Gillian Keegan: I'll stop saying Transwomen are women

Totally, its really sad.

Young people ar secondary school locally were encouraged to join lgbt and focus on our school was on trans. One young boy, quite feminine was approached I mean seriously be there but actively approaching feels like implying they might be. Several girls with autism and anxiety are either saying they are boys or neutral. Some recent movement in a couple of girls back to thinking they are girls again. Yet they have always been girls, just body image worries, anxiety and autism so feeling differently to the ridiculous gender suggestion of what a girl is. We real women come on a spectrum but don't include any boys or men.

It's good to see this thread getting some traction again. I can see that your bump has brought a few people onto it for a read, @YoYoYoYo12345

Finally, some sense is returning to society

It's starting to feel that way, isn't it?

Copying my comment from earlier in the thread....

Sadly I'm not sure we'll look back on 2024 with laughter though, because it will be better remembered as the year that the world woke up to a medical scandal that has irreversibly harmed (tens of, I assume 😢) thousands of children and young people across multiple countries 😢😢😢

As the year comes to an end, there are definitely pockets of sanity where this is really starting to hit home for some people. We're not at "world waking up" stage yet though, clearly.

We're probably still in the denial stage of the grief process on a macro level, where people are still struggling to get their head around the idea that the NHS has been a part of the problem. We're meant to be able to trust our doctors and mental healthcare experts. Mass medical mistakes like Thalidomide and the infected blood issue are supposedly behind us. Medics are supposedly already practising evidence-based healthcare. The blindspot of a belief (that we all have a gender identity) traipsing all over what we already know (that we all have a sex, that some people struggle to understand themselves for multiple known reasons) seems too crazy to be true in 2024. Yet here we are. Hopefully not for much longer.

I think people that were captured by the whole trans ideology and wanted to be kind whilst ignoring the real concerns of real women are realising its all rubbish.

The very confused young people, many of whom have mental health issues or/ and autism hate their bodies and providing a change your gender solution was ridiculous rather than exploring why they hate themselves. They will have to deal with the consequences of any changes made for the rest of their lives! Their captured parents may double down on the you can change sex farce. We all know males who say they are female aren't and females they say they are make aren't either.

Finally, some sense is returning to society

What is the source of your 23,000 figure please?
if we accept the Wikipedia estimate for total membership.
"As of August 2024 the BMA had 195,000 members." . Are you saying that around 1 in 8 members leave annually? That is a lot of members leaving.

Are you basing this on the estimated 15,000 to 23,000 doctors leaving the nhs prematurely (before retirement) cited here? https://www.bma.org.uk/attrition-costs
As there is nothing in this statistic to suggest that it was 23,000, rather than 15,000, that these were all BMA members or that all in this group left medicine and hence the BMA (This was about people leaving the nhs). Its more likely to be around 10,000 than 20,000, and likely less. So 1,000 extra doctors leaving is a big deal. I

Note that the BMA estimates on its LinkedIn page that 2/3 of doctors are members of the BMA.

Whatever you are trying to say, we have reason to believe that1000 member resigned specifically for this reason.

If you want to tell us all the relevant reasons for the 23k have not renewed their membership, please do so. If you want to point out how this is not the expected churn of membership each year, go ahead, but please provide past trends that indicate that this is unusual churn and the reasons for this additional churn.

If you are just trying to dismiss these approximately 1000 resignations without having any counter argument except this whataboutery, that is fine. But people will draw their own conclusions.

OK so you have managed to convince yourself.

We don't know. But what point are you trying to make? Are you suggesting that 23,000 members might have left because of the BMA leaders' batshit views about gender? That would be interesting if you have some evidence of that.

Most big trade unions are now run by radicals and extremists. The BMA is certainly one of those. These are people who hijack the representative bodies of their profession and use them to further their own personal political grievances,rather than representing their membership, which is what they are supoposed to do. Many unions are now staffed by wannabe political careerists.

How do you know that 100% of those 23,000 left through natural attrition?

I just checked the cast list, Miriam Margolyes was in it and Geraldine James and Michael Horden...not in the scenes I was in 😆

Except these were members leaving in protest not just because of natural attrition which you would expect to be replaced by new entrants to the sector.

Love to see it re-screened, I think there are connections to be made there. And Antony Sher was brilliant.

fun fact : I was an extra in The History Man

~23,000 members leave the BMA each year for various reasons - 1,000 is less than 5% extra.

It may only be a fraction of their membership who actually took the drastic step of leaving the union, but I'm sure you agree that the 1000 or so doctors who resigned massively outnumber the 11 or so doctors who criticised the Cass review based on flaky evidence that wasn't even peer reviewed.

After a massive outcry from the BMA membership, including around 1000 doctors leaving the BMA

Massive?

That's only 0.5% of their membership.

A handful of lunatics still appear to be trying to run the asylum at the BMA HQ but thankfully have had their wings clipped. Really the rogue group should be sanctioned by the BMA as a whole. Reality denying fools bringing the entire medical profession into disrepute.

"In fact, the BMA is now investigating the subject and will give their own conclusions soon."

