Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Civil Service Trans policy - what can I do?

360 replies

DoxxMeTwice · 28/02/2019 14:44

Following an awful "workplace inclusion" meeting today I was prompted to check out my work policy for Trans (link below).

I work for the Civil Service ( name changed, as I was previously doxed and can't risk it here).

Page 31 is particularly bad, I feel like it implies that any woman who objects to sharing single sex facilities will be disciplined for being discriminatory.

This policy is clearly being put into practice as during my meeting today it was discussed that a Trans Woman was left hurt and embarrassed recently after a woman did an immediate u-turn out of the toilets when she saw them. It was stated as a gentle warning to others to consider trans feelings.

The woman's feelings were not considered at all, though I expect she has probably since been vilified in her local office!

Does anyone have any real life examples of policies like this being successfully challenged by using EHRC/Equalities act??

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/503663/WorkplaceeGuideCSEPPrevisedFinallV1.pdf

OP posts:
LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 01/03/2019 08:20

So those who change ‘gender’ according to the day of the week or how they feel that day - we have to accommodate them too? Always men though isn’t it?

vivariumvivariumsvivaria · 01/03/2019 09:00

Reading and raging.

What the fuck is wrong with our politicians? Why on earth do they not want my vote?

NeurotrashWarrior · 01/03/2019 09:00

It's where the EA characteristics conflate one another.

There needs to be reference to the other characteristics in the document. In any document covering them. And how all the rights are respected now law.

NeurotrashWarrior · 01/03/2019 09:01

In law. And what that means in practice.

ChattyLion · 01/03/2019 09:20

I note that there is a specific news media channel commenting on the Civil Service, hope they will pick this up: www.civilserviceworld.com

sashh · 01/03/2019 09:23

Therefore post transition, it would be humiliating, inappropriate and undermining to expect a person in their acquired gender to
use toilet facilities of their birth sex or indeed be restricted to the use of the accessible toilet.

So it's OK for disabled people to be humiliated and undermined? Fuck that.

I have never come across separate men's and women's accessible toilets, why is it OK to force disabled people to use mixed sex facilities?

What happens if you have a disabled trans woman? Do you have to build a new ladies disabled toilet?

Sex is a protected characteristic in law, a policy cannot trump law.

Ok I will be back once I have read it.

Trousering · 01/03/2019 09:38

This is enforcement of sexual harassment.

clitherow · 01/03/2019 09:40

The Government Equalities Office was quoted in the Independent

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/transgender-people-no-right-single-sex-spaces-government-penny-mordaunt-toilets-changing-rooms-a8414771.html

In response to a petition calling for women to be consulted before any change to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA), which allows people to legally change their gender, the Government Equalities Office said: “We are clear that we have no intention of amending the Equality Act 2010, the legislation that allows for single-sex spaces.

“Any GRA reform will not change the protected characteristics in the Equality Act nor the exceptions under the Equality Act that allow provision for single and separate sex spaces.”

It added: “Providers of women-only services can continue to provide services in a different way, or even not provide services to trans individuals, provided it is objectively justified on a case-by-case basis.

“The same can be said about toilets, changing rooms or single-sex activities. Providers may exclude trans people from facilities of the sex they identify with, providing it is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim.”

So it seems that the government are standing back to see if people will be bothered to fight this on a case by case basis and can prove that denial of access meets a 'legitimate aim'. I have not read (and do not want to read!) the 2010 Equalities Act, neither have I yet looked up the case law based upon which transgender women with no GRC are allowed to carry out full body searches on women against their will. I haven't time to do either at the moment but will try over the weekend.

This does seem to mean that people like the OP are left to try to take whatever action possible on a case by case basis - whether this means a battle over every single toilet in the civil service or over the case of access to toilets in the civil service, in general, I'm not sure - maybe it's me being thick. But I'm sure of one thing although I'm sure @trousering is right, I wouldn't want to be the one to whistleblow, especially without the backing of some organisation that had the resources to support me - this is what the unions were supposed to do after all. It seems she is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Trousering · 01/03/2019 09:50

Avoiding sexual harassment and abuse at work is a legitimate aim. They no doubt have a policy that states that. They are now stating that men who are dressing and using sex segregated facilities for erotic reasons can do that. And they will permit the use of disciplinary procedures to override consent.

Ghastly idea. I may well whistleblow at work myself. I work at a Russell group uni so that's going to be funny. HR whistleblowing on an HR policy.

Trousering · 01/03/2019 09:55

Immediately meeting a QC next week on another thing we are working on. I'm going to talk to him about this.

