Royal college of psychiatrists inclusive Q&A session does not go to plan.

[userlotsanumbers]

Twitter ratio, replying to a tweet with shades of Nottingham Council about it.

Questions were not welcome at a Q&A session.

45 Transphobic questions

Institutional capture?

Ah, that was this then?

twitter.com/JamesEsses/status/1595507671561605128

What a pleasant chap - insulting and complaining about his audience. Maybe the College should deal with it by not inviting him again?

(Anyone remember Gordon Brown and his "bigoted woman"? Now everyone seems to want to act like that.)

What a pleasant chap - insulting and complaining about his audience. Maybe the College should deal with it by not inviting him again?

It would be better to invite someone who is not personally involved. As a transgender person this doctor might have taken some of the questions too personally.

Someone who can view the issue more objectively would have been a better choice.

I’m not a psychiatrist but surely this is the equivalent of a young girl posting pictures of her self harm cuts on Twitter and her mum jumping in to say “look what these horrible bullies made my daughter do”.

There's a slight difference between a young girl crying out for help and a qualified professional instructing others in their field.

Continued complaints about incorrect audience behaviour:

twitter.com/SimpForSowell/status/1595511270555455504

The questions came immediately, without warning, and then consistently in response to the slides. They were not evidence based and conflated issues to undermine the points

I'm feeling sad and angry. [@]rcpsych staff were really supportive, but I'm so disappointed in my profession

My personal suspicion is that a anti-trans group somehow infiltrated the invite and attendance data may demonstrate this. I do hope this was the case and that it wasn't colleagues, but neither outcome would be surprising

WTAF? Total clownery. And that first sentence - that's one for the ages.

That's pathetic. What's happened to professionalism, integrity, dignity? When you accept a lie as the truth it makes the whole world start falling apart.

I see the esteemed doctor has an interesting array of icons in their Twitter bio. And lives in Bristol. Tells me everything.

I do hope the offending session was recorded. Bet it wasn't though.

Needs warning that there will be questions?

Complains that the questions are in response to the slides? (Fair enough if the questions were unrelated to the slides.)

They were not evidence based and conflated issues to undermine the points The questions or the slides?

How am I not surprised at the TRA's incoherence?

I think he's suggesting "his profession" is medical, but he's apparently an ex-doctor and now just does EDI.

Which is pretty much a prototypical example of this sort of charlatan - ideological bureaucrats trying to interfere with people who still do a job that they gave up on.

Oh dear. Poor Joseph. People ask him questions he doesn’t like. Tough, eh?

How did he have the mental resilience and stamina to cope with his training to become a doctor? Did he have to take attention-seeking photos of digging his nails into his hands every time life in the hospital got a bit difficult for him, or a patient asked him a question that wasn’t strictly in line with his 🌈 world?

Poor chap. Someone wrap him in cotton wool, quick.

Oh god that muppet has been all over twitter fir several weeks alluding to ‘intimidatory’ FOI requests from journalists and how he can take but he needs to protect his students

he was asked for evidence of this - you’ll be unsurprised to know crickets followed….

This doctor is living the lie. He/she/they can’t deal with questions because then their whole world might fall apart. Questions make gender zealots who have modified their bodies with hormones and surgery realise these are the questions they should have asked before going down that route.

That photo! This ideology positively demands zero self awareness.

Magdalen Berns' 'oh fuck off, you wanker', is never far from my head.

Yes, they rely on compliance. And if it's not forthcoming, steps are taken to get it back on track. Hence the swift posting of 'evidence' of self harm.

I'm a creative person, and I can't imagine many questions that wouldn't be deemed 'transphobic' in the current climate. Possibly questions about fossils? Nope, those're transphobic. Mayonnaise? Definitely transphobic. I'm lost...

A link to an archive of the original tweet: archive.ph/0qj3f

This is really entertaining. Thank you!

RCPsych are used to dealing with disturbed people who have become detached from reality. Hopefully this will stand them in good stead to not cave and shut down all attempts at communication and exploration of the actual harms being caused (to women I believe). This is a clear attempt at bullying others who don' agree with the tweeter. Women are not posting pictures of the harmful coping mechanisms they have to use when men invade their spaces.

Supporters calling it devastating, appalling, abhorrent, spiteful and sending hugs.

And all the numerous requests of an example of the transphobic questions being completely ignored.

Yep, sounds about right.

Those tweets just confirm how personally Joseph was taking this. The questions were 'cruel' and made Joseph sad, angry and anxious. Why would the questions make him/her/them feel like that unless every question was being internalised and taken to be about Joseph themself?

I'm going down a rabbit hole.

Here's Duncan Shrewsbury - Queer AF, sometimes known as Burley Chassis

Here's an article written about a speech given by Shrewsbury. Highlights: They also clarified the terminology that GPs should adopt, admitting that it could be quite confusing. They said “queer” was now a legitimate umbrella term for people who do not identify as heterosexual or cisgendered.

And also:

They also warned GPs that they risked committing a crime if they deadnamed trans patients by using their previous name under a previous gender identity inappropriately.

“There’s no requirement to have undergone therapy or treatment or have gone through a gender recognition panel to have your name changed. And indeed, you don’t even have to have gone through a deed poll to have your name changed on your medical records,” they said.

“Be aware that deadnaming somebody is not only quite dysphoria inducing, but it has the risk of outing someone or disclosing their gender identity. And under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, that is a legal offence where it is relevant.

“In our communications with colleagues, we can allude to somebody’s transness; for example, if you’re referring somebody to a urologist or gynaecologist, where tissues they might have been born with is relevant, that is defensible. But if it’s something completely unrelated, such as they’ve broken their arm or something like that, you would risk committing a legal offence.”

But wait a second! They?

Ah yes. Hartland asked for a correction! The article originally said that the words “trans” and “man” or “woman” should be joined up as one word, rather than that they should not be. Furthermore, Duncan Shrewsbury uses “they” and “them” pronouns, not “he” and “him.”

So a huge thank you to Hartland and others who pointed out that the BMJ author, by using totally normal language was actually being HUGELY transphobic innit

Can't shake my head enough.

So, this individual has given an extended live demonstration to the Psychiatrists on the poor mental health aspects of ideological thinking.

Who is to say that this did not go to the person who suggested this session’s plan?

As far as I'm aware it is an offence to disclose trans status, but only if the person has a GRC.

There was a doctor on here who said she would have to refer a pregnant woman in pain as someone with abdominal pain, making no reference to their sex or revealing it in her wording. And it was a criminal offence, not civil.

So I'm not sure that article is right on either count. You can 'deadname' all you like with no GRC. And you cant mention 'transness' at all, however relevant, with one, without consent.

I would think that anyone GP who 'alluded' to the person being trans rather than just said it, if they were referred to a urologist for example, should be struck off. Just bloody say it. It's a medical fact.

So, this individual has given an extended live demonstration to the Psychiatrists on the poor mental health aspects of ideological thinking.

Yes!