BMA beclowning themselves over the SC judgement

It's a depressing thought. As someone who very much is still involved in the teaching of medical students and junior doctors. But, of course, those of us who are biological realists have to be very careful what we say at work, given that both most NHS hierarchies and the GMC are captured.

I have to say I am very glad I am no longer involved in the training of junior doctors if this is the standard of thinking among them.

Of course, if I had been teaching it recently anything gender related would have been strictly embargoed, making a mockery of offering it in the first place.

These bitter little ironies continue to be a feature, not a bug.

I used to teach a Critical Thinking AS/A2 level. I based it around discussion of current affairs (including, among many topics, the introduction of e-cigarettes, childhood obesity - an issue even 20+ years ago - and the redefinition of torture by the US government). I really enjoyed teaching it.
I discovered that critical thinking ability does not always correlate with general academic ability, that students were never really taught, in any subject, how to construct an essay and that people tend to think that any argument that is not explicitly favourable to their own viewpoint is biased against it.
Of course, if I had been teaching it recently anything gender related would have been strictly embargoed, making a mockery of offering it in the first place.

Okay, given people will insist on dragging people with (sex specific) differences of sexual differentiation into it, let's talk about them. I'm a paediatrician. On the most recent occasion that a baby was born at our hospital who looked to possibly have a DSD (we were 95% sure of the sex), what happened? Did we guess? Did we randomly assign? Or was the baby seen within 24 hours by a paediatric endocrinology consultant who organised ultrasounds and blood tests which absolutely confirmed the baby's sex well before the baby needed to be registered? That last is basically the normal approach in a developed country. In over a quarter of a century of working in paediatrics, 15 of those years as a consultant, I have seen literally one patient for whom it became apparent that the sex recorded at birth may not have been the full story. That's how uncommon it is, in the developed world.

As far as I know there isn’t another union to represent GPs. Having needed union advice previously (trust referred me to NHS fraud for being overpaid, when in fact it was them who owed me several thousand pounds), I would not advise any NHS staff to be without union representation. But when your union behaves like this it’s an awful position to be in.

Absolutely pathetic.

And fucking worrying, considering they are supposed to be all about science. How many scientifically inaccurate statements can they make in one short statement?

their views are not worthy of respect.

I believe so, especially junior doctors as I think there is not much choice.

They are utterly scientifically illiterate. Sex is a rare example of true binary in nature.

Dolts.

I’m curious, are there other unions available for GPs etc? I’d have thought it would be foolish for any medical practitioner not to belong to a union so are some tied to the BMA even if they’re unhappy with this idiocy?

Ive just resigned my BMA membership and told them why.
The HCSA is an alternative union for hospital consultants and some other specialist doctors (but doesn’t represent GPs). Also slightly cheaper than BMA subs.

Absolutely.

"If people were walking around with no sex at all registered on their birth certificates because doctors genuinely hadn’t been able to work out the best fit based on their medical presentation and refused to say anything, I’m sure this would have been a legal conundrum that needed resolving before the SC ruling."

And if it is still the case, then it needs to be considered separately.

It's not helpful to try to brush the whole thing aside by just claiming that sex doesn't matter, because that argument will always be lost.

I just posted this comment on another thread, but thought it was relevant to post here too:

Re the DSDs, I was heartened to see a doctor on the doctors subreddit responding to BMA motion who explained to their medical peers that people with DSDs still have a sex recorded at birth (although obviously it might take more tests to determine which sex it should be), and that the SC ruling obviously still applies to them as they will have the sex registered at birth as their biological sex in terms of the EA 2010.

If people were walking around with no sex at all registered on their birth certificates because doctors genuinely hadn’t been able to work out the best fit based on their medical presentation and refused to say anything, I’m sure this would have been a legal conundrum that needed resolving before the SC ruling.

The NHS website says most babies born with DSDs manage to have their sex determined before the 42 day deadline for registering the birth, so that all checks out - they are still included in the EA and SC ruling as they have a biological sex recorded on their birth certificates just like everyone else.