Trousering · 01/03/2019 09:55

Immediately? I am.

clitherow · 01/03/2019 10:00

I work at a Russell group uni so that's going to be funny. HR whistleblowing on an HR policy. Good luck with that trousering. I would be really interested to hear what the QC has to say because this stretches my brain beyond where it was ever meant to go. There just must be some way of organising a concerted legal effort against these crazy 'guidance' documents and the distorted thinking behind them?

miffysmissingsock · 01/03/2019 10:02

Hi I've nc, I am just posting a message from the OP as she's understandably concerned about being outed / doxxed for her query and concerns. I personally feel it's shocking we feel we have to communicate queries in this way.

She is going to lay low for a bit, so whatever action she decides to take probably won’t be mentioned here.

Obviously this doesn't stop anyone else leaking / whistle blowing / querying key points within the policy as this is a civil service wide document on a public government website.

She very much appreciates the advice and comments given within this thread and will continue to read.

Trousering · 01/03/2019 10:05

Yes indeed miffy. It is a bit scary. Completely understand the need to lay low.

I've got a QC, an employment law solicitor and an HRD all together in a room next week. This will be an interesting discussion.

R0wantrees · 01/03/2019 10:09

The groups who have written the policies should not have been given such unscrutinised power.

2016 document 'Terminology'
Acknowledgement
'The above information includes terminology copied with the kind permission of GIRES, Gender Identity Research and Education.'
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/503663/Workplace_Guide_CSEP_revised_Final_V1_.pdf

See issues with GIRES, Press For Change and Intersex organisations:
PencilsInSpace Sun 24-Feb-19 wrote:
Now who knew that GIRES was set up as the charitable arm of Press for Change?

Me!

Who knew PfC and GIRES parted ways in 2000, in large part because of the way GIRES treated intersex people and support groups?

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20061116120000/www.pfc.org.uk/pfclists/news-arc/2000q2/msg00084.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Relationship of PFC and Gires

Dear Colleagues

With great regret the Press for Change Vice Presidents publish the statement below. We are aware that some people will wish we had taken this decision sooner whilst others will wish we had not taken it at all. It is not a hasty decision, and the publication of this statement has been delayed further because of our efforts to obtain all the facts and to listen to as many points of view as possible. We are grateful for the patience of those who would have liked an earlier decision. In the event it has still not been physically possible to speak to all those affected, but in the circumstances we feel that we have no choice now but to publish first and talk about it afterwards. We would be grateful if everyone would read the statement in full, and we will gladly answer any questions you have. We would like to stress that this decision is intended as a constructive action in a difficult situation and that we do not wish to attach blame to any individual involved.

STATEMENT BY THE PRESS FOR CHANGE VICE PRESIDENTS: 18th May 2000
THE RELATIONSHIP OF PRESS FOR CHANGE AND THE GENDER IDENTITY RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SOCIETY

At the 1996 Press for Change Planning Meeting it was decided to look into setting up a subsidiary charity which would have the mandate of providing education and information about trans issues. As a charity it would be enabled to obtain tax refunds on subscriptions and donations and raise money from sources not accessible to Press for Change (which as an overtly political organisation cannot apply for charitable status in its own right) and it was hoped it could eventually take on - and expand - the.work of Press for Change in the areas of publication of information, education and training, research and support for students.

It was later agreed to establish the Gender Identity Research and Education Society (Gires). Gires was registered as an independent charity in February 1998 with no formal relationship to Press for Change. A separate entity was required under charity law and was thus the easiest arrangement. However almost all the Gires trustees were (and are) also members of Press for Change, and the Charity Commisssion agreed that it would be acceptable for Gires to use the strapline "Working alongside Press for Change ". Later a "contractual service agreement" was agreed between Press for Change and Gires which cemented a close relationship.

In January 1999, GIRES' charitable objects were agreed by its founding members to be:
To advance education into gender identity and intersex Issues, and in particular:
a. To initiate, promote and support research particularly to address the needs of those in whom there is a strong and ongoing desire to live and be accepted as a member of the sex opposite from that assigned at birth;
b. To publish the outcomes of such research and other relevant information in order to inform interested parties and the general public;
c. To enable the public to achieve a wider understanding of these issues and thereby equal treatment within society of those whom they affect.

For many reasons, things have not turned out as originally envisioned.

Gires has never been in any practical sense a "subsidiary" of Press for Change, nor has it restricted its activities to raising money for the educational work of Press for Change. Rather, it has developed into an organisation in its own right with a clear direction of its own.

