Tavistock data review

[McDuffy]

Gender change data to be scrutinised

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cedc8a46-f7e3-11ec-84c1-32e852e780b0?shareToken=af430bf386b617dba5cad2f2f4b6b2aa

Helleofabore Did you look at the cohort stats - 6% (so 36) in the study were under 5!

What makes you think it's about looking for harm. In the article it said it's about looking at more data to produce more robust evidence on treatment. So proper evidence based treatment.

Good work, Saj.

So he's a Tory? Big deal. Doesn't automatically make him public enemy number 1. He is an individual.

madcats I really did skim as I am trying to do work at the same time. 36? Fuck!

Mind you, if they all desist that would also be worthy to note too. But grim, grim, grim!

Fucking WHAT

As far as I recall, the NHS records have sections for both biological sex and gender identity,. So yes, both can be recorded, but for unknown reasons, the NHS are only recording by the latter - gender identity.

It doesn't matter what they find. Follow ups are essential for individuals and research purposes. It is absolutely appalling, should be criminal, that it has not been happening.

God, I have a 5yo and 3yo. My 3yo cries that she can't wear her Spider-Girl outfit to nursery every day.

"I'm a bit perplexed about why those who have transitioned are given a new NHS number, that's crazy."
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere one of the digits of your number indicates your sex, but I've just searched and can't find any reference to that.

"He's a tory. So no."
No, he's not excellent because he's a Tory; or no, no embarrassment to us as the next Prime Minister because he's a Tory?

Labour haven't exactly covered themselves in glory here. And without the fifty or so seats they used to get from Scotland prior to the rise of the SNP, there's going to need to be some pretty exceptional circumstances for them to get a majority again. The next Prime Minister is probably going to be another Tory, so you might just have to grit your teeth on that one.

Grown ups have stepped up and said 'hang on we should do some research on this, and shouldn't hide it by having different NHS numbers which prevent follow up studies'.

And all people can do is refer to which political party they belong to?

FFS, that ideological tribal crap is one of the reasons why we are in this mess in the first place.

Precisely because people were silenced for not towing party line or following the activist line (sorry lobby group).

We need people with clear heads to look at this objectively and actually value science. This isn't something that should be politically aligned. We should do it as default, if we value actually doing the best by kids / trans people / vulnerable adults / women / any other group of collective humans you might wish to mention.

The tribalism isn't helping anyone who needs it.

Covered in the Mail, in quite a long article:

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10969077/Every-trans-child-treated-NHS-records-scrutinised-regret-transitioning.html

I've been waiting all day to see how Mermaids and all the other trans organisations would respond to this significant development. So far it's been radio silence from them all

I wonder what the retention schedules are like for NHS records of people who have changed their NHS 'identity'? I'm hoping there have been robust record-keeping practices so that they can join the dots. It's quite a huge data protection minefield. Will they contact each individual for consent or are our health records usually available to scrutinise by academics for research purposes?

And what about non-binary patients? Do they get a special marker?

Perhaps their NHS number ends in a zero, OneBook!

I meant to add that I was joking, though it's hard to tell these days...

I've had a look at DD's and my NHS numbers. They start and finish with different digits and there is no sign of our DoB's in them.

They are just 10 digit numbers, which I have only consciously had to use to re-register at our dentist and for the NHS/Covid app.

I have a hazy recollection that I USED to have a "number" with 5 letters and 3 numbers in it, but that was decades ago.

The format changed in 1995, I believe, or thereabouts.

Statement by Javid. It is S22 but also the Order is for 5 years:

questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2022-06-30/hcws170

"the Order will expire after a period of 5 years which is the maximum amount of time that we believe the project will take"

And it's for the Cass Review:

"This statutory instrument will make a minor change under the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004 in order to facilitate the invaluable research being undertaken as part of Dr Hilary Cass Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people (the Cass Revieww_)"

So is it going to take that long, or is this a related project?

This has resulted in real transphobia in how patients have been cared for as well as dangers to their health.

There was a guardian article a few years ago detailing the issues trans people had had with this. It was ironically demonstrating the importance of sex and knowing one's sex....

It's a bit irritating the the Cass Review site hasn't been updated with this announcement or a holding post about when they might post their intended review plans and notional timescales.

cass.independent-review.uk/

Of course it has. To say anything is to admit they are worried what might be found out. They have to appear to support this and welcome this as anything else shows they know they have been lying all along.

They have to appear to support this and welcome this as anything else shows they know they have been lying all along.

Nah, it's just that the bulk order of emotional support dogs hasn't arrived yet...!

Also, distinguishing between their emotional support mums and dads is proving more difficult than they had anticipated.

Should probably just hold any court case at Whipsnade and be done with it

Lion under oath? You're 'aving a giraffe...