I am Janice Turner's No 1 fan - another excellent article

[Stopmakingsense]

This one picks up in particular the huge rise in women identifying as men, and the increasing inability of anyone being able to question it:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/even-asking-questions-is-now-transphobic-ztk3rlrfk?shareToken=1f64a5116171eb54a9a866590e6432ec

bad

Here is a thread about a book explaining gender identity to children.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3042902-Gender-Identity-Explained

From a ringing endorsement in the review section.

"'This is a story about you') and goes on to define sex (a guess based on body parts observed at birth)"

I've just found this thread and wanted to add to karlos's point in the first few posts that in my professional and personal experience there can be an overlap with ASD and gender questioning.

I can see that to write a piece on it would be very difficult, but I believe it is an area worthy of investigation.

"'This is a story about you') and goes on to define sex (a guess based on body parts observed at birth)"

I'm actually OK with this, as it is scientifically true for people with intersex conditions. It also uses "observed" rather than assigned.

Maybe at some point they'll knock this 'assigned' nonsense on the head with routine chromosome screening. From what I've read, in the 'assignment' and treatment of the small numbers of intersex babies, the chromosomal sex is of prime importance in most cases nowadays, followed by internal not merely external genitalia.

Because I'd had an amnio, there was absolutely no guess involved in knowing my DD's sex. I wonder if there's any stats from the days when amnios were fairly commonplace on the incidence of apparent sex at birth not matching the known genetics?

It's a funny old world when a paper that has a sidebar including a photo of Lady Gaga sunbathing topless, slightly salacious pictures of a model who was allegedly kidnapped as a publicity stunt and Adolf Hitler's underpants is a gender critical ally

Maybe they are concerned about being lobbied to include a TW Page 3 girl

But I think there is an element of that (your deleted text Olenna - old-fashioned patriarchy has a hierarchy based on sexual difference. Page 3 and the sidebar are based on sexual objectification. They are not a gender construct, breasts and a female body form, they are a biological fact.

The fact that the newspaper indulges in sexual objectification of women is indicative of gender-based hierarchies which allows men/society to do this. So, I think it is possible to both agree with the Sun that male/female difference is based on biological sex and its embodiment, but disagree that female sexual difference should be exploited or objectified. Both positions rely on a fundamental belief that men and women are biologically different.

I have to confess that I am unsure about the James Caspian story since we are only getting one side of the story and it looks perfect. I'm not suggesting it didn't happen, but I'd like to hear both sides and see evidence of Bath Spa University saying that “engaging in a potentially politically incorrect piece of research carries a risk to the University”.

I sit on the same research ethics committee in my university. I have heard similar sentiments expressed, about research being reputationally risky--on a completely different topic. I strongly opposed this line of thinking, saying that it was completely outside the committee's jurisdiction and that we would be violating academic freedom. However, I can very easily believe Caspian's scenario. Unfortunately many academics are cowards, and when funds are tight it's easiest to try to eliminate risk.

Incidentally, sitting on this ethics committee has showed me how difficult it is to do even the most innocuous research on anyone under 18, who are classified as 'children'. By contrast, if you're a GP (like Dr Webberley) apparently you can pump tweens full of potent chemotherapy drugs after a Skype consultation!

I think there are times when academic freedom has to be balanced with responsibility. Not meaning the James Caspian case, although I have obviously not seen the proposal. But someone somewhere makes decisions that research involving paedphilia is sound, for example. Or around responses to violence or stress. Academic freedom is not boundless, that is why we have ethics committees.

Not commenting directly on your cases cromey as I don't know them, just generally as a point of principle. I do think there are some subjects where academics, and the institutions supporting them, should tread carefully.

Again, I am not sure that 'politically incorrect' is nuanced enough to cover these issues. It depends on the rest of the email.

I'm amazed if the university actually used the phrase "politically incorrect": it's openly admitting that it's turning the research proposal down for reasons of public image rather than for ethical reasons. Indeed, you might argue that it's turning it down for deeply unethical reasons.

It's good that the mainstream media is starting to write about this issue. Most people haven't got a clue about the Gender Identity bill, let alone the issues around it, as the discussion has mainly been on the internet. And I think that most people would be disgusted that a 60 year old woman has been punched in the face, and that the attackers think she was asking for it.

You would think that a university, as a centre of knowledge, would want to increase knowledge, not kowtow to regressive thinking. But they were probably scared of being made a target.

Helen Webberly is thought of in very negative terms by the GPs I know who would not dream of giving teenage kids hormones.
However the General Medical Council puts pressure on GPs to prescribe for people waiting to be seen at specialist clinics. This is mostly resisted as it's recognised as being potentially very dangerous long term (for adults as well as kids)
Health boards also put pressure on GPs to remove all pre transition stuff from patients notes, and this has happened in some places I know. This means you can't offer cervical screening for biological females, or prostate blood tests for biological males without being accused of being transphobic. That's just two examples to demonstrate that it's very dangerous but there are countless other reasons why their medical histories should not be effectively deleted and re-written

How can this be? I thought there were very strict rules about medical records retention and not amending them after the fact. I would have thought this is even more important if the patient subsequently needs to rely on those records for legal action.