Because of a policy of trying to draw funds from new sources, rather than from existing supporters of Press for Change (who can and do donate directly to Press for Change), Gires has raised most of its funds from outside the trans community and more than half of its membership consists of non trans people. It has to date been unsuccessful in securing much funding which could be used directly to subsidise the educational work of Press for Change, and responsibility for this must be shared by Gires and by Press for Change, which because of pressure of work has been unable to invest the necessary time into providing Gires' trustees with the direction and information they required. Instead however Gires has set up medical and social "research panels" consisting overwhelmingly professionals who are not trans people. It has also become increasingly involved with policy making rather than straightforward education and research. The nature of the research panels has damaged Gires' credibility as a supporter of the trans community and its involvement with policy has created difficulties as it has strayed into areas in which Press for Change and other groups representing trans people are already working.

Gires' position as an organisation of mostly non trans people could be and at times has been a strength, in that having non trans people support or speak in favour of equality and respect for trans people adds weight to our case. Unfortunately it can also be a weakness if it appears that Gires is exceeding its mandate or is failing adequately to represent or consult with the client group it exists to serve.

In particular we have been alarmed by the recent involvement of Gires in intersex issues, which has caused widespread offence amongst intersex people and the existing groups which represent them. Press for Change regrets this very much. We fully support their right to represent themselves, or not, as they see fit, and have advised Gires to proceed with great caution with any further work in this field.

We have also advised Gires to ensure that any further work they do in representing the interests of trans people to others, especially to public authorities and decision making bodies, is only carried out in full collaboration with other existing groups such as GenTrust, the FTM Network, Mermaids, Change, G & SA and Press for Change, and that we consider it at all times inappropriate for Gires to appear to be negotiating on behalf of the wider trans community, which is in itself already diverse.

The Press for Change Vice Presidents have decided that it is wise at this point to end the current semi-formal link between the two organisations. We believe that this link is no longer of any great benefit to either organisation and has the potential to lead to a serious conflict of interest. We feel Gires needs to be free to pursue its own agenda without formal reference to Press for Change and that our attempts to direct and advise Gires are increasingly leading to friction which is damaging personal relationships and taking time and energy away from the campaign itself. Press for Change, for its part, will no longer be in any way accountable for the actions of Gires. However if current differences of approach can be resolved, we very much hope it will be possible to collaborate with Gires in future, most especially in the areas of research and education where Gires is well placed to undertake some good work.

We hope very much that the separation of the two organisations will free both of them to concentrate on their primary objectives - the achievement of equality and respect for all trans people through education, legislation and social change.

Christine Burns
Claire McNab
Mark Rees
Sarah Rutherford
Alex Whinnom
Stephen Whittle"

from important thread about the long history of lobby groups' influence:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007?pg=5

miffysmissingsock · 01/03/2019 10:11

I'm sure you have a number of highlighters and copies of various documents at the ready Trousering!

R0wantrees · 01/03/2019 10:13

PencilsInSpace Sun 24-Feb-19 22:36:53 (from same thread) wrote:

"PfC's objections to the way GIRES was attempting to work with intersex groups seem quite different from the objections of the intersex groups themselves.

An open letter by Claire McNab of PfC makes clear that the main objection was that GIRES were consulting with medical professionals rather than intersex people themselves. Claire writes as an individual however this seems to be PfC's position as a whole. At least I haven't found anything contradicting Claire's position from anyone else in PfC.

The Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome Support Group (AISSG) UK on the other hand, objected to the appropriation of intersex to further the trans agenda. <a class="break-all" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20170117130415/www.aissg.org/15_ANNOUNCE.HTM#14%20May%202000" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Here's their statement in full. This was also posted to the PfC news lists.

14 May 2000 - AISSG UK's 'GIRES Statement'

A Position Statement Concerning GIRES (Bernard Reed) by the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome Support Group UK (AISSG UK):

Introduction

The Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome Support Group (AISSG) is a peer information/support organisation established in the UK in 1988 (formalised in 1993) and which achieved UK charitable status in early 1999. We are completely autonomous but are affiliated to the Genetic Interest Group (GIG) and Contact a Family.

We have around 120 subscriber members (and many more contacts) in the UK (mostly adults but many families too) affected by intersex conditions such as AIS, XY gonadal dysgenesis (Swyer's syndrome) and 5 alpha reductase deficiency; with some XX female members who have Mayer Rokitansky Kuster Hauser (MRKH syndrome, Mullerian dysgenesis/aplasia, vaginal atresia etc.

