Helen Webberley - hearing continues

[ItsLateHumpty]

See the original thread here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4288795-Helen-Webberley?

And now Helen Webberley is back in court as the GMC seeks to extend her suspension until August 2022

Gender GP thread starts here:

twitter.com/GenderGP/status/1466049063099510790

GenderGP @ GenderGP
We're covering the hearing re Dr Webberley. There has been a failure of the GMC to disclose the full bundle, counsel for the GMC is explaining this is due to page limits put on submissions.

GMC Counsel is requesting an extension of the suspension for a period of 8 months. Dr Helen's counsel asks why the case won't finish for a year. GMC Counsel says that question is irrelevant to today's hearing.
12:48 AM · Dec 2, 2021·Twitter Web App

And Helens own Twitter here:

twitter.com/MyWebDoctorUK/status/1465727253392805893

Dr Helen Webberley 🏳️‍⚧️🧜‍♀️🏳️‍⚧️ @ MyWebDoctorUK
I have been unable to work as a doctor since May 2017 because of the GMC investigation into my work. The original restrictions were in place for 18 months and that has been extended many times to allow for delays and processes.
3:29 AM · Dec 1, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

twitter.com/MyWebDoctorUK/status/1466106056506060809

Dr Helen Webberley 🏳️‍⚧️🧜‍♀️🏳️‍⚧️ @ MyWebDoctorUK
Hello 👋 I promised you an update. The hearing went well, I feel, and Tim Buley QC laid out my case very clearly. He explained that a lot of this is due to different opinions in the care of trans youth. We have no decision until Monday morning so I will update you then. 🏳️‍⚧️💜🏳️‍⚧️
4:34 AM · Dec 2, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

So it looks possible that possible Helen Webberley will be able to return to practice soon? I guess it rests on Mondays court ruling because her suspension runs out before the MPTS judgment.

HW tweet above suggests the judge was sympathetic. Can we hope that the GMCs requested extension will be granted?

HW tweet above suggests the judge was sympathetic. Can we hope that the GMCs requested extension will be granted?

As per the other thread about HW - she's been kept out of practice for a long time because of this process.

I deplore her activities and acknowledge that the GMC is handling this very badly and is in grave danger of having to (essentially) abandon this case.

Judge expresses no view on either set of opinions. The evidence is of serious allegations, not simply limited to pt treatment

Probity and/or failure of cooperation with regulatory process are serious

Maybe HW is going to receive an extension to her suspension after all?

From tribunal tweets:

It must be possible for MPTS to manage handing down the determination in public so the delay from Jan to April is simply incomprehensible

Suspension for 3 months from today - so can be referred to IOT and MPTS gets tribunal

Judge tells MPTS & GMC to consider his reasons if there is any return to the High Court

So 3 months suspension for Webberley and the MPTS told to get a move on as the proposed 6 months delay is far too long

twitter.com/tribunaltweets2/status/1518532570618728450

"The Medical Practitioners' Tribunal has issued the finding of facts in the case of Dr Helen Webberley. 36 allegations proved. 83 allegations found not proved or rejected under Rule 17(2)(g) on sufficient evidence."

Worth keeping an eye on this Twitter thread

Thanks Fenlandia, the finding of the facts here

twitter.com/tribunaltweets2/status/1518543396922658817?s=21&t=5s6w1gs7bYbe8NmdvtLZ_g

Is a bugger to read on my phone, but the first proven allegations look pretty damning to me.

There's a lot to pick through there, I'm hoping journalists or the excellent minds on this board can summarise. I'm still astonished how 'trans healthcare' generally seems to operate in a wild west world of its own compared to just about any other discipline.

Well. I have skim read and it is not as damning as it might be.

I am actually surprised by some of it:

Thus, gender dysphoria is no longer to be regarded as a mental illness. This is because transgenderism itself is now regarded as a somatic (i.e. bodily; corporeal; physical) state of being, not a state of mind. This re-thinking is based on evidence that gender identity is innate, rather than learned:

• Males (persons with an XY karyotype) who are raised as girls due to developmental sex abnormalities or following trauma to the penis in infancy (due, for example, to botched circumcision) experience gender dysphoria in childhood and are discontent with the feminine phenotype and gender role imposed upon them.
• Male (XY) foetuses exposed to abnormally low levels of androgens in utero are more likely to develop into transwomen. Female (XX) foetuses exposed to abnormally high levels of androgens in utero are more likely to develop into transmen.
• Adult transgender individuals often report a lifelong history of gender dysphoria which they had hidden in their formative years due to shame and/or social/family pressures.
• There is post-mortem evidence that the structural neurobiology of the brain is involved in the establishment of gender identity.

110. The enlightened thinking embraced in ICD11 regarding the somatic nature of transgenderism is not reflected in Endocrine Society Guidelines 2009, which states, contrary to ample extant evidence, that ‘One’s self-awareness as male or female evolves gradually during infant life and childhood.’ This view of the aetiology of transgenderism is repeated verbatim in the 2017 update of the Endocrine Society’s Clinical Practice Guideline. Even the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) stated that gender dysphoria is ‘developmental’ in nature in their 1998 publication Guidance for the management of gender identity disorders in children and adolescents.

