she is a Tory’! And just being generally ignorant about it."

I am not dismissive of her because she's a Conservative. There are plenty of politicians I respect.

I am dismissive of her because she is the Attorney General of a Government that regularly breaks the law.

Do you really think this is a law abiding Government?

"Actually trans healthcare is associated with huge benefits:

"Pretty much irrelevant to my original post and my answering posts since."

The mental health of trans people is actually very important and relevant to the topic of trans healthcare.

"I would say I might be more well read than you are on issues around not only the needs of females but also the health issues of female trans people. And issues facing young trans people."

Firstly, the fact that you call trans men "female trans people" shows how lacking in empathy you are for them. I also think it is interesting that you believe you are "well read" on issues pertaining to young trans people and better informed than I am. I highly doubt that as you're previously said you not an "expert on LGBT issues", so I don't see how much wisdom has been accrued in the space of a few weeks.

Secondly, this isn't an academic subject you can just read about. To be truly well informed about this issue you have to meet the trans community and I suspect you haven't done that. How many trans people would you talk to on a regular basis? How many trans events have you gone to? Have you marched for their rights alongside the community?

I would usually suggest that you might do this but as you like to misgender trans people I don't think they should have to endure that. I suggest you leave this issue to those of us who know trans people, empathise with their struggles and want them to be their true selves.

And again, a weak argument that is ideologically driven and actually not relevant considering there is a pretty large department there advising her.

But crack on dismissing her because ‘well, she is a Tory’! And just being generally ignorant about it.

By the way, did you see the rumour about the next department withdrawing support from Stonewall… I wonder which one it is ….

i mean seriously, WTAF!

Oh dear!

we have been though this ‘gotcha’ moment before!

You might want to READ the link you posted.

Seriously, do you never learn?

Read the link.

This fucking deja vu. It simply proves you never actually read posts. You never actually read what you even post. I pointed out this is a retracted paper before. On other fucking threads!!!

I will take something written in the American Journal of Psychiatry as far more factual than something written by an individual who is a self-described "non-expert" on LGBT issues.

Yeah… righto!

Here's a reminder from the page you linked.

If you're a trans man registered with a GP as male, you will not receive automatic invitations. You can still have cervical screening. You'll need to ask your GP practice for an appointment.

As far as i am aware, your medical marker on your records doesn't say 'Female - manly though' it will say 'Male' and thus be treated as a male. And males do not have babies.

Actually trans healthcare is associated with huge benefits:

Pretty much irrelevant to my original post and my answering posts since.

individual who is a self-described "non-expert" on LGBT issues.

Actually hearache, I guess you need reminding again that you are posting misogynistic posts on a feminist board. And you have no expertise as a ‘feminist’, or any knowledge at all from your posts, and just as little knowledge of the female experience.

And you have shown you aren’t even interested… yet you persist in posting here and then hypocritically telling me that I have no ‘expertise’ on LGBT issues. Again… on a feminist board on Mumsnet! On Mumsnet!

Plus, While I said I wasn’t LGB, I would say I might be more well read than you are on issues around not only the needs of females but also the health issues of female trans people. And issues facing young trans people.

You might remember that you are not the only person to know trans people. And ‘knowing’ trans people doesn’t make you any expert at all. I guess you must know females too, yet seem to simply disregard them and their need.

Please do continue to dismiss my posts, it just shows your lack of any contribution other than pithy statements and ignorance.

Oh and I don’t think your distractive techniques are working. Most posters are now just ignoring you. I engage because I had hopes that you would actually take in what feminism is about since you are persisting in posting on this thread.

Every day at the moment there is yet another example of just how Stonewall’s reputation is diminishing.

And how that is interlinked with that win you are so gleeful about.

Winning!

"Why don't you have a problem with NHS policies that exclude female transitioners from normal care reminders, regardless of whether they still have a cervix?"

Presuming from this that you mean trans men and I support individuals getting all the medical care they need to live long and healthy lives. There's a lot the NHS needs to do to improve trans healthcare.

Why don't you have a problem with NHS policies that exclude female transitioners from normal care reminders, regardless of whether they still have a cervix?

This design means female transitioners don't receive the same healthcare provision as other females.

"Yours is the only argument here putting females at risk."

Actually trans healthcare is associated with huge benefits:

"For transgender individuals, gender-affirming surgery can lead to long-term mental health benefits, according to new research published online today in The American Journal of Psychiatry. The study found that among transgender individuals with gender incongruence, undergoing gender-affirming surgery was significantly associated with a decrease in mental health treatment over time."

psychiatry.org/news-room/news-releases/study-finds-long-term-mental-health-benefits-of-ge

I will take something written in the American Journal of Psychiatry as far more factual than something written by an individual who is a self-described "non-expert" on LGBT issues.

Happy to keep repeating that when it comes to health care, the very first bit of information needed is female. Every single time.

then gender treatment.

Yours is the only argument here putting females at risk. Your doubling down doesn’t make any difference.

I don’t have an issue with ‘trans acceptance’. I understand very well the health risks females face with transitioning. Do you? Do you really? You seem to have a very clear issue with acceptance of the needs of females. Whatever their gender identity.

I think by now you have made sure everyone has seen it.

And around we go.

"For example the female who was going into early labour and whose baby died, because their sex marker had been changed and they were treated as a male".

