Women & Equalities 22nd April 2020 - YES!

[dianebrewster]

From Liz Truss Today

Here

" The final point I’d like to make, Madam Chairman, in this initial part, is on the issue of the Gender Recognition Act. We’ve been doing a lot of work internally, making sure we’re in a position to respond to that consultation and launch what we propose to do on the future of the Gender Recognition Act. We will be in a position to do that by the summer, and there are three very important principles that I will be putting place.

First of all, the protection of single-sex spaces, which is extremely important.

Secondly making sure that transgender adults are free to live their lives as they wish without fear of persecution, whilst maintaining the proper checks and balances in the system.

Finally, which is not a direct issue concerning the Gender Recognition Act, but is relevant, making sure that the under 18s are protected from decisions that they could make, that are irreversible in the future. I believe strongly that adults should have the freedom to lead their lives as they see fit, but I think it’s very important that while people are still developing their decision-making capabilities that we protect them from making those irreversible decisions. "

It's a strong statement and very encouraging but I'll keep my powder dry for now. It's all about legal definition in the end. I'm so demoralised and despondent about the whole argument that I actually felt relieved that they'd be taking steps to protect kids. KIDS. I shouldn't be willing to compromise on any of it. This should be straightforward and logical application of common sense.

Good on you though, Liz. We're watching with great interest.

Oh wow, fantastic!

we must question why Ms Truss is making a statement about clinical pathways while answering a question on the Gender Recognition Act, which has no bearing on medical care.

Errr... (pointing out the obvious) it does however mean that those under 18s who receive ample mental health support might not end up transitioning and needing said GRC (ie. More than Kiera’s three hours or so, and predominately about affirmation not exploring for co-morbidities and supporting through those).

Doesn’t take a genius to see they are very much connected. But then that organisation are known for disingenuity and it would severely undermine their (self) importance.

Wow.... Is this really happening? It almost sounds too good to be true!

I think we should be very wary before assuming Liz Truss has reversed her previous support of the Stonewall position. I think she's trying to thread the needle.

A lot of those statements could be empty, e.g. If you start from the position that puberty blockers are reversible then there would be little or no change from the current arrangements.

Still it's a really positive sign. We need to double down on lobbying now the door is opening. There will be a well connected, organised machine pushing in the other direction.

I am very cautiously a tiny bit delighted. Of course the wheels could still come off and of course a lot is going to hinge around what is meant by single sex spaces. But it's less than two years since Penny Mordaunt was saying of the gender recognition consultation, 'The starting point is that trans women are women.'

We're not there yet. We may never be there. But we've still come a fuck of a long way.

I'm hopeful this means that perhaps actual evidence will be looked at rather than just following what "experts" like Mermaids et Al say.

I will vote on this issue and this issue alone, so if the Conservatives keep this up they could scoop up a lot more votes.

January 2020
'Why I Resigned from Tavistock: Trans-Identified Children Need Therapy, Not Just ‘Affirmation’ and Drugs'
by Marcus Evans, Psychotherapist & former governor of The Tavistock and Portman NHS, which hosts the National Health Service’s Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS)

(extract)
"We do not fully understand what is going on in this complex area, and it is essential to examine the phenomenon systematically and objectively. But this has become difficult in the current environment, as debate is continually being closed down amidst accusations of transphobia. As I argued in a May, 2019 presentation before the House of Lords, this de facto censorship regime is harming children.

Those who advocate an unquestioning “affirmation”-based approach to trans-identified children often will claim that any delay or hesitation in assisting a child’s desired gender transition may cause irreparable psychological harm, and possibly even lead to suicide. They also typically will cite research purporting to prove that a child who transitions can expect higher levels of psychological health and life satisfaction. None of these claims align substantially with any robust data or studies in this area. Nor do they align with the cases I have encountered over decades as a psychotherapist." (continues)

Almost as soon as I’d joined, I was made aware of the growing controversy over GIDS. A letter had come in from a group of parents complaining that their children had been fast-tracked through GIDS without any serious psychological evaluation. The author of the letter, a mother representing a group of parents, wrote to me in my role as governor, and I replied, circulating copies of that reply to other governors.

