Response from Government Equalities Office

[Popchyk]

I wrote to the GEO a couple of weeks ago.

This is what I wrote.

The Gender Recognition Act online consultation concluded in October 2018. When does the GEO intend to report the results? Original statements were made by the GEO that there would be a report in spring 2019.

Additionally, Penny Mordaunt announced a probe in September 2018 into the large rise in young girls identifying as transgender and seeking hormone and surgical treatment. Has this probe started? Which government and other bodies are involved in this? When will results be published?

Can you tell me the current status of both these things please?

Reply from GEO:

As you know, we ran the public consultation on the Gender Recognition Act from 3 July to 22 October 2018 asking how we might Reform the Act. We had an exceptional response rate to the consultation, receiving over 100,000 responses. We have been rigorously analysing all of these contributions and we will publish a response this year. Legal gender recognition is not a straightforward topic, and we are considering our response with great care, taking into account all of the relevant perspectives.

To answer your second question, the 2018 LGBT Action Plan included a commitment to undertake further research to better understand the increase in young people being referred to Gender Identity Services. Emerging international data suggests that gender diversity in children and young people is more common than previously thought, and we are aware of a rise in the number of young people, particularly girls, referred to gender identity clinics over the last decade.

That is why the Government Equalities Office is commissioning research which will look into why is there an increase in adolescents seeking help on gender identity issues. The research will give us a better understanding of their experiences and reasons for seeking support. This will include a comprehensive international evidence review and analysis of referral data.The National Institute for Health Research and the Equality and Human Rights Commission are also launching their own research. A tender for the next stage of the government research will be released in the coming weeks.

We have to keep on making a massive noise about this so it can’t be a whitewash. That’s the only upside of the political involvement in this. This publicly funded research has to be impartial.

Sorry to be an arse.. but if anyone is on Twitter (I’m not) please can they tweet this thread to these lot- these are actual academics who work on impartial health care research? www.cebm.net/outreach/
The centre for Evidence based medicine at Oxford university. There are probably other academic groups like them out there if anyone has heard of any- these lot were on the Panorama a while back saying more research needed.
It would be great if a proper academic group like this who don’t have skin in the game could be involved.

Ditto a patient research specialist group, to do it properly, so that people and people who don’t go ahead to transition as well as people who do transition can all be invited to take part in the research.

Klaxon calling out to any medics, HCPs or researchers who can recommend what we should be advocating for here..

There is this group who look great for a highly politicised research situation like this- they bring together patients, carers and researchers to agree research priorities:
www.jla.nihr.ac.uk
James Lind alliance

ChattyLion

This man, Carl Heneghan, is the Director of the CEBM at Oxford University and has already made his views known about the lack of evidence and research into children:

www.ox.ac.uk/news-and-events/find-an-expert/professor-carl-heneghan

See: www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47456938

Google search using "Carl Heneghan transgender children" reveals more info.

Jacky It would be very reassuring if someone like Professor Heneghan were involved in whatever these research programmes are, so help everyone to build up trust in the eventual findings whatever they turn out to be.
This area requires unbiased and effective tax-payer funded research, asking the right questions of the right people- given the debate so far, a neutral third party looking it over at the start seems like a reassuring idea.

Has the tender for this research been posted yet, does anyone know please? I would have thought it had, as the research was announced almost 2 months ago and they said the tender would appear 'in the coming weeks.' But I can't find it on the government's contractsfinder website.

Saying 'gender diversity is more common than previously thought' is like Freud saying psychosis and neurosis are more common than previously thought.

It would be more common when you just invented it and previously it wasn't a thing.

It would be more common when you just invented it and previously it wasn't a thing

Ain't that the truth.

Then add a substantial profit into the equation...

'gender diversity is more common than previously thought'

Since that precludes any objective view there's the answer really. The lobby has kicked off and been heard: thinking about why suddenly huge numbers of teenaged girls are desperate not to have to be women in modern society, while the numbers of boys have stayed the same... and looking at the lack of late transitioning women and the huge numbers of transitioning males.... and looking at comorbidities including unmet mental health needs and unmet Autism needs -

Is clearly heresy transphobic. So like safeguarding and women's rights and stuff like that, no sense of duty or responsibility is required. Much more important to throw teenaged girls under the bus than to allow any questioning of the story of late transititoning males. I'm sure the fact that it's the males with money, power and influence and the teenaged girls with nothing at all has nothing to do with it.

Incidentally GC women groups have so far dealt with physical assault, social media threats of physical assault, balaclavaed nuts kettling them on stairwells and blocking their exits, and a bomb threat phoned in.

Has anyone yet come up with a risk assessment?

I mean other than 'roll eyes and carry on'.

…. that just ended up on the wrong thread. Sorry.