This is why trans inclusive language in healthcare is so important. No matter how manly/masculine someone can appear they can still have a uterus.

"Do you really think Suella Braverman is not supported by the government?"

I have no doubt that she is but I also know (and I'm sure you do too) that this Government has little regard for the law. It breaks laws and rules quite regularly and that's one reason why is had become so unpopular recently.

"Your reference to transmen as ‘men’ in any healthcare is that dangerous misinformation I am pointing out."

Trans men are men and their medical needs thanks to gender affirming healthcare can vary greatly from cisgender women.

I know you have difficulty with the conception of trans acceptance but this doesn't change the reality that they exist and do have different needs to cisgender women.

I can't see where our friend Hearach has commented about NHS policy leading to female transitioners being excluded from automatic invitations for screening.

And another space to watch! Wait for the announcement.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4609237-government-legal-department-leaving-stonewall

WINNING!

Yeah?

Suella Braverman has NO influence, don't worry about her. Trust Stonewall!

Yeah?

Does anyone see even in the short life of this thread how absolutely foolish that celebration has been? You would have to be so far down that hole of indoctrination that you would think so.

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/equalities-and-rights-conflict-and-the-need-for-clarity

This is the transcript for Suella Braverman's speech.

I wonder if activists can disown all of her speech, or applaud one section while dismissing the other.

Law Society Gazette

edition.pagesuite.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=Law%20Society%20Gazette&edid=76c3ef3f-69af-4bd7-a8be-962a05059207&pnum=14

I keep saying there is usually a huge disconnect between an idealistic (I am being very kind here) social media person and the decision makers and stakeholders for the businesses those idealistic people work for.

This is just one of those organisations and it is quite clear that the social media person was crowing about 'don't bother to apply'. The absolute arrogance and immaturity is what we have witnessed on this thread.

Whereas senior executives of those organisations are horrified because this back tracks on years of work to build real diversity. Not just the new 'diversity' as pushed by a single interest lobby group, such as Stonewall and those involved in PRIDE.

The pattern has been set for years now and allowed to fester because of 'no debate' and the constant abuse of those who have different beliefs. That pattern was started by Stonewall (this later edition).

I mean, I feel like it has to be repeated because I don't think some posters still understand.

The ONLY organisations where this ideological thinking is embraced at senior level is the lobby groups like Stonewall. I mean, you had a senior Stonewall manager making their eye opening statements in Allison's case.

That was quite the 'win' there. Way to foster confidence that Stonewall are genuinely a well balanced group of people making balanced policy and guidelines. Some of things said by Stonewall's management or in the groups they formed were the total opposite of what would be expected in a professional environment.

Winning!

And then you had the senior executives of Chambers and think tanks who were clearly trying to do the right thing but not really confident even then. So they outsourced it and didn't try to get their heads around it which they clearly now understand they needed to for their organisations liability.

And the reputation that goes with that liability.

A message that has twice now been sent very clearly by Maya and Allison's cases. And even Sonia Appleby's case. And even in Raquel Rosario-Sanchez's case which also shone a light on the fact that she was actually mistreated but still lost... and the Universities are now wary. There are at least two more education sector cases coming through in 2022.

Yes, Stonewall is winning on ALL fronts at the moment.

A friend of mine is an ER doc. Was treating someone listed as male on their records with a nasty fracture to both bones in the forearm.
Person appeared to be mid 20s, but NHS number was one that could only have been issued in the last few years. She suspected it was a ftm trans person.

However, person did not identify themselves as trans, and did not disclose they were taking any hormonal treatment. Did not let the radiologists know they were female.

My friend was worried that the severity of the damage to the bones would not ordinarily have been caused by the accident described. She was worried about osteoporosis, with testosterone injections being a massive risk factor. She asked about any and all medications, the patient said nothing.

Her hands were tied. If she asked the question directly she was risking being called a transphobe (not a good thing at this particular trust).

She ended up discharging the patient, and wrote to the GP noting the extent of the bone damage and recommending further tests. Patient has been back in with another fracture, still no admission of having a huge risk factor for osteoporosis.

It is madness to have identity ideology over ride crucial medical information.

More "winning" evident here:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4e7fc538-18dc-11ed-b1f4-627a202c7457?shareToken=16b75b4dd733efd816e759bd29405737

Whatever antagonistic posters say, Stonewall's ideology has caused real, lasting, horrific damage to so many young people. Allison's case was a brave and principled action for the greater good. To crow about pounds and pence while young women's spines crumble with osteoporosis due to negligent medical treatment- that's a special type of callousness.

Thank goodness for the brave women who have not been silenced and continue to speak out.

The tweet was is no way intended to imply that BTP would discriminate against people who hold gender-critical beliefs, which we recognise are capable of being protected under the Equality Act 2010.

Which rather begs the question wtf it was intended to imply.

It baffles me, well completely FLOORS me, that those purporting to be supportive of 'trans' people are happy for their sex marker to be changed so that a female in distress who is showing signs of whatever that are only found in females, wants them to be treated as males and put at further risk.

For example the female who was going into early labour and whose baby died, because their sex marker had been changed and they were treated as a male when they came in with obvious signs that if they had been treated as a female, may have saved the baby.

These people are so wedded to the ideology that they cannot think straight.