Most of the older doctors think this is insane. As you can imagine it's a topic of (cautious) debate.

Any doctor who believes this nonsense is not fit to treat patients. Do they also believe the earth is flat !

That reminds me of the Yes Minister quote.

Humphrey says you just say that some key conclusions in a report have been questioned.

minister replies ‘and what if they haven’t been?’

and Humphrey says ‘Then question them, and then they have’. Makes mw
laugh every time - and so true.

The BMA (the main BMA not the BMA Resident Doctors Committee) posted this on X yesterday following the motion being passed claiming the SC were "scientifically illiterate"
BMA
I haven't read all 800+ comments but the overwhelming majority of the ones I did read were highly critical of the BMA's stance.

Ironically, critical thinking exercises in schools seem to be one of the key contexts in which teachers have been disciplined for discussing sex vs gender, JKR, etc - the teachers who’ve tried to take a neutral stance to teach actual critical thinking have ended up being told it’s not allowed…

Hopefully, that will start to change now as people start to feel able to use plain language again and schools come around to the realisation that Stonewall law is no more actual law than a transwoman is an actual woman.

I mean, the fact they’re wrong about how the Supreme Court works and what the ruling even means but decided to shout it from the rooftops, Dunning-Kruger style anyway, does call into question whether they may be wrong about other things they seem sure about too.

Especially since, in their eyes, understanding the legal framework of our country is easy (but they got it wrong), but even they say they’re stumped on biological sex.

They openly admit that they’re not competent to determine biological sex, so how can we trust them to do so? It’s outside of their professional competency.

I am liking the clear statements by Dr Louise Irvine, co-chair of the Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender, in the Times article:

"It is really worrying for female patients to think that doctors are seriously arguing that sex is not a clear-cut category in healthcare. Doctors have to recognise sex in order to be able to practise medicine properly and safely."

“As a doctor, you need to know sex for accurate diagnoses. Sex matters for NHS service provision and single-sex wards. It is misogynistic to negate or ignore women’s rights. Medical misogyny is a huge problem. The profession has a long, long history of misogyny. Now the BMA is making out that sex is a nebulous concept and category. If doctors don’t understand sex then I don’t think they should be doctors.”

"The BMA say the Supreme Court ruling is scientifically illiterate, but they are the ones being scientifically illiterate because their motion implies that sex is not binary. That is unscientific: sex is binary. There are only two sexes; there is no third sex. They are revealing their own ignorance.”

I’m heartened to see posters in that subreddit (at least until they’re deleted) pointing out that the motion was “legally illiterate” and explaining the role of the Supreme Court.

And pointing out how amateurish it makes them look.

I find it so incredibly inappropriate that a supposed group of professionals would not only wade into another profession to tell them they’re doing their jobs wrong but to announce it to the general public too.

A cardiac surgeon wouldn’t presume to advise a patient on an orthopaedic injury without the input of an orthopaedic specialist, as they understand how much specialist cardiac knowledge they themselves have compared to other doctors. Similarly, I doubt a cardiologist would perform their own dental work or represent themselves in court. We have specialist professions for a reason.

So why on earth would they think they know enough about the machinations of the law to march in and tell five highly-experienced Supreme Court judges they’re wrong about what a statute means?

I hope that, in the eyes of most sensible people, this motion brings the medical profession (rather than the legal profession) into disrepute (per the Times headline) but as a lawyer, I find it so unbelievably insulting to the legal profession that a group of professional, qualified doctors would issue a public statement deliberately seeking to disparage and discredit the legal profession.

I see today the Indy has pieces on SM saying "Doctors say SC decision is 'scientifically illiterate'. They really are appalling. If they are left alone when the Guardian starts reverse-ferretting in earnest, I predict they are going to look very foolish.

⬆️ personally, I think schools should introduce a critical thinking class

None of this would happen, and you wouldn't have twits posting online claiming sex doesn't exist

Yes, of course, the BMA is wrong and you are right. 😂