However the BMA is not, as may be implied by that quote, an official body that directs doctors' views, but rather a trade union, who have not put the opinions of their leadership on this topic before their membership.

From the paper:

"in July, the British Medical Association Council, without consulting its own members, unexpectedly passed a motion calling for a public critique of the Review, citing concerns over methodological weaknesses - a position it then softened following public criticism from members, concluding that their review would come instead from a position of neutrality.
The original motion was based on two non-peer-reviewed online papers, prominently the work of McNamara et al—a paper which was written for a primarily litigious, rather than academic, purpose. We critically examine these sources and analyse the wider legal context in which they have been applied. We conclude that these sources misrepresent the Cass Review’s role and process (specifically, by mistakenly comparing the Review to clinical practice guideline development), while many of the methodological criticisms directed at the Cass Review, including its use of evidence appraisal and systematic reviews conducted by York University, are unfounded.
These misunderstandings, based on flawed and non-peer-reviewed analyses intended for legal (rather than clinical) purposes, jeopardise the implementation of crucial reforms in the care of gender dysphoric youth. The UK clinical community should move beyond these critiques and focus on the Cass Review’s recommendations to establish a safer, more holistic and evidence-based service model for children and young people experiencing gender identity issues."

Gender medicine and the Cass Review: why medicine and the law make poor bedfellows | Archives of Disease in Childhood

"In fact, the BMA is now investigating the subject and will give their own conclusions soon."

This is the kind of misrepresentation of reality that TRAs are so fond of.

The reality is that a rogue group of just 11 or so activists in the BMA Council voted to 'investigate' the Cass review without consulting its members.

After a massive outcry from the BMA membership, including around 1000 doctors leaving the BMA, the activists have had to backtrack on their criticism of the review.

The BMJ recently published a detailed paper explaining why any criticism of the Cass review was misplaced.

I didn't believe the nonsense, but I do love the summary.

I doubt the NHS believes it either, as it's commissioned a Cass-style review of adult gender services too now:

https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/review-of-nhs-adult-gender-dysphoria-clinics/#:~:text=dysphoria%20clinics-,Review%20of%20NHS%20adult%20gender%20dysphoria%20ccinics,improvements%20we%20want%20to%20see.

It was the NHS who commissioned the Cass Review, facilitated by then Health Secretary Matt Hancock and later by Sajid Javid. Then on its release in 2024, it was supported by Victoria Atkins before the Tories lost the election.. and it's now supported by Wes Streeting. So I'm guessing they all don't believe the nonsense either. Difficult to say for certain, though 🙃

Just in case anyone's been out of the country for the last year and actually believes the utter nonsense in this post, below is the overview of the key findings of the Cass Review: c & p from the review, (bolding mine) .

Overview of key findings

• There is no simple explanation for the increase in the numbers of predominantly young people and young adults who have a trans or gender diverse identity, but there is broad agreement that it is a result of a complex interplay between biological, psychological and social factors. This balance of factors will be different in each individual.
• There are conflicting views about the clinical approach, with expectations of care at times being far from usual clinical practice. This has made some clinicians fearful of working with gender-questioning young people, despite their presentation being similar to many children and young people presenting to other NHS services.
• An appraisal of international guidelines for care and treatment of children and young people with gender incongruence found that that no single guideline could be applied in its entirety to the NHS in England.
• While a considerable amount of research has been published in this field, systematic evidence reviews demonstrated the poor quality of the published studies, meaning there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices.
• The strengths and weaknesses of the evidence base on the care of children and young people are often misrepresented and overstated, both in scientific publications and social debate.
• The controversy surrounding the use of medical treatments has taken focus away from what the individualised care and treatment is intended to achieve for individuals seeking support from NHS gender services.
• The rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health. The effect on cognitive and psychosexual development remains unknown.
• The use of masculinising / feminising hormones in those under the age of 18 also presents many unknowns, despite their longstanding use in the adult transgender population. The lack of long-term follow-up data on those commencing treatment at an earlier age means we have inadequate information about the range of outcomes for this group.
• Clinicians are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity.
• For the majority of young people, a medical pathway may not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress. For those young people for whom a medical pathway is clinically indicated, it is not enough to provide this without also addressing wider mental health and/or psychosocially challenging problems.
• Innovation is important if medicine is to move forward, but there must be a proportionate level of monitoring, oversight and regulation that does not stifle progress, while preventing creep of unproven approaches into clinical practice. Innovation must draw from and contribute to the evidence base.

If say the BBC (ha ha) did an in depth documentary or ITV a docu drama about how queer politics spread out from universities in the 80s and onwards, that showed how queer politics has impacted life in 21st century.

We need a The History Man for the 21st century, showing the latter-day Howard Kirks for what they are.

www.imdb.com/title/tt0081898/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_8_nm_0_in_0_q_history%2520man

The Cass review gives no evidence of puberty blockers or any trans care being any significant danger to children. Cass herself has said that she did not call for a ban on puberty blockers or trans care for children. That decision was a political one, not a medical one. In fact, the BMA is now investigating the subject and will give their own conclusions soon.