111. The Tribunal finds that the reluctance of the Endocrine Society and others to embrace enlightened views of transgenderism is symptomatic of the tendency in all professions to be slow to move with the times. This inertia in respect to medical attitudes to transgenderism mirrors past attitudes to homosexuality, which was classified by the APA as a mental illness until the 1973 edition of their DMS.

112. ICD11 came into effect in January 2022 and with it the reclassification of gender dysphoria from a mental illness to a condition related to sexual health. This did not mean, of course, that the nature of gender dysphoria itself changed on 1 January 2022: it is merely the system of nosology that changed. Importantly, the Tribunal finds that at the material time (2016/17), those with an interest in transgender healthcare, such as Dr Webberley, would have been aware that there was a growing body of opinion that gender dysphoria should cease to be considered a psychiatric disorder. Thus:

• The drive to change the medical approach to gender dysphoria was given impetus when WPATH released a statement in May 2010 urging the ‘de-psychopathologisation of gender nonconformity worldwide’.
• In the same year, gender reassignment became a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.
• The new thinking embodied in ICD11 during its drafting and consultation phase had provoked comment in the medical literature since at least 2012.
• Dr Dean, in his oral evidence, referred to an e-learning module hosted at the material time by the Royal College of General Practitioners and stated: ‘It made a strong emphasis on the, excuse the long word, de-psychopathologisation, that being transgender diverse isn't a disorder, that it isn't a mental health condition, that gender diverse people may experience mental health, common mental health problems more frequently than the general population, but that is not inherent in them being gender diverse.’ Dr Webberley completed that e-learning and was therefore aware of the evolving opinion in transgender healthcare that being transgender is not a mental illness.

I am not sure I agree that some of the thinking referred to here is 'enlightened'.

Not that "in utero hormone wash" thing again. Has that ever been proved? Why is trans identification so heavily observed in a) middle-aged males and b) young females rather than appearing more generally across age groups?

That is so concerning. How can trying to change the sex of a twelve year old child by the use of testosterone be regarded as ‘enlightened’ and at the ‘vanguard’ of treatment?

The government has to legislate.

‘Has that ever been proved?’

Not to my knowledge and certainly if it were true it would be newsworthy.

I would love to see the studies they mention. If there is evidence of hormonal abnormalities or changes in brain structures this means a test could be developed and then the risk of giving treatment to people who are not truly trans would be greatly reduced. Cheers all round.

So the tribunal has entirely swallowed the narrative created by the lobby groups through the capture of institutions? Is there any evidence for any of their "scientific" findings? So far as I am aware all those points are either speculative theories or debunked.

Indeed I imagine that both the expert witnesses and the court are captured.

But then even so, a tendency towards developing one ‘gender identity’ or the other given the presence of a particular neurological structure wouldn’t necessitate a child ‘changing sex’ (which you can’t do). Some people are gender non-conforming. I don’t see why that means they must also to infertile, have osteoporosis, have parts of themselves physically modified (unless that is their adult preference). A child of 12 can’t understand these issues and there is no suggestion that any firm effort was made to find out if they did.

"Enlightened views"? I'm gobsmacked that a tribunal would use such cartoonishly subjective language. If they actually think that the science has been proven then they can just say so - no need for creeping value-laden terms like "enlightened".
So essentially, Dr Webberley was just "getting ahead of the law" and "getting ahead of medical opinion" too, I suppose. A woman before her time, crying out in the wilderness...

Absolutely. Even if the existence of a brain secondary sex characteristic could be found that would say nothing about whether physical (or even social) transition is a sensible path to take. As it is, there is no evidence of such a secondary sexual characteristic, nor of a gendered soul, what we are actually dealing with is subjective experiences/feelings and different ways of conceptualising those experiences and feelings.

Any excellent explanation of what the craic is with ICD 11 & “gender identity” courtesy of The WHO.

I’m not entirely sure the move is everything TRAs wanted when they were demanding ICD stop classifying being trans as a mental health issue.

Gender incongruence has thus broadly been moved out of the “Mental and behavioural disorders” chapter and into the new “Conditions related to sexual health” chapter. This reflects evidence that trans-related and gender diverse identities are not conditions of mental ill health, and classifying them as such can cause enormous stigma.
Inclusion of gender incongruence in the ICD should ensure transgender people’s access to gender-affirming health care, as well as adequate health insurance coverage for such services. Recognition in the ICD also acknowledges the links between gender identity, sexual behaviour, exposure to violence and sexually transmitted infections.

So they’ve moved gender incongruence from the MH section (claiming there is evidence to do so 🙄) & made a point of how important it is that it still be IN the ICD so that people not only have access to transition-related healthcare, they don’t have to pay out of pocket/self-fund. Hurrah for that & being away from the dreadful stigma of characterising “wanting to be a member of the opposite sex & in some cases seeking drastic surgery to your genitalia to try to achieve this” as a condition related to mental health.

