Ben Cooper QC - Lawyer of the Week (in the Times)

[Justme56]

Sorry I can't share the article, but liked this:

What is the funniest thing that has happened in your job?

As a result of my work in this area, apparently becoming an object of admiration on Mumsnet [the Internet parents' forum] - improbable in many ways.

😁

@Hearach15 it was only one link to click so not exactly rocket science your nhs site above says this

"Trans men who have had a total hysterectomy to remove their cervix do not need cervical screening. Trans men who still have a cervix should have cervical screening to help prevent cervical cancer." i.e. exactly what @Helleofabore and the cancer charity said. Your edit changed the meaning so you could argue but I can only conclude it's because you like arguing or you have the reading comprehension of a rather dim child.

I am talking about your deliberate and persistent use of 'men'.

You really must hate females hearache you cannot see how much it comes across.

YOU are using men when this is about ALL females.

What a hypocritical thing to do. You profess to care so much about trans people that you cannot even use the term female when sex is the vital fact to use.

Admit it. You actually don't care about female trans people. You have posted before discussing young female trans people with all confidence only to have your posts shown to be more misinformation.

Do you really not see your own discrimination against females here? The fact you keep thinking you are cleverly posting one sentence answers that may distract anyone reading is rather clear.

Just to point out where the 'misinformation' was that hearache is trying to deny.

Conversely, there is no point trans men who have had hysterectomy being invited for smear tests. That's a waste of the NHS's time.

The attempt to distract by the future changing of words and then another attempt by posting this ridiculous post:

The topic in question is healthcare for men who are transgender and I am getting my information from the National Health Service.

All *hearache' is actually providing is a live example of just how dangerous Stonewall and other groups guidance (and supporters who are completely uninformed but fully entrenched so they cannot see out side the propaganda) actually is when it comes to females. And how inherently misogynistic these groups actually are.

So, thank you for that everyone. And for keeping this 'Ben Cooper' thread bumped.

I'm going to make a general point about sex v gender and why it's relevant and important but I'm opting to use a non-reproductive system example.

Transgender women may be at higher risk for type 2 diabetes compared to cisgender women, but not to cisgender men, according to new research published in the Endocrine Society’s Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

It's important to understand this because of the risks involved with wider metabolic dysregulation including lower limb and circulatory disorders. Transwomen will need the same level of monitoring as the appropriate comparator group to ensure that they have adequate prevention guidance and diagnostic vigilance.

“Although more research is needed, there is little evidence that type 2 diabetes occurrence in either transgender women or transgender men is attributable to gender-affirming hormone therapy, at least in the short term,” Islam said.

Similarly, so far as is known, and this might change over time with the experience of longer-term exposure to cross-sex hormones, transmen are showing the same diabetes risk as their appropriate comparator group and not showing the risk of the acquired sex.

Extracts from this report of a study: www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2021/transgender-women-may-be-more-likely-to-have-type-2-diabetes-than-cisgender-women

Study: Noreen Islam, Rebecca Nash, Qi Zhang, Leonidas Panagiotakopoulos, Tanicia Daley, Shalender Bhasin, Darios Getahun, J Sonya Haw, Courtney McCracken, Michael J Silverberg, Vin Tangpricha, Suma Vupputuri, Michael Goodman, Is There a Link Between Hormone Use and Diabetes Incidence in Transgender People? Data From the STRONG Cohort, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Volume 107, Issue 4, April 2022, Pages e1549–e1557, doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgab832

You have carefully snipped your quote to remove the sentence directly following it where it says that those who retain their cervix still need to be screened!

Rather than arguing the toss, and carefully snipping quotes, just say:

thanks Purgatory, I didn't realise there were different types of hysterectomy, and I didn't realise that my posts could lull someone who'd had a partial hysterectomy into a false sense of security about cervical cancer.

As you have quoted yourself, the NHS specifies a total hysterectomy, not merely hysterectomy without any preceding adjective.

Are you proud of your engagement here hearache?

You missed this bit.

Trans men who still have a cervix should have cervical screening to help prevent cervical cancer..

