Liz Truss reveals ‘shocking’ plan to remove healthcare for trans youth, slammed as an ‘extraordinary’ attack on equality - the backlash begins

[stumbledin]

Predictably trans activists and their media allies have started misrepresenting what Liz Truss said.

"" ... Worryingly, only one of the three principles set out by Truss actually relates to GRA reform.

The other two – the protection of single-sex spaces for women and access to healthcare for transgender youth – are talking points often repeated by those opposed to trans rights in any form. ... "

(ie protecting women's rights is anti trans)

" ... “It would be an extraordinary move for the minister for women and equalities to support the introduction of a new form of inequality into British medical practice, by effectively treating transgender teenagers as less capable than their cisgender peers.

“We believe that transgender young people should have the same right to make important personal decisions as non-trans people.

“Furthermore, 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.” ... "

(This is pink news so not surprising that they would take this tone!)

Meanwhile in the Independent:

" ... LGBT rights group Stonewall demanded talks with the minister to establish what decisions she had in mind and to ensure that young people continue to be offered appropriate support. ... "

" ... We’d welcome an opportunity to discuss this with the minister, as it’s crucial all young people who are questioning their gender identity are able to access high-quality, timely support. Every trans young person should be given the care they need, in an informed and supportive manner, so they’re able to lead a happy, healthy life.” ... "

As far as I know no women's groups or services have made any statement, eg re confirmation that single sex service provision is guaranteed under the EA.

Pink News: www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/04/23/liz-truss-trans-rights-gender-recognition-act-reform-healthcare-puberty-blockers-backlash/

Independent: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lgbt-gender-government-liz-truss-transgender-rights-consultation-a9478901.html

One argument the TRAs have got is that if we don't let kids take puberty blockers etc, the next step will be refusing to let young people have abortions. But the point is protecting kids. You don't protect a girl by forcing her to go through pregnancy and childbirth against her will. You do protect her by not allowing her to get hormone treatment or surgery until she's mature enough to really know what she wants.

There's a male to female trans vicar who was interviewed on the BBC the other day, and who gave a a sermon on the BBC, and chose to talk about being trans. In the interview, the vicar said that Jesus struggled to recognise his identity as son of God, and that trans people were following Jesus in recognising the importance of discovering their own true identity. You need to recognise your own identity and become who you really are before you can then do other Christian stuff in the community (ok, my words, but I think that was the gist of the vicar's argument).

Post edited by MNHQ

We believe that transgender young people should have the same right to make important personal decisions as non-trans people.

Jolly good. Women in their late thirties, with three or more children, are often refused tubal ligation because their doctor refuses to listen to their list of well thought out reasons, and judges that they might come to regret it later.

So let's be sure to give transchildren the exact same rights as grown women, and leave all the important, irreversible, fertility destroying decisions until after the age of 40.

So trans people think comparing themselves to someone in a story will strengthen the argument that trans identity is a real thing?

I think my head is going to explode.

Jesus struggled to recognise his identity as son of God

I know most theology is made up by someone at some point, but this is a complete innovation designed to bend Christian lingo into trans ideology. Even on a strict bible-only viewpoint, the only people who struggled to recognize Jesus identity were his family and his friends. He is quite sure of himself from his first recorded words. Though I'm sure that can be bent into the service of the identity cult, everything can, just as everything is simultaneously transphobic.

I give no shits any more. Believe whatever sillyarse bollocks you fancy. But the line is drawn when you try and enforce compliance on everyone else, same as ever.

“Jolly good. Women in their late thirties, with three or more children, are often refused tubal ligation because their doctor refuses to listen to their list of well thought out reasons, and judges that they might come to regret it later. “
Good point

I don’t think most people think that people can change sex. Most people in the real world haven’t heard of Mermaids and the people I know still use the term ‘transvestite’ I’ve rarely heard the issues discussed irl and only then In passing with an eye roll and “ “ s .

Am I reading this right? Is a vicar saying that being trans is a bit like... being Jesus now?

MissSnippyPants I have been part of trying to ensure the politics of women's liberation for over 40 years - where were you.