We have representatives in USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, S. Africa and Spain. Our website at www.aissg.org has received much praise, from people with AIS who come across it after years in the wilderness (having not been told about their condition) and from medical specialists in the intersex field.

Summary

After extensive email correspondence with Bernard Reed of GIRES during mid March to early April 2000, we decided not to work with GIRES at the present time. Overall, we wish to disassociate ourselves from GIRES and to state that they do not represent us.

We have already established mutually beneficial relationships with several groups of clinicians and are working with them on AIS-related research projects and the provision of multi-disciplinary patient care. We collaborate on joint projects with other related support organisations (e.g. the UK Turner Syndrome Society, the Anorchidism Support Group) via a consortium set up by the Genetic Interest Group. Within this consortium (set up in 1999) we have recently published a leaflet for clinicians to give to parents on receipt of a 'genetic diagnosis' and have obtained a grant from the Baring Foundation to enable one of the clinical psychologists with whom we work to carry out counselling skills training for the three groups' helpline volunteers. We also work very closely on an informal basis with the UK's Adrenal Hyperplasia Network (AHN) and Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) Group.

We do not foresee that an association with GIRES would follow the same spirit as those above, so do not wish to join forces with Reed. We believe that Reed's desire to change the medical management of intersex, although reasonable in itself, is based firmly on the discourse of gender dysphoria (transsexualism/transgender, often referred to as 'trans') and moreover masks an underlying attempt to exploit physical/biological intersex so as to provide an authenticity to that scenario, an authentication that it doesn't need.

The historical perspective is as follows:

GIRES Approaches AISSG in 1999

Reed emailed us in July 1999 introducing a UK organisation called the Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES) of which he is chairperson and wanting us to enter into a working relationship with his organisation. We read the hardcopy information that he sent and were put off by several things, but mainly by the fact that:

a) GIRES's heritage seemed to be as a trans, rather than an intersex organisation.

a) Reed seemed to be making a case for trans to be considered as a biological intersex condition. We felt we did not have enough scientific information to know whether this was valid.

While generally agreeing with GIRES's wish to change the medical management of intersex (including childhood 'corrective' surgery), we weren't sure about their claims that transsexualism was "an intersex disorder of the brain" and that the term 'transsexualism' should be abolished and it should be considered as an intersex condition. They also seemed keen on lobbying government to allow birth certificate changes for post-operative transsexuals (not an area of great concern to us, although some of our members would like to have a category of 'I' for 'sex' on official forms/documents in general). It all seemed rather political and we as a group are wary of taking political stances. We did not communicate with Reed further, other than to thank him for his information.

Approached Again March 2000

In March 2000, the person who runs our helpline received a phone call from Reed and, having forgotten about our reservations about GIRES, agreed that he could attend an AISSG group meeting a week or so later.

We emailed him to ask why he wanted to attend and it seemed from his response that he wanted a) to see what happens at our meetings, b) to do a presentation, with slides, on GIRES, and c) to discuss possible joint ventures. We explained that our agenda was already fixed (and full), that our support meetings were not the forum for all this anyway, and asked him not to attend (but suggested we might meet on another occasion). At that time he also urged us somewhat insistently to collaborate with him a) to influence what was to be covered in a TV documentary that the BBC wanted to make for the Horizon series, and b) to form a joint policy, along with the UK's Adrenal Hyperplasia Network (AHN), on what we would all present at a British Association of Paediatric Urology meeting in Sept 2000, to which all three organisations had been separately invited by the association (we accepted our 'invitation to speak' in October 1999). He was also excitedly recommending organisations like the Intersex Society of N. America (ISNA) to us, as if wanting to act as a catalyst between us, and possibly not realizing we'd already been in touch for some years.

The Dialogue Starts

We started asking questions about GIRES's policies and aims, about the nature of its membership and its credentials as a mouthpiece for intersex people. There followed a number of emails from Reed giving information about GIRES and asking for our comments on some GIRES guidelines for the medical management of intersex and on a draft synopsis of the issues that GIRES thought the BBC programme should cover.

Throughout his emails, and in his guidelines/synopsis, Reed would employ the phrase "gender identity and intersex conditions" as a means, it seemed to us, of slipping gender dysphoria into the picture without explicitly saying so. While many of the points in GIRES's management guidelines made sense at first sight in terms of intersex, we were wary of this "Trojan horse" approach to including trans within these recommendations because whatever aetiological considerations might link these, in terms of medical treatment there is a world of difference between purely gender issues and the issues faced by intersex children. We did not comment on the content of the guidelines/synopsis.