So that would include any "trans man" who had had a partial hysterectomy, wouldn't it. But you said anyone who'd had a hysterectomy didn't need one. Like I said, dangerous oversimplification.

P.S. did you see this bit?

If you're a trans man registered with a GP as male, you will not receive automatic invitations. You can still have cervical screening. You'll need to ask your GP practice for an appointment.

This is their health being jeopardised and female transitioners receiving worse healthcare than other females because they are trans. Why don't you care about that?

For readers, this speech by the UK's Attorney General, the Right Honourable Suella Braverman QC MP may be useful.

It lays down how the government and laws have been impacted by the over reach of lobby groups. She even mentions Stonewall by name.

If anyone is foolish enough to think that Stonewall has not be directly impacted by the Allison Bailey case is obviously someone who doesn't know how businesses and departments work. So much 'winning' for Stonewall and other lobby groups in this speech. From a QC who is the Attorney General for the UK and is very much aware of the bigger picture.

She is clearly signally as loudly and as specifically as she can in her role that Stonewall has been advising organisations across the UK of law by misrepresenting the law of the country. The deliberate misinterpretation of Equality Act.

I am not quite sure how much clearer the Attorney General's department can be. She laid it out pretty clearly.

So.. I am looking forward to all those posters on this thread posting solid evidence that she is wrong and Stonewall has been right all along. Bring it on. I want to see the convincing evidence...

policyexchange.org.uk/pxevents/keynote-speech-by-rt-hon-suella-braverman-mp/

I note here that her speech rips to shreds Stonewall's involvement.

'In these instances, schools, who may be well intentioned but misinformed, are breaching their duty of impartiality and indoctrinating children into a one sided and controversial view of gender.'

Rather stark.

And also puts Stonewall's tweet supporting 2 year olds transitioning in a different light. And I mean their original tweet which they tried to reverse ferret back from. A reverse ferret that was not believable at all.

Just listening to Suella Braverman speech now. Several Stonewall shout outs. Perhaps she has also heard that they have 'won' recently?

And I don't think anyone is listening much to Stonewall's interpretation on allowing males to access female sports anymore...

Not the UK, but now that the English Rugby has followed World Rugby's decision... by ignoring Stonewall, I guess it shows just how much Stonewall is winning.

Because, also women can now speak with the protection that Allison Bailey's case has given them to stand up and declare they find Stonewall's guidance harmful, dangerous and misogynist.

www.irishrugby.ie/2022/08/10/irfu-updates-transgender-policy/

Just more of the wider ramifications for Stonewall's misinterpretation of the Equality Act being changed back to reflect the actual law....

Now that is a win worth celebrating.

Stonewall's win is more akin to won the battle, lost the war.

Not the UK, but now that the English Rugby has followed World Rugby's decision... by ignoring Stonewall, I guess it shows just how much Stonewall is winning.

.... as in, this is the new Irish Rugby announcement following on from the English announcement.

Hardly insignificant.

Well, this will be another interesting situation to watch in the future....

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0ef73904-18ab-11ed-b4a0-f11f082a3a3c?shareToken=9086841b1851a93726804639c7ced9f1

Allison's case must be very relevant here too.

Oh, and look who is very entwined with UCU ....

www.ucl.ac.uk/ucu/news/2021/dec/ucl-ucu-statement-ucl-not-rejoining-stonewall

Maybe this will be part of that 'winning' celebration. Looking forward to any poster telling how this repetitive theme of Stonewall champions and Top employers seemingly doing extremely discriminatory actions against females who don't share Stonewall's beliefs can be twisted into a 'win'.

Seriously, every week now there is another story like this.

How does Stonewall expect to continue with the same senior management and have their reputation survive? But... celebrate that WIN!

That's a shocking article in The Times about the UCU, Helle - thanks for sharing it.

The news about the Stasi and McCarthyite branches of UCU raises wider points of concern for me.

