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

And I don't think anyone is listening much to Stonewall's interpretation on allowing males to access female sports anymore...

Not the UK, but now that the English Rugby has followed World Rugby's decision... by ignoring Stonewall, I guess it shows just how much Stonewall is winning.

Because, also women can now speak with the protection that Allison Bailey's case has given them to stand up and declare they find Stonewall's guidance harmful, dangerous and misogynist.

www.irishrugby.ie/2022/08/10/irfu-updates-transgender-policy/

Just more of the wider ramifications for Stonewall's misinterpretation of the Equality Act being changed back to reflect the actual law....

Now that is a win worth celebrating.

Just listening to Suella Braverman speech now. Several Stonewall shout outs. Perhaps she has also heard that they have 'won' recently?

I note here that her speech rips to shreds Stonewall's involvement.

'In these instances, schools, who may be well intentioned but misinformed, are breaching their duty of impartiality and indoctrinating children into a one sided and controversial view of gender.'

Rather stark.

And also puts Stonewall's tweet supporting 2 year olds transitioning in a different light. And I mean their original tweet which they tried to reverse ferret back from. A reverse ferret that was not believable at all.

For readers, this speech by the UK's Attorney General, the Right Honourable Suella Braverman QC MP may be useful.

It lays down how the government and laws have been impacted by the over reach of lobby groups. She even mentions Stonewall by name.

If anyone is foolish enough to think that Stonewall has not be directly impacted by the Allison Bailey case is obviously someone who doesn't know how businesses and departments work. So much 'winning' for Stonewall and other lobby groups in this speech. From a QC who is the Attorney General for the UK and is very much aware of the bigger picture.

She is clearly signally as loudly and as specifically as she can in her role that Stonewall has been advising organisations across the UK of law by misrepresenting the law of the country. The deliberate misinterpretation of Equality Act.

I am not quite sure how much clearer the Attorney General's department can be. She laid it out pretty clearly.

So.. I am looking forward to all those posters on this thread posting solid evidence that she is wrong and Stonewall has been right all along. Bring it on. I want to see the convincing evidence...

policyexchange.org.uk/pxevents/keynote-speech-by-rt-hon-suella-braverman-mp/

You missed this bit.

Trans men who still have a cervix should have cervical screening to help prevent cervical cancer..

So that would include any "trans man" who had had a partial hysterectomy, wouldn't it. But you said anyone who'd had a hysterectomy didn't need one. Like I said, dangerous oversimplification.

P.S. did you see this bit?

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.

This is their health being jeopardised and female transitioners receiving worse healthcare than other females because they are trans. Why don't you care about that?

Are you proud of your engagement here hearache?

You have carefully snipped your quote to remove the sentence directly following it where it says that those who retain their cervix still need to be screened!

Rather than arguing the toss, and carefully snipping quotes, just say:

thanks Purgatory, I didn't realise there were different types of hysterectomy, and I didn't realise that my posts could lull someone who'd had a partial hysterectomy into a false sense of security about cervical cancer.

As you have quoted yourself, the NHS specifies a total hysterectomy, not merely hysterectomy without any preceding adjective.

I'm going to make a general point about sex v gender and why it's relevant and important but I'm opting to use a non-reproductive system example.

Transgender women may be at higher risk for type 2 diabetes compared to cisgender women, but not to cisgender men, according to new research published in the Endocrine Society’s Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

It's important to understand this because of the risks involved with wider metabolic dysregulation including lower limb and circulatory disorders. Transwomen will need the same level of monitoring as the appropriate comparator group to ensure that they have adequate prevention guidance and diagnostic vigilance.

“Although more research is needed, there is little evidence that type 2 diabetes occurrence in either transgender women or transgender men is attributable to gender-affirming hormone therapy, at least in the short term,” Islam said.

Similarly, so far as is known, and this might change over time with the experience of longer-term exposure to cross-sex hormones, transmen are showing the same diabetes risk as their appropriate comparator group and not showing the risk of the acquired sex.

Extracts from this report of a study: www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2021/transgender-women-may-be-more-likely-to-have-type-2-diabetes-than-cisgender-women

Study: Noreen Islam, Rebecca Nash, Qi Zhang, Leonidas Panagiotakopoulos, Tanicia Daley, Shalender Bhasin, Darios Getahun, J Sonya Haw, Courtney McCracken, Michael J Silverberg, Vin Tangpricha, Suma Vupputuri, Michael Goodman, Is There a Link Between Hormone Use and Diabetes Incidence in Transgender People? Data From the STRONG Cohort, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Volume 107, Issue 4, April 2022, Pages e1549–e1557, doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgab832

Just to point out where the 'misinformation' was that hearache is trying to deny.

Conversely, there is no point trans men who have had hysterectomy being invited for smear tests. That's a waste of the NHS's time.

The attempt to distract by the future changing of words and then another attempt by posting this ridiculous post:

The topic in question is healthcare for men who are transgender and I am getting my information from the National Health Service.

All *hearache' is actually providing is a live example of just how dangerous Stonewall and other groups guidance (and supporters who are completely uninformed but fully entrenched so they cannot see out side the propaganda) actually is when it comes to females. And how inherently misogynistic these groups actually are.

So, thank you for that everyone. And for keeping this 'Ben Cooper' thread bumped.

