Private Eye snippet on gender-questioning children

[RoyalCorgi]

As well as the piece about Jess Bradley in this week's Private Eye, there's a short paragraph about treating gender-questioning children in the medical column by MD (Dr Phil Hammond).

It's just a small bit of a wider piece about mental health services being overstretched, but it is strongly-worded, nonetheless, referring to supporting children to be gender-fluid "without feeling forced down a path that irreversibly halts their fertility and outsources their gender to the pharmaceutical industry for life".

It's good to see Private Eye take a stand but I do wish they would give the issue their full attention. I worry that they haven't quite summoned up the courage to do it.

I think it’s good that this can be raised as a legitimate MH concern amongst many - just one more thing that stressed teenagers may inflict on themselves, rather than the rainbow world to aspire to.

If the whole piece was about trans, the perspective would be different.

The bit in the image is good, it does cover important issues;
Social inequality
Pressure to achieve
Mental health and lack of support and counselling
Let youngsters experiment with who they are
Dont push them into a life reliant on pharmacuetical industry - ie no blockers or x-sex hormones!

Francis Wheen, the deputy editor of The Eye, is an ally. He's tweeted about it many times. There have been other pieces about this issue in the Eye - and the inevitable disgusted of Trans Wells response on the letters page which they ran without irony.

I don't know how Hislop, the editor, feels about the issue but I would guess if he's putting stuff into the paper about it then he too is an ally. I'd like to think so.

Francis Wheen, the deputy editor of The Eye, is an ally.

Yes. This is why it surprises me that they've been so tentative about it. I guess they don't want more controversy than is necessary.

Yes it is disappointing they aren't doing more on it but at least they're doing something! And it's a very well-read paper with a circulation of quarter of a million sales which equates to about three quarters of a million readers, if not more. Read by the powerful and influential - who have to scan is to make sure they're not in it!

Honestly the Eye isn't afraid of this issue, I think they have earned their reputation for not bowing to any sort of intimidation over many decades. In fact attempting to silence them will guarantee they will make an issue of it. I think the problem is that even they have yet to get their head around just how far this madness has gone. I hope that when they do they will have a regular column.

They've been GC for some time. There was a memorable cartoon a couple of years back at the time of the Ladies' Pond fuss. Two bikini-clad women, by a sign indicating Hampstead Ladies' Pond, face a person with their back to us, raincoat spread in typical flasher-mode. Flasher type person is saying: 'It's all right, it's a lady penis!'

There have been other things too. It's all drip, drip.

I worry that they haven't quite summoned up the courage to do it.

Who are the readership of Private Eye?

I'd guess its predominantly male.

It is a liberal publication so that clashes with this liberal identity stuff, so

a) it's a niche subject the readership aren't necessarily interested in
b) is the only so much they can make a point of it

The focus I'd expect from PE is about censorship and a cover up of political incompetence rather than a focus on safeguarding and children.

The publication also has history with Carter Ruck, the expensive law firm representing Bradley.

Perhaps they don't give it much attention because it's so bloody obvious to the majority of intelligent adults?

Anyway, that small sentence surely encapsulates what should be best practice. Let kids (and adults) be as 'gender fluid' as they wish, but separate 'gender' from sex and don't medicalise people back into artificial boxes.

The focus I'd expect from PE is about censorship and a cover up of political incompetence

I would expect that too. That's why it would have been good if, in their coverage of the Jess Bradley case, they'd mentioned that Bradley was quoted multiple times in the report of the Women and Equalities Committee on self-ID.

It would also be really good to see them tackle the censorship of gc academics at our supposedly prestigious universities.

The Eye covers a variety of issues and often sticks with cases for years (decades) so I would expect more to crop up, but they will always make room for non doms, dodgy councils, political skullduggery, NHS mismanagement etc. But yes, I would expect to see more and more pieces getting published, because I think the Eye prides itself of fairness and that’s central to this issue.

I rather had the impression that the eye in general are GC, but not particularly bothered.
That they avoid the issue not because of being scared to tackle it but because it isn't interesting to them beyond a quick joke/ dodgy crossword clue.

Which is a shame because some of the wider issues at least are worth investigating properly even if they dont care about the feminist angle.

I hope that when they do they will have a regular column.

Ooh. A Sylvie Krin / Princess of Wails type weekly column would be a joy.

Even the Eye probably doesn't dare do that though because...hate speech.

The PC Gulls of the world would have heart failure.

I missed the Bradley PE thing, is there a thread on it?

All they'd need to do is lift large chunks of a certain Daily Telegraph columnist's weekly missive.

Yes... I guess it's hard to do satire on a subject where Poe's Law so often applies.

All they'd need to do is lift large chunks of a certain Daily Telegraph columnist's weekly missive.

This. We really need a like button.

Update on an old thread, Errol:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3626735-Update-on-the-Jess-Bradley-position?pg=2

outsources their gender to the pharmaceutical industry for life

Great line.

outsources their gender to the pharmaceutical industry for life

Yes indeed AlwaysComingHome

A line to remember for future use.

I will watch the letters page in the next issue.

They have also covered Edward they/them Lord in a less than flattering way - including the dodgy way the corporation of London consultation was run.