If these Cheka, Stasi, and McCarthyites are ready to do a David Renton (Allison Bailey's room mate in Garden Court Chambers) and report their colleagues, even when it involves broaching effective social contracts and listening in on phone conversations and reporting them, then do we think that they wouldn't be reporting journal reviewers for wrong think? Especially given some of the standards of evidence we see for denouncing someone as akin to those who hold beliefs that are emphatically NWORIADS.

Imagine the power. A fair number of journals use the Open Review process. If there is a very real risk that somebody who is convinced of the power of being on 'the right side of history' would lodge a complaint with employers or professional organisations, or divulge the contact details for harassment purposes, I would certainly think a chilling effect would persuade reviewers to self-censor.

"I am talking about your deliberate and persistent use of 'men'."

Yes, trans men are men and it is an appropriate term to use in the context of a discussion about trans healthcare.

Must be noted that SB is only a QC because she is Attorney General i.e. she was given a job by Boris Johnson. Prior to her elevation to the position she was not a QC.

It must also be noted that the excellent Robin White (who is an expert on trans law) and readers of this thread will know was on the winning legal team in the of Stonewall v Allison Bailey says she has delivered "a master class in how to misinterpret Equality Law"

twitter.com/moira_robin/status/1557357737947832322

I will take the advice of such an esteemed lawyer before I take the advice of one of Boris Johnson's cabinet ministers.

Oh yes, RMW is a real expert on trans law all right:
www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/02/a-practical-guide

Trans law...is that on 'the other side' of the actual law?

LOL!

That book review of Robin Wrights book on law looks like it could be the review of the bundles stonewall put together for Allison’s court case. And the review isn’t very complementary

That book review of Robin Wrights book on law looks like it could be the review of the bundles stonewall put together for Allison’s court case. And the review isn’t very complementary

Paragraphs 19 and 20 are your friends re: the bundles.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Bailey-judgment.pdf

Another celebration worthy news item that shows just how credible Stonewall has been .

Even though this was inevitable because of the hostility that debate and open research was treated. That debate was actively shut down and shamed by Lobby groups; of which Stonewall was a prominent one, and their evangelical supporters or ‘Allie’s’. How research was influenced by mantras.

Those mantras that kept young people believing that their support groups, again Stonewall was dominant here too, knew better and anyone else was transphobic and hateful.

That detransitioner voices were not welcomed and carefully listened to and supported.

The list of how Stonewall has been complicit in this is long. Any person believing that Stonewall will be celebrating anything anytime soon, is just either hopelessly naive or hopelessly entrenched.

And yes, Allison Bailey’s case will have helped support this group action. Keira’s case was the foundation. Thank you Keira! Then Sonia Appleby. Then Maya and Allison’s cases. Even though Maya and Allison’s are more indirect in nature they allowed the freedom of discussion to be had.

They opened the floodgates to discussion to be recognised as Worthy of Respect.

This news is overwhelming to me and my loved ones. I have no idea how some families will feel waking up to this news. for those families.

Wonder how the NHS feel right now after listening to assurances from lobby groups such as Stonewall?

I’d say no where no as devastated as those families choosing to sue the NHS.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4e7fc538-18dc-11ed-b1f4-627a202c7457?shareToken=485af9527de58533cf4579b7d4c53d7b&s=09

No. Hearache. Stop twisting.

Your reference to transmen as ‘men’ in any healthcare is that dangerous misinformation I am pointing out.

How can you continue to be so ignorant.

Transmen should be referred to in health communications as transmen, or as females. If the communication is about trans health, then referring to ‘men’ and ‘women’ when they should be referring to female and male respectively, confuses people reading. Communication has to be aimed at the lowest level of understanding available to the greatest number of people. Using ‘man’ without any prefix is one of the most dangerous things you can do in that instance and shows how narrow your understanding is.

Who else reads ‘Trans health’ communications, hearache? Not just ‘trans’ people. Their family, their carers, their partners a whole range of people that need to read the exact same communication and understand it as well.

Stop now. You are really embarrassing yourself and simply not showing any actual compassion for females.

I think your post is just sickening .

For the last time, this is not the ‘gotcha’ you think it is.