And long before you got round to hearing about it women were trying to raise this issue and being silenced in the Guardian over 20 years ago.

So I have no believe that the current transient Minister for Women in going to overturn the determined infiltration of the establishment by queer politcs, since they shut down women's studies in Universities in the 80s.

However gratifying it is to see articles in the Times and a few other right wing papers, in fact it only intensifies and to some extent confirms to the trans lobby and their followers that they are the spearhead of liberal left politics against the rearguard action of right wingers and 70s feminists.

Also, as a political realist we know, even before the coronavirus that Boris is as likely to take a stand on this as a jelly fish is likely to take a stand in a strong current.

There is nothing new in her statements. She has merely said what is in fact already in law, but not being acted on because the trans activists are more infuencial and have been able to persuade people they don't need to follow the law or medical guidelines.

We have nearly 2 generations who have grown up thinking sex and gender are the same thing. Elitist papers publishing occassional articles are never going to compete against popular culture and media figures.

The mumsnet bubble is great for letting off steam but doesn't translate into changing social attitudes.

At the very least I suggest anyone who has a Tory MP writes to them and say how please they are to see that despite the COVID-19 crisis that Ministers are continuing to oversee day to day business. And that how reassuring it was to hear Liz Truss confirm that single sex services are guaranteed under the EA and that she is concerned to protect under age children from taking decisions before they are old enough to fully understand the implications.

In the meantime, someone needs to work out how to turn all the MPs from all the other parties who are totally committed to self identification, and in fact Liz Truss' statement could be said to also support that.

As I said on another thread its just a shame that 20 years ago mumsnetters weren't opposing the entryism of queer politics in women's liberation, with the tacit support of the establishment which is inherently anti woman.

20 years ago Mumsnet only had about 6 members and a pot plant, to be fair...

Am I reading this right? Is a vicar saying that being trans is a bit like... being Jesus now?

Rev Canon Rachel Mann took a similar position in the R4 Lent lecture.

Mann reiterated & explained this on Feedback at the weekend
www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000h947

Rachel Mann was also recently on The Moral Maze with Jane Fae & Graham Linehan:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3833217-Lent-Talk-to-be-given-by-Rachel-Mann-on-Radio-4-on-Trans-Identity

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3827771-Moral-Maze-Radio-4-8pm-19-Feb-Transcript

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3826996-Moral-Maze-Radio-4-8pm-19-Feb-Transgender-Rights

Rev Canon Rachel Mann took a similar position in the R4 Lent lecture.

Thank you for the links! Should’ve seen that comparison coming.

Is that the same Rev who writes pervy poetry about teenage girls ? Just what we all need

Hardly surprising that people in a movement that insists they are the centre of their own created universe would compare themselves to the Messiah.

One argument the TRAs have got is that if we don't let kids take puberty blockers etc, the next step will be refusing to let young people have abortions. But the point is protecting kids. You don't protect a girl by forcing her to go through pregnancy and childbirth against her will. You do protect her by not allowing her to get hormone treatment or surgery until she's mature enough to really know what she wants.

It's not necessarily wrong to look at some other issue that hinges on similar arguments and see if they are consistent, but it's usually complex unless it's a straight out logical comparison.

But even if you decide they are very comparable, it's always possible that it's the thing you are comparing to that is problematic and which needs to be re-examined. The question of minors and abortion or access to birth control has always been a difficult one where none of the answers seems really great.

Anyone trying to claim that accepting x means accepting y should realise that can go both ways. It's not some kind of terminal argument.

The problem with conflating puberty blockers and cross sex hormones with contraception and abortion is one of evidence base. There is a wealth of data on the long-term impact of taking hormonal contraceptives and having an abortion. This means children can be fully informed and potentially enabled to consent to these treatments. There is no robust evidence on the impact of taking puberty blockers and cross sex hormones - indeed these treatments have such a paucity of evidence that there is no licence for their use in this area. This means that it is not possible for children be fully informed enough to consent to take these drugs and thereby demonstrate Gillick competence to make that choice. Unless and until there are robust long-term studies in this area, the NHS should not be funding this treatment. And there should be questions raised as to the ethics of doing this in the private sector in the absence of evidence. The TRAs can gnash their teeth but it is their failure to allow genuine research to take place that has led to this inability to demonstrate medical benefit. I hope this review finally puts a stop to this dangerous treatment protocol.