Around the same time, Dr. David Bell, a senior consultant at the Tavistock & Portman NHS Trust and a Tavistock governor, was approached by 10 GIDS staff members (amounting to about one-fifth of the London-based service) who had grave ethical concerns similar to those expressed in the parents’ letter—including inadequate clinical assessments, patients being pushed through for early medical interventions, and GIDS’ failure to stand up to pressure from trans activists. As I discovered, this was not the first time such concerns had been raised. Thirteen years previously, psychotherapist Susan Evans (who, full disclosure, is my wife) had raised her own concerns about the thoroughness of the assessment process by some staff.

As a governor of the Tavistock Trust, I personally witnessed attempts by the Trust’s management to dismiss or undermine both Dr. Bell’s report, which he submitted in late 2018, and the letter from parents. This included accusing Dr. Bell of fictionalizing the case studies he described, questioning his credentials, withholding his report from certain governors, and preventing him from attending a meeting to discuss the Medical Director’s response to his report." (continues)

quillette.com/2020/01/17/why-i-resigned-from-tavistock-trans-identified-children-need-therapy-not-just-affirmation-and-drugs/

Wow. Joining you all in the cautiously optimistic corner.

At last. The tide is turning.

Still it's a really positive sign. We need to double down on lobbying now the door is opening. There will be a well connected, organised machine pushing in the other direction.

Absolutely this.

I've never voted Tory. But, if they keep this up, I might.

Sex segregated spaces can be dismantled once male people stop killing, threatening and creeping out female people. Til then, get out my changing room with your penis.

I’ve never voted Tory, in fact I was a Labour activist in the past. But with Liz Truss and Jackie Doyle-Price speaking out, the general tenor of Conservative Woman and in contrast to the mood from the left, I genuinely feel that I am now a true conservative. If they fix this issue, I will definitely vote for them. In fact I am considering joining the party to help move this issue along. Shame on Labour, they only have themselves to blame!

There is no guarantee any of this will happen. If a law is put forward the combine votes of Lab, Lib, Green, SNP and trans tories will stop it from being past.

And you can get given the coverage this has had that Stonewall and others will be going into overdrive to ensure that the sucessful lobbying they have done over the past decade isn't stopped.

And as I said earlier, what exactly has LT said that isn't already a fact. But have been undermined because the trans lobby has capture not just politics but medicine as well.

I expect a letter to the Times or wherever from professionals stating categorically that the young people will be damaged if not allowed to follow what they believe.

Remember she is stating that adults should be allowed to do what makes them happy. ie women's erasure will continue because some men, supported by a huge number of woke people will demand their right to be happy by making others say they are women.

I'm seeing a lot of TRAs appealing to Marsha de Cordova (new shadow Equalities minister) asking her to oppose this.
She hasn't responded but doesn't seem to be very active on Twitter. If you're on there, might be worth asking her to support Liz Truss so she gets a view of both sides and not just hyperbole.
It'll be interesting to see how or if Labour responds to this.

Jess Phillips MP has the shadow Safeguarding (Home Office) brief.

There is no guarantee any of this will happen. If a law is put forward the combine votes of Lab, Lib, Green, SNP and trans tories will stop it from being past.

I disagree. The Tories have a whopping 80+ seat majority. You'd need an awful lot of TRAs amongst Tory MPs to swing it the other way. As far as I can see, this new lot are less liberal-minded than the last intake, so I can't see them rebelling against the government against this. Especially not given that most of the Tory-voting heartlands are not sympathetic to the TRA arguments.

I think RoyalCorgi is right. There'll be enough Tories to put it through, but along with that I don't think there are enough true believers in other parties to be able to oppose it. It'll be interesting to see how they vote but I suspect a good portion of Labour/Green/SNP/LD MPs won't want to touch it with a barge pole and will just abstain.