We noted several other things during the exchange:

a) Reed wrote that "We don't ask our members what conditions they have" and "I am confident that the majority of our members have no condition at all and nor does any member of their families. I estimate that only 7% of the charity's income is derived from those with a condition or the parents of such persons." It seemed strange for someone representing an organisation so underweight on the intersex side of things to be throwing so much weight around in that sphere.

b) names of well-known researchers and clinical experts seemed to appear 'overnight' against the various topics on further drafts of his 'BBC synopsis'. At least one of them (a consultant gynaecologist in the team at the UCL/Middlesex Hospital, London, who are our main collaborators on research/clinical aspects of AIS) had no idea she was itemised in this way and was quite annoyed; so we surmised that others possibly hadn't been consulted either.

The BBC Approaches Us

Meanwhile, Heike Rebholz at the BBC had already contacted us by email wanting to talk about how we might take part in the Horizon programme. Our understanding was that the idea for the programme came out of recent publicity about the "John/Joan" (or "Money vs Diamond") case, so it was to cover the issue of childhood genital surgeries.

An intermediary (an AISSG member with media experience) reported back that Heike was looking at the issue of 'corrective' surgery in Britain. And that she wanted to know whether the group had any members with 'partial' form of AIS (PAIS) who'd had surgery for a large clitoris/micropenis and now wished they hadn't, or someone who felt the surgery took too much away and left them with loss of sensation. And whether there was a spokesperson from the group who could say what the group's feeling was regarding surgery for so-called ambiguous genitalia - whether it should be left until puberty etc.

Our Response to BBC

We reported back to Heike, via our intermediary, that we didn't know how many of the 30 or so Partial AIS (PAIS) women/children on our list had undergone clitoral reduction surgery, but we knew of some adult PAIS women who definitely had not, and who are quite happy with that state of affairs. We had no contacts who had complained to us about this type of surgery. We had one recent overseas parent contact whose newborn was more or less given surgery without the parents having much say in the matter. The mother had subsequently discovered our group, read "negative things" about such surgery in our newsletter (ALIAS), and become very depressed and angry. We explained to Heike that the overwhelming majority of our contacts (several 100) had Complete AIS (CAIS) for whom clitoral size/surgery is a non-issue anyway.

We told Heike that on ethical, social, philosophical grounds we were against any surgery without fully-informed consent (which meant no cosmetic surgery of this nature on infants/children) and that society should overcome its fear of non-standard genitals rather than forcing infants/children to conform to some 'standard' that is patently contrary to that which Nature actually provides, and that we also saw such surgery as yet another tactic (in tandem with secrecy regarding diagnostic information) in trying to cover up the very existence of intersex.

But we had to tell her that we didn't have the direct experience or voice from our members to qualify us to participate; and that we were more concerned with issues of truth disclosure, lack of emotional support, childhood gonadectomy without informed consent, osteoporosis, poor treatments for vaginal hypoplasia, lack of availabilty of carrier testing etc., issues that would presumably dilute the programme away from the topic of 'corrective' genital surgery.

We Decline GIRES's Call to Collaborate

We also sent the above information to Reed and added that we were uncomfortable with GIRES's blurring of biological intersex with gender dysphoria. We were unhappy about the possibility of a programme that set out to consider the specific question of childhood surgery being turned into one which addressed the wider issues of "gender identity" as represented, partly at least, by gender dysphoria (i.e. a group of people who were never likely to have had genital surgery forced on them in infancy/childhood). We felt that in the same way that we didn't have enough direct experience of the question of childhood surgery, we also didn't have knowledge of any scientific evidence that transgender/transsexualism was a physical/biological intersex condition. We felt that the potential inclusion of trans issues in the BBC documentary carried a risk of confusing the general public even more, the question of childhood surgery being complex enough on its own. We told Reed that we were unable to co-operate with him further on these issues.

The BBC not Swayed by GIRES

We expressed our concerns to the BBC about GIRES muscling in on the planning of the programme in a rather assertive manner. Heike replied, saying she was concerned about this too, and informing us that her agenda was still very much open and that she still wanted to talk with us.

