Challenging the NHS on it's Gender Dysphoria resource

[ByGrabtharsHammarWhatASaving]

Following the (at least partial) success of the ONS challenge I have composed an email to the NHS about the content of the their Gender Dysphoria Overview page. I won't post the whole thing because it's really long (despite my efforts to be succinct) but I'll give you an overview in case anyone can spot anything I've missed.

GD Overview page

NHS content policy

My comments are, briefly:

1. Accuracy

• Why is the phrase "sex assigned at birth" used when this phrase is only relevant to people with DSD? Is the intention to imply that people with GD are more likely to have DSD than the rest of the population, or that people with DSD are more likely to have GD than the rest of the population? If so, I request the research used to support this conclusion.

• The "causes of GD" section suggests that prenatal androgen exposure causes, not only GD, but also the development of a male or female brain which may not align with male or female genitals/ reproductive system. I request the research used to support this conclusion.

• It is claimed that the increase in the number of people presenting with GD is down to increased public awareness. I challenge that this is an unconfirmed opinion that there is reason to doubt, and request this section be phrased as conjecture not fact.

• The "gender terminology" section is at best confusing and incoherent, and at worst seeks to define "man" and "woman" with relation to reductive stereotypes. I request clarification of the words "man", "woman", "female", "male", "gender" and "gender identity" regarding this section.

2. Impartiality and diversity of opinion

• I suggest that the phrase "sex assigned at birth" reflects ideological bias rather than scientific impartiality.

• I suggest that the distinction between trangender people and people with DSD is not sufficiently emphasised.

• I suggest that the lack of scientific consensus regarding the causes of GD is not sufficiently emphasised

3. Collaboration on this resource

• I ask for confirmation of whether, during the creation of this resource, any "National charities with a recognised expertise and specialist interests" were consulted.

4. In conclusion I suggest that the resource provides inaccurate, confusing, and ideologically motivated information with a weak evidence base, and request that the content be urgently reviewed.

Now, I have a lot of concerns about the other pages on GD as well, such as claiming that puberty blockers are fully reversible and that hormone treatment can make your body "more female" rather than simply more feminine in appearance, but I think I'll have to tackle it one page at a time or it'll be the essay of the century.

Anything I've missed/ got wrong?

I'd just stick in that sex is observed not assigned. In case they really are clueless about the problem with "assigned" and fob you off that it applies to everyone, not just those with a DSD.

Great work

Really good work OP. We need to keep challenging this stuff whenever and however we can.

3. could be read as you giving credence to the expertise of the charities.

Thanks guys.

DpWm I do make that point as well that for anyone without a DSD it's observed not assigned.

Hirsutefirs Regarding the charities I specifically name several as examples, indicate that they are lobby groups with political agendas, and state that if information has been taken from them it undermines the accuracy and impartiality of the resource.

I'm trying to challenge it but in a way that sounds as neutral and factual as possible in case my comments are referred to someone with a "special interest" or their woke ally.

You are great at this!

That's excellent. I'd suggest copying it to your MP and asking for their comments. Perhaps also copying in the Minister for Health and Penny Mordaunt? You really are doing a grand job

Fantastic work, well done!