We need the TRAs to start disruptive protests and make outrageous demands. Let this happen as soon as possible. Watched by a public having real issues on their minds.

Agree. Sunlight.

I disagree that children will ever be able to demonstrate Gillick competence in making decisions over puberty blockers and cross sex hormones, no matter how much research is done. They simply have no idea or experience in what they are sacrificing and simply cannot consent to not developing sexually or sterility. Gillick competency simply does not apply to this area.

One argument the TRAs have got is that if we don't let kids take puberty blockers etc, the next step will be refusing to let young people have abortions

I read this and assumed they are trying once again to pretend that those of us who protest against the unsafe medicalisation of a mental health condition are actually far-right Conservative Christians.

You don't need to worry about Gillick competence when it comes to gender identity issues Apollo
The wishes of the child override the wishes of the parent/guardian whether the child is Gillick competent or not

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/11/nhs-staff-advised-ignore-parents-wishes-children-self-declare/

Gender ideologues have to keep making false analogies and distract us by unpicking them.

The truth is their demands are not “similar” to other situations.

There is no other group that demands we create a complicated legal mechanism to falsify birth certificates retrospectively in order to validate their subjective sense of identity. There is no other group that demands we suspend our belief in reality. There is no other group demanding people (many whom they themselves say have serious issues like depression or suicidal ideation) be put on life-altering cosmetic hormonal/surgical pathways to make them look a bit more like a member of the opposite sex.

A young woman who needs an abortion because she was raped is not the same, EVER, as a male who declares he feels like a woman demanding facial hair removal on the NHS.

A young woman taking hormonal contraception (so she can have sex with her boyfriend) is not the same as a child going on experimental treatment that can make them infertile and a medical patient for life, in a situation where the evidence suggests that if you do nothing 80% of cases will resolve by themselves.

This has fuck all to do with Gillick or reproductive rights. What transactivists are doing is sleight-of-hand trickery, coopting other struggles to mask the reality of their position.

What’s also interesting is that the most intellectually honest analogies, such as with “trans-racialism,” “trans-ableism” and “trans-ageism” are being barred from proper scrutiny. You’re immediately labelled transphobic if you bring up the real & philosophical questions at hand of how offensive some of these ideas are around stereotypes, how someone can claim to identify as what they are objectively not and why some “internal essences” are labelled “more real” than others.

Agree 100%

This has fuck all to do with Gillick or reproductive rights. What transactivists are doing is sleight-of-hand trickery, coopting other struggles to mask the reality of their position.

Which is the main tactic they employ in everything.

Love your post @witchesaremysisters.

And totally see your point about the out-of-bounds “transracial” analogy, in that we are not allowed to point out that if, say, a white personal identifies as black, she would be viewed as delusional. And that if a whole group of white people did this and claimed they were black people when they’re not, this would be deeply offensive and harmful to a group that has a long history of oppression and maltreatment at the hands of the other group.

But can you clarify what you mean about the potential parallels with “trans-ableism” and “trans-ageism”, which we are also not allowed to consider? Sorry, I’m feeling a bit dopey this morning!

But can you clarify what you mean about the potential parallels with “trans-ableism” and “trans-ageism”, which we are also not allowed to consider? Sorry, I’m feeling a bit dopey this morning!

Funnily enough, "trans-ageism* is the superficially most rationally convincing of all these trans-situations. We all know cases of people in their 60's looking 20 years younger, people in their 40's looking 10 years older. In many cases it's easy to deceive others as to our age, if only by a few years. Old people can feel young, young people can feel old, and we can all "get" that and sympathise.

Yet we still don't make such cases official. We don't change birth certificates to an older or younger age. We don't allow 40-year-olds to get their pension, no matter how old they feel. I have a photo of myself aged 25, and everyone says I look like 15. I still wouldn't be allowed to get certain youth discounts back then. And a man still can't have sex with a 14 year old girl who looks (and feels) 20.