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

I do wish we in schools were allowed to teach children about critical thinking, and the reliability (or lack thereof) of different “sources”.

Also just think of all the complaints the MP would get about her SPAG! If she existed, that is.

Family of aliens are you a teacher , are you saying this is not taught ? Shocking if so

Picking up on the writing to MPs point - would it be worth writing to, eg, M&S to point out that the government has clearly signified a commitment to EA2010 provisions and the protection of single sex spaces, so their actions have been a misinterpretation of the law at best and we look forward to the correct provision being restored and shopping in their stores once they reopen?

John Lewis, any council facilities, rinse and repeat?

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.

There is no comparison between the two because

1. the alternative to an abortion is not doing nothing, it is having a baby.
2. the medical consequences of an abortion are predictable.

You could perhaps draw a comparison between somebody who wanted to go on puberty blockers and a 14 year old who wanted to be sterilised... except it's unlikely that a doctor would agree to sterilise a 14 year old.

In the UK 'Gillick competence' doesn't give anyone the ability to demand medical treatment if the doctor does not agree that it is in the best interests of the patient.

I can't think of a parallel modern situation outside of adult elective cosmetic surgery, where an emotional pain is regarded as the basis for surgery, never mind chemical/surgical sterilisation and removal of healthy body parts. Lobotomy was at one point in history regarded as a kind and merciful release from unbearable mental distress: that was how medics of the time phrased it, and some of that was with consenting patients. The modern and progressive solution of the moment, extremely fashionable, banned in the 70s amid massed concerns about the loss of individual rights through the surgery and now seen as an awful thing. Likewise the castrati with surgery to preserve their voices, made illegal in 1861 as unacceptable even with a child actively requesting it.

Just to add this latest addition of examples of the msm giving transactivists the right to misrepresent what Liz Truss said.
metro.co.uk/2020/05/03/trangender-rights-healthcare-attack-12616022/

And as far as I know since 23rd April not one paper has published an article about how the EA already exists to protect single sex spaces.

Just adding this as another example of how trans activists are still being given media coverage to spout their hyped up terror of Liz Truss' very reasonable comments!

North East LGBT campaigners 'terrified' by Equalities Minister comments on transgender rights www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/north-east-lgbt-campaigners-terrified-18193267

God there is no balance here at all is there, and inaccurate stats and references to Stonewall as per usual.

I mean I'm not surprised but IPSO should be doing something about this.

Have you complained stumbled?

If anyone is reduced to terror that easily it's a mystery how they manage to get through the day.

She talked about 'protecting single sex spaces' - this is often around things like bathrooms but, in reality, you wouldn't want a six-foot transgender man with a beard in the women's toilet,

Oh look. Female transitioners are being wedged into the issue once more. Odd how they are dragged in, not to argue for their rights, but in order to stop women protesting against men in their spaces.

If women who’ve taken testosterone want to use men’s spaces, they can do so. If men don’t like it, they can object. Women are arguing for women’s spaces, not single-sex spaces.

And with regard to Gillick competence, I think trans campaigners are painting it as young people being allowed a free choice, whereas it's much more complex. If a doctor wouldn’t allow young people to be sterilised by choice, they should be equally reluctant to put young people on a pathway, if that pathway has been shown to lead to sterility.

Another thought crossed my mind as I was re-reading. Calling for women’s rights is so stigmatised, and so open to attacks by MRAs that Liz Truss can’t even say we want protection for women’s spaces. She has to say single-sex spaces. We are stymied at every level.

I was shocked to day to find an advert for binders on my FB feed. Produced by a 'trans family'whatever that is. Was surprised at the normalising of it. I'd consider it a piece of medical equipment if nothing else.

Producing items that warp the ribs of young people and make it hard for them to breathe certainly is an interesting choice for a family business.

OhHolyJesus - I didn't I'm afraid. it came up on a news feed and I just thought FFS!

I wonder if anyone from the NE would like to say something.

In fact maybe not a complaint but just a straightforward explanation that all LT said is in fact the law. ie EA and under 18s aren't usually allowed to decided their own medical treatment.

in reality, you wouldn't want a six-foot transgender man with a beard in the women's toilet

Why 6 foot? Does identifying as man suddenly make you grow taller? In fact, wasn't there a study into puberty blockers that showed they limited height growth?

Anecdata I know but most of the trans men I've encountered have been on the teeny side even by female standards. Not sure why or if being short somehow fuels the desire to take testosterone.

in reality, you wouldn't want a six-foot transgender man with a beard in the women's toilet

@merrymouse your analogy to sterilisation is so poignant, my husband and I decided to discuss options with our GP on family planning at my 6 week check after our third child. My GP wants my OH to wait 6 months before even coming in to discuss a vasectomy as we might not be done having kids and he flat out said that in his medical opinion sterilisation for women carried to many risks and would be a last resort for family planning.

Im 32 and my husband is 39 and more thought was given into our care than when puberty blockers are subscribed.

Wow. So adults in their thirties who already have children need to be cautious about sterilisation because they might change their minds or should look at less risky and invasive options first.

Yet a child or teenager absolutely knows their mind and understands the full ramifications of sterilisation and lifelong medical complications if they invoke the sacred word 'trans'.

in reality, you wouldn't want a six-foot transgender man with a beard in the women's toilet

That picture is great, Tinsel!

It paints a thousand words, doesn't it, Ereshkigalangcleg?

It sure does!

in reality, you wouldn't want a six-foot transgender man with a beard in the women's toilet

I know that when TRAs say 'transgender man' they mean a woman who identifies as a man, but my immediate mental image on reading that was someone like Muscato or Alex Drummond, so my reaction was to agree with the statement. And as I said on another thread, the term 'transgender man' makes far more sense as a description of a man who identifies as transgender.

But do the people who say this stuff think that six-foot male trans people with beards belong in the women's toilets, but the female ones don't?

but my immediate mental image on reading that was someone like Muscato or Alex Drummond, so my reaction was to agree with the statement.

Same here.