Obviously saying it’s a SEXUAL health condition has no stigma at all. Particularly in socially conservative countries. Not ideal having The WHO do a handy press release that basically says “trans people are sexual deviants” if you are hoping to be accepted/need to convince people you’re not going to shame your community. Because that reading of the message will get around. Presumably The WHO are actually referring to the fact that there are known to be a large number of trans women engaged in prostitution; but their failure to make that explicit looks like a more general comment on the lifestyles & choices of trans people.

Most of all, though, children & young teens shouldn’t be being bundled into this category. There are, of course, children & young teens who will contract STIs (other than those passed on at birth I mean) but every incidence of that is the result of a crime. I really REALLY hope that the ICD has left children where they were, or put them somewhere else (I’m clinging to the use of word “broadly”) because God well knows people have no business trying to create a “sexual identity” for them, much less link it to their stated gender one.

Genuinely feel a bit sick now.

That really isn't very enlightened. For a start they are conflating DSDs, unproven stuff about hormone washes in the womb (which apparently only affect the brain not the body), transgenderism and gender nonconformity.

WPATH released a statement in May 2010 urging the ‘de-psychopathologisation of gender nonconformity worldwide’.

Gender nonconformity is not the same as gender dysphoria or transgenderism (or DSDs). Of course gender nonconformity shouldn't be pathologised.

Dr Dean, in his oral evidence, referred to an e-learning module hosted at the material time by the Royal College of General Practitioners

Does it say anything else about what was contained in this e-learning module and who wrote it? I presume this came from a group like GIRES or Gendered Intelligence. Was this the short course that Webberley did which apparently made her eligible to claim to be an expert on transgenderism?

But if transgenderism is 'somatic' rather than psychological, then it should be possible to carry out diagnostic tests of someone claiming to be transgender. Not just self reports by middle-aged heterosexual men with children that they have felt like this since childhood, and young people parroting whatever they have read on the internet. How convenient that it's only post mortem tests that can establish the truth about whether a person claiming a transgender identity has the * *'structural neurobiology of the brain' which supports this (and are these tests accurate anyway?)

the reluctance of the Endocrine Society and others to embrace enlightened views of transgenderism is symptomatic of the tendency in all professions to be slow to move with the times

I find this astonishing. Given the Cass Review, the recent remarks by Sajid Javid and articles from Marci Bowers and others, this view seems to be backdated as well as extreme and hugely politically motivated.

at base, the tribunal is conflating DSDs/intersex conditions with 'transgenderism'. This also is ... surprising.

From the extracts posted above it sounds like the tribunal have credulously accepted webberleys view of trans gender identity definitely being innate & fixed from birth. That this is the enlightened and cutting edge view, dismissing the idea that it could be changeable and partially learnt. And not considering that there is a great deal of uncertainty about this.

Compare that to this jn the background section of the Cass interim report:

"1.7. At primary, secondary and specialist
level, there is a lack of agreement, and in
many instances a lack of open discussion,
about the extent to which gender
incongruence in childhood and
adolescence can be an inherent and
immutable phenomenon for which transition
is the best option for the individual, or a
more fluid and temporal response to a
range of developmental, social, and
psychological factors. Professionals’
experience and position on this spectrum
may determine their clinical approach."

It's also a bizarre argument that if a male child brought up as a girl (because of damaged genitals or whatever) can still sense they are male, then this proves that some boys are actually have an innate girl identity. Surely it's evidence that sex is central to the whole person, not just the reproductive organs. It would only support the idea of innate trans identity if you started from the premises that everyone has a sex, and a separate gender identity which is free floating from the body.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10751047/Doctor-ran-online-transgender-clinic-failed-provide-adequate-follow-care-tribunal-finds.html

First news report I've found

I've had a flick through but 205 pages is a lot to get through. I think the tribunal findings actually sum up well where we're at: transgender healthcare is in a mess. HW has been found competent to prescribe hormones because the guidance, training and policies are in such a mess. We're always finding holes in the pretzel logic that goes on and that diabolical nonsense upthread wrt hormone washes is just a small example of what the tribunal were having to work with. The 'diagnosis' in itself does not stand up to logic and therefore it's no wonder that the treatment pathways and GIDS are in such a mess. So whilst there are a lot of not proven allegations, the ones that are proven are important because they are at the core of what a Doctor should be doing, eg:

• physical examinations
• gaining consent
• record keeping
• assessing capacity

The GMC counsel didn't seem to do a very good job, however, again I think this is because of the confusion that's being dealt with (in part). Trying to drill down on something so wishy washy is like trying to nail jelly or argue with a toddler about cutted up pear. But, the tangible aspects were mainly found proven and that is a good thing. Javid needs to get a wriggle on and get addressing these issues before others spot the gap in the market, learn from HWs incompetence and start dishing out the hormones.

Sorry, in a rush, but those are my initial (not very well articulated!) thoughts so far.

Plus the criminal conviction which involved not registering with the required regulator and failing to stop treating patients when told to.