In terms of sex segregation, the law is already in place. All they have to do is highlight it and let retailers, services, the DofE, the NHS, the police, and everyone else, know.

Many people are being constrained by Stonewall law. Not the actual law.

I think the true nature of the TRA's is finally starting to leak out into the wider public, and it is certainly not a vote winner

I remember discussing this a while back with some colleagues, and asking them what image they had in their minds of a Trans woman/girl. For all of them, it was pretty much a gay boy/man, who really struggled with society's view of masculinity, and would be altogether "better", and happier living as a girl. .
Their imaginations certainly did NOT stretch to straight men, telling the world that they "identify" as woman, and hence shagging (real) women makes them lesbians.

I may also have shown them a photo of Alex Drummond from Stonewall........

I'm hoping that SuitedandBooted is right. The real nature of the aggressive totalitarian trans activists has finally been exposed - and they did it all themselves - plastering it all over social media.
#nodebate has been silenced and the public don't like what they see - especially in relation to children.

But we should be very cautious. These people have their hands round some very powerful throats and there are a significant number of new gay male MPs. And as we have seen from the behaviour of the old gay males in the House of Lords, they rarely miss an opportunity to put the boot into women's rights.

Regarding Mermaid's statement - they claim it's discriminatory to treat trans children as less able to make an informed decision about their medical treatment than 'cis' children (less likely to have Gillick competence). But what comparable medical pathway would a 'cis' child be likely to choose? We're talking about compromising the future fertility of trans children, or eliminating it altogether if they progress from puberty blockers to cross-sex hormones and then surgery. If a young 'cis' woman (let alone a girl) who is certain that she never wants children goes to her doctor and asks to be referred for a sterilisation procedure she will most likely be refused on the grounds that she might change her mind later. Or if she has acute endometriosis and requests a hysterectomy to alleviate her suffering this will only be granted as a last resort, if at all. If she has chronic back pain due to having large breasts and requests a reduction, she'll likely have to fight tooth and nail to get it.

If there is an inequality in medical treatment provision between trans and cis, I can't see it.

they claim it's discriminatory to treat trans children as less able to make an informed decision about their medical treatment than 'cis' children (less likely to have Gillick competence). But what comparable medical pathway would a 'cis' child be likely to choose?

The only example I can think of is incredibly rare life saving procedures such as choosing to have chemotherapy or a hystorectomy for cancer or choosing to have a limb amputated to combat blood poisoniong. Such decisions are weighed incredibly carefully and certainly not taken without parental consent as well.

I imagine their ridiculous argument is that taking off-use drugs as puberty blockers or cross sex hormones is just as urgent because otherwise the kids will commit suicide.

Yet them constantly fucking telling everyone that trans kids kill themselves apparently carries no risk.

Regarding Mermaid's statement - they claim it's discriminatory to treat trans children as less able to make an informed decision about their medical treatment than 'cis' children (less likely to have Gillick competence). But what comparable medical pathway would a 'cis' child be likely to choose?

It really isn't comparable, is it? Although I've being seeing it compared to all sorts of other things like contraception and abortion.

I think the difference is the result of medical action or inaction.
If a girl takes contraception or has an abortion, her body and life (for the most part) stays the same as if she did not conceive a child. In this case, the action of taking contraception or having an abortion serves to maintain equilibrium.
Medical inaction means she goes through pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood, resulting in substantial life changes.

With trans children, its completely the other way around.
Medical inaction means the child continues to have a physical, healthy body so that physical equilibrium is maintained, whereas action results in substantial physical changes that puts the child on a medical pathway of drugs, surgery and medical intervention that will almost certainly substantially alter their body for life.
They are the complete opposite.

In donquixotedelamancha's the action has to be taken to prevent far more serious physical consequences (terminal cancer,blood poisoning).
In no other Gillick case does not doing anything mean continuing to have a physical, healthy body and no changes.