As I said earlier, the ethics review training I was given made it abundantly clear that the primary purpose of ethical review was to ensure no reputations damage to the university. So I can well imagine us refusing this kind of researching that basis.

The bit about the danger of harassment to the researcher is (and should be) an ethical consideration but should not be something used to prevent research. It can be addressed with a risk management strategy.

And, yes, it is incredibly difficult to get utterly mundane research with children through our ethics review process. It appears to be easier to get approval to administer untested drugs to people (and with no proper protocols for doing so in some cases) than to simply talk to children. Sometimes the process is utterly absurd.

Strangeideas At last you and I agree about something!
Most people haven't got much idea of the Gender Identity Bill.

Perhaps that's understandable, because it will have no impact whatsoever on the lives of anyone who is not a transitioning transsexual. In particular, it will not have any effect on so-called "women-only safe spaces".

In the UK, there is no legislation that excludes women from mens toilets or men from womens toilets. A man whether he is intending to commit rape or is simply bursting for a pee does not have to put on a dress and go through the palaver of getting a Gender Recognition Certificate in order to go into a Ladies loo.

Nor have I ever heard of anyone being asked to produce their birth certificate as evidence of their birth sex in order to use a public toilet.

So changes to the administrative procedures involved in obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate are not going to make any difference to this!

Nor will the changes have any effect on the existing laws against rape, sexual assault, assault, etc. If a male-bodied person commits rape or sexual assault, then they can still be prosecuted for it, regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate.

I think it's a shame that so much of the recent coverage given to this very minor piece of legislation is scaring ppeople into extreme reactions, because it doesn't reflect the truth of the matter -- that this concerns an administrative procedure that is very important to a tiny number of people, but will have no effect whatsoever on anyone else.

BeingrippedoffHelen Webberly is has saved the sanity and probably the lives of hundreds of people by being brave enough to prescribe very modest doses of HRT to transsexuals trapped in the very long waiting lists for appointments at one of the few specialist clinics. As you (rightly) point out "the General Medical Council puts pressure on GPs to prescribe for people waiting to be seen at specialist clinics". If more GPs followed the GMC's advice, Dr Webberley's services would not be required. Perhaps even more significantly , patients would not resort to buying HRT from uncontrolled sources over the internet, and GPs would not be handing out antidepressants as a "sticking plaster" solution.

I appreciate that inappropriate use of HRT is "potentially very dangerous long term". But is a bridging prescription the couple of years that it takes for a transsexual to get from GP to GIC endocrinologist really "long term"?

I don't doubt what you say about patients' notes, and I understand (and share) your concerns. It seems ridiculous that CCGs should be wanting vital information expunged, whilst GPs are simultaneously telling their patients that they cannot change their name or gender -- so a Male-to-Female who is a year or so into the compulsory "Real Life Test" demanded by their GIC finds themselves being called "Mr John Smith" in front of a crowded waiting room.

If anyone's interested, I've just completed our LA's e-learning module on how schools are now expected to approach transgender issues.

It's jaw-dropping.

Just google GIRES (Gender Identity Research and Education Surrey) and select "caring for gender non-conforming young people" from the drop-down list - anyone can do it, you don't have to give any details.

Strange I don't mean to be rude but this comment:

"Perhaps that's understandable, because it will have no impact whatsoever on the lives of anyone who is not a transitioning transsexual. In particular, it will not have any effect on so-called "women-only safe spaces"."

displays a quite spectacular lack of empathy. Can you really see no reason why, e.g. one of Britain's many thousands (millions?) of sexual abuse survivors might not want to encounter people with penises in refuges, hospital wards, changing rooms and so on? Why is it okay for them to be triggered but not trans women?

Just to add, Strange, that I shouldn't generalise about sexual abuse survivors. Perhaps there are some who are okay with self ID and males in female spaces. However I imagine that very many aren't and that these people outnumber trans women.

GPs are simultaneously telling their patients that they cannot change their name or gender -- so a Male-to-Female who is a year or so into the compulsory "Real Life Test" demanded by their GIC finds themselves being called "Mr John Smith" in front of a crowded waiting room.

GPs have no control over names. You can change your name by deed poll any time you like, you don't need your GP's permission.

What then is the point of a GRC StrangeAdventure?

displays a quite spectacular lack of empathy.

Stunningly surprising, that.

StrangeAdventure

The difference is, at the moment, women can and do ask men to leave their spaces.

If the changes to the law go through, any predator in the country has got a pass. And women can't do anything about it.

Men who are not interested in intimidating women, or violating their boundaries will not take advantage of it.

My DH, for instance, wouldn't dream of using a woman's space. Even if his motives were entirely innocent, he knows it could make many women feel uncomfortable.

So you're left with people who either don't care, or who want to intimidate, or worse.

Part of the problem with this, is that many men don't understand the reason why women are comfortable.

It's that very lack of understanding that women find worrying.

And of course, the many men who thoroughly enjoy intimidating women have to do very little. A man doesn't have to break any laws in order to intimidate a woman.

And yes, it's not necessarily about the threat of rape. But despite that, it's very telling that people think well if someone is going to rape you, that's a crime and they can get arrested.

I'm not sure you've heard of schrodingers rapist, but that's what women live with all the time.

The men who fail to understand all this, and therefore blithely demand access to women spaces, are the very men who should not be granted it.