I am talking about your deliberate and persistent use of 'men'.

You really must hate females hearache you cannot see how much it comes across.

YOU are using men when this is about ALL females.

What a hypocritical thing to do. You profess to care so much about trans people that you cannot even use the term female when sex is the vital fact to use.

Admit it. You actually don't care about female trans people. You have posted before discussing young female trans people with all confidence only to have your posts shown to be more misinformation.

Do you really not see your own discrimination against females here? The fact you keep thinking you are cleverly posting one sentence answers that may distract anyone reading is rather clear.

@Hearach15 it was only one link to click so not exactly rocket science your nhs site above says this

"Trans men who have had a total hysterectomy to remove their cervix do not need cervical screening. Trans men who still have a cervix should have cervical screening to help prevent cervical cancer." i.e. exactly what @Helleofabore and the cancer charity said. Your edit changed the meaning so you could argue but I can only conclude it's because you like arguing or you have the reading comprehension of a rather dim child.

Yes totally agree, it must record sex, GI where necessary and relevant (i.e. with details of surgical / hormonal treatments the hc professional can drill into if they need to ) And a preferred name / term of address for everyone.

I thought the topic (as in, what this thread is currently discussing) is accurate healthcare information for females in general, including transmen.
Not understanding why anyone would be complacent about that NHS section which is giving transmen only partial information.

I'm quoting the NHS's website. If you think that is misinformation perhaps you should email your MP.

The topic in question is healthcare for men who are transgender and I am getting my information from the National Health Service.

Please stop twisting this! You are now spreading harmful misinformation.

This is why SEX matters, and you are dangerous.

The topic in question is healthcare for men who are transgender and I am getting my information from the National Health Service.

The Australian advice is spot on for the nuance that they give around this issue: it's regrettable that the NHS does not cover this nuance and it's something that is worth reporting so that they re-write and update their guidance accordingly.

Oh dear hearache. Don’t you ever learn? How fucking misogynistic do you have to be to tell a group of females that they don’t know about female health. And how fucking imperative it is to communicate clearly about female health ensuring the very lowest level of communication needed to get messages across is used.

Is it finally sinking in how you keep celebrating when females are being harmed? Will you start to actually engage and maybe even learn something or are you going to continue with you misogynistic posting pattern?

And yet...
www.cancer.org.au/cervicalscreening/i-am-over-25/do-i-need-the-test/what-if-i-have-had-a-hysterectomy

I will take the advice of the NHS over someone on the internet, sorry.

The NHS don't even know what a woman is so good luck with that.

"Trans men who have had a total hysterectomy to remove their cervix do not need cervical screening."

www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/sexual-health/should-trans-men-have-cervical-screening-tests/

I will take the advice of the NHS over someone on the internet, sorry.

Read the whole thread.

Interesting to see how posters keep trying to insist that Stonewall in some way won, but here are my few thoughts :

There are no fees for taking an employer to tribunal for either the employee, or for the employer to defend themselves. The extra costs (apart from the time involved) only come when either side pay for legal advice and representation.

The legal arguments to set GC rights in law required a lot of preparation and excellent litigation. But that has now been done. To do so between Maya and Allison cost more than a million quid, but this is what it now means for people like me :

Should I suffer any type of detriment from my employer for my beliefs, my protections have been set in law so I don't have to argue for them first. My employer cannot claim that they were just following advice from Stonewall (or any other agency), they have to take full responsibility themselves for their actions, so I won't have to take Stonewall on too as Allison did.

My case would be much more straightforward and frankly, I could do it myself without needing to pay a solicitor to represent me, so to take my employer to tribunal would now cost me nothing at all.

Alternatively, a lot of home insurance carries legal protection for employment cases, and now that these protections are law, these cases will be a lot more straightforward and likely to meet the threshold needed to be covered by insurance.

It cost a million quid to safeguard our employment rights, allow us confidence to bring up safeguarding issues at work, allow us security to assert our rights, allow us to campaign for issues important to us on social media outside of work - worth every penny.

This debate is really going to open up now and finally a solution is in sight.

And include there the restrictions on the language medical staff can use too.

Fuck it is a nightmare. And Stonewall are right there in the thick of it.

just imagine if Stonewall campaigned for the ability for the NHS to keep the original sex marker and add a gender marker along with adding the new name!
Wow! Wouldn’t that be fucking brilliant!

The fact that they don't makes so glaringly obvious that there is another agenda. Otherwise why, why, why would anyone not want the full picture in healthcare of all places?
Ultimately the agenda is validation at any cost and shucks to anyone who is collateral damage.

Yes Errol. That too is an excellent point about dementia care.

The NHS under guidance from lobby groups have created a very unsafe environment by making those changes demanded.

It is more likely to severely impact on females who already suffer from negative sexist discrimination as Embarassing’s post points to.

Gleefully celebrating changes that have wider ramifications that negatively impact females in this way, on a feminist board, is either a sign of ignorance of the wider issues facing females, or it is misogyny.

I would suggest posters actually start to understand more about female’s lives before continuing to post celebrating making female’s live worse because lobby groups are so focused on one narrow aspect they miss the wider reach of their actions and they don’t make useful suggestions on how to counter the wider conflicts.

Plus ca change .

Males will continue to celebrate actions that they only have superficial understanding of, and will shame women who point out the negative impacts.