AISSG Withdraws

However, by that time we were so exhausted by the whole thing that we backed off completely. The day-to-day operations of our group are run by only three people, all of whom have busy full-time occupations and who thus have to devote most of their spare time to support group work. In the end we just got fed up with being constantly pressurized by Reed, and found dealing with GIRES an unnecessary distraction when we had many other tasks to address at same time. We decided we were content with the progress our group was making, we were quite capable of speaking up for ourselves, and were building good relationships with clinicians and with other patient support groups, and thereby significantly influencing research and patient care in a more collaborative and less radical manner.

PFC Approaches Us

On 9 May 2000 we received an email from Andrea Brown of "....Press for Change in the United Kingdom which set up the organisation known as the Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES) approximately two years ago..." asking for our opinion of Reed's activities; and this is what has prompted this statement. We'd like to thank those members of PFC who have showed concern over this matter and given us an opportunity to make our position clear.

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome Support Group (AISSG) UK
www.aissg.org

A number of other patient support groups issued similar statements around this time."

EweSurname · 01/03/2019 10:15

Trousering that's brilliant - I hope you are successful in opening their eyes to the injustice of situations like these.

miffysmissingsock · 01/03/2019 10:16

I also increasingly feel it's unfair and confusing to include intersex people in policies around 'trans' (commas as this is such a woolly term). This should be covered by a separate policy imo.

miffysmissingsock · 01/03/2019 10:17

Cross post with R0.

R0wantrees · 01/03/2019 10:20

There's clear evidence that the Civil Service used GIRES definitions of intersex despite the explicit rejection by groups represnting people affected by intersex conditions.

Due dilligence wasn't done.

Trousering · 01/03/2019 10:21

The legal firm behind the class action equal pay claims going on in supermarkets etc make millions out of it. This is a route to explore.

Mmm..

BelladonnaSolanum · 01/03/2019 10:31

Fucking hell, if someone walks into somewhere and doesn't feel safe for whatever reason, they should absolutely feel able to walk back out. It doesn't matter why, no one should be forced into a situation where they feel unsafe just to spare someone else's feelings.

As a teen I was full on goth/punk, and I was aware that occasionally people would avoid me thinking I was some sort of risk to them. I was aware I was no risk, and sometimes felt put out by their assumptions, but I would never have dreamt of forcing them to ignore those feelings in favour of making me feel better. The way to make them feel less threatened was never ever to impose myself on them!

R0wantrees · 01/03/2019 10:36

PencilsInSpace Sun 24-Feb-19 22:50:17 wrote:

"Also posted to the PfC news list - <a class="break-all" href="https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20061116120000/www.pfc.org.uk/pfclists/news-arc/2000q2/msg00090.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">statement by the Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia Group:

- Forwarded Message Follows -
From: "andrea brown"
To:
Subject: CAH group statement
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 22:05:39 +0100 (BST)

Hi Claire, Kathleen and Becky,

Here is the position statement from the CAH group for publication on the
lists.

Andrea

___

Dear Andrea

Apologies for the time taken to reply to your e-mail but the committee have been discussing the issues raised. We have read your message and strongly disapprove of a group such as GIRES proposing guidelines for a group of people for which they have little understanding. As stated to GIRES chairman, Bernard Reed on previous occassions, the CAH Group do not wish to be become involved with GIRES or it's policies.

We do work informally with groups such as Child Growth Foundation, AISSG and Contact a Family plus international CAH groups.

Copied below is our reply to GIRES chairman from our chairperson Sue Elford.

The same response to GIRES from AHN also do not wish to be become involved with GIRES or it's policies. AHN is another CAH support group I work with that provides support via e-mail for those with CAH.

We hope this is of help.

Yours sincerely

Melissa Cull
Adult Support Co-ordinator
CAH Group

& Founder of AHN (Adrenal Hyperplasia Network)

Dear Bernard

Thank you for your e-mail and I have looked at your very well set up and informative website.

However I do not believe there is any real connection between a genetic biological condition such as CAH and people with gender identity problems, such as transsexuals. CAH is regarded as an intersex condition as many of the girls are born with ambiguous genitalia. This is usually corrected within the first year of life.

They are genetically female.

We focus on getting information on the condition to families via conferences, newsletters and family support. Having a chronic medical condition that requires continuous lifelong medication is the hardest fact to accept. Parents worry about whether their children will reach normal height, will become fat due to taking steroids and whether any illness, such as the flu, chickenpox or even a cold will endanger the lives of their children. Gender identity is most certainly not a consideration.

I have spoken to various committee members and we do not believe there can be any benefit in our Groups working together. I do however thank you for contacting us and wish you luck.

Sue Elford
Chairman
CAH Group"
ChattyLion · 01/03/2019 12:33

Thank you Trousering

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.