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?

I have experimented with my left hand. As a result I am pretty sure that that photo does not show a hand under stress. It is too loose, posed. Not only, in my opinion, was he not forced to dig his nails in in response to a perceived attack, he couldn't even bring himself to simulate doing so effectively.

This is how you get to familial alienation. Where anyone who doesn't join in with the group-think chorus is 'evil', 'bigoted' - it makes the world outside of your little purity tower nigh impossible to navigate normally.

It's why I have even more respect for detransitioners. They have to leave the safe space, rebuild their lives and relationships, and accept that they were somehow complicit in bringing others into this crazy.

Perfectly put. Also threatening self harm can be part of abuse. It's not ok to do this, it's not ok to tweet this.

This person clearly isn't robust enough to cope with civil adult debate or a grown up job. He needs help - privately.

Perhaps that's because Jo is female.

There's something weird about this. Has anyone said 'yes I was at that webinar and there were alot of transphibic questions'? I would expect to see that in reply to the college's tweet at least. Doesn't seem to exist.

I don't believe it was infiltrated by a gc group who wouldn't otherwise have been there. There's no trace of that on twitter, here, or the fb group I'm in. I guess there could be groups for gc health professionals who signed up en masse but I expect its just a case of people actually asking out loud things which they previously hadn't thought of. It's an effect of the death of nodebate.

It was a webinar so I guess written questions could have come in while the talk was ongoing? That could be difficult for the speaker if they were hostile or v critical. I wouldn't like it.

45 questions is alot! Or is that normal for a webinar?

The manipulative photo of hand is a bit disturbing from a professional in a professional setting. I think we are seeing a culture shift where ppl are using emotional effects to argue their case in a way that was previously seen as unprofessional. It was always done a bit - shouting bosses used anger to get their way - but the response from others wasn't to encourage it.

The RCP tweet is the most alarming thing. I don't trust them.

It seems to me to be a live demonstration of the mental fragility of those who identify as transgender. The fact that this doctor is transgender is relevant. They couldn't handle questions about transitioning in an objective way because the whole issue is too personal and it might have felt as though the decisions they'd made about their own body/identity were under attack.

Also - the thought process that goes 'upsetting experience - physical coping mechanism leaves marks - photo opportunity!' is alien to me.

This is what happens with an affirmation-only approach. This person may have had very little psychological support to explore other reasons for wanting to transition other than 'being transgender' before being referred for testosterone treatment and a double mastectomy.

Perhaps they are still uncertain about whether their medical treatment was the right thing to do, which would explain the defensiveness and the description of questions as 'cruel' and anxiety-inducing.

I was going to ask that. Given their name is Joseph, and they are trans.

Somewhat of a side issue I know, but a poster upthread refers to advice to GPs about 'deadnaming' trans patients. Having a broken arm is given as an example of trans status being irrelevant.

But I'm sure I remember it being explained that being trans and on meds is indeed relevant with a broken bone with the possible reduction in bone density, muscle strength etc.

I'd venture to say taking/having taken cross sex hormones (never mind SRS) is always potentially medically relevant.

I don’t quite understand why someone who is so mentally fragile applies for roles in EDI. There should be uncomfortable questions every time an EDI presentation is given because people need to fully understand.

If they don’t fully understand then they may end up applying EDI policy incorrectly.

I think some people see it as a soft career where their own needs can be amplified and be affirmed. Or that they can shape actions and policy because of their own experiences.

This can be a positive.

It can also be a negative.

However, if you cannot even handle maturely posed uncomfortable questions, I suspect it is not for you.

Yes that’s kind of my point. I’m sure they’d all be very careful to use he/they but then to use Jo is a telling sign. Having said that, a pp says lots of people use Jo for her son so maybe it’s not!

I came here to share this. Absolutely blistering - this ideology cannot stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever.

We need a line in the sand - changing clothes, hair and pronouns is fine. If it means using opposite sex facilities or medical services, there are rigorous hoops to jump through snd it's a no until the process is completed.

Yes, Joseph is female. I guessed from the trans flag, the behaviour and the profile pic. Graham Linehan confirms it here:

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/32-medical-schools-in-the-uk-have

One of them, Dr Joseph Hartland, is a trans-identified female themselves and identifies as non-binary and 'queer'.

I don't think Hartland's sex is particularly relevant here. I think I'm generally of the view that males claiming to be queer/non-binary tend to be more cynically manipulative than females claiming queer/non-binary/male identities, who often seem to be more genuinely vulnerable, but that ultimately doesn't matter.

Because the outcome is manipulative and undermining the rights and welfare of others regardless of motivation. We don't need to figure out the motivation here to denounce the behaviour as simply unacceptable and unprofessional, and totally unbecoming of someone who claims to be part of a profession that is supposed to prioritise the needs of patients.

Absolutely it is. Most people have no idea how far reaching the effects of taking hormones, any hormones, cross sex or not can be on the body. That is why not allowing someone to update their biological sex on their medical records or anywhere else for that matter isn't transphobic, it's just the sensible thing to do. Ditto conflating sex and gender in a medical setting.

Interesting tweet

twitter.com/DrJST1/status/1595698501152907264

The mermaids icon on his bio was a red flag for me.

Interesting tweet

Your previous tweet slandered every person who attended yesterday’s webinar & those of us in attendance are mobilizing to take action, using contacts in international media as well as discussing legal options.

I highly recommend you delete the tweet & replace it thoughtfully.

Quite right. That's the correct, robust response.

It must be utterly exhausting.

Imagine you were trans-age. Even though your birth certificate says you were born in 1979 you identify as someone who is 22.

Or trans-nationality. You're not half English half Welsh, as your natural parentage would suggest, but actually you're from Bhutan!

And every time someone calls you a British 40-something woman you have to correct then and say you're actually Bhutanian woman in her early 20s.

Good. I'm beginning to see some adult behaviour and not allowing the toddlers to have their tantrums unchecked. About time.

The tweet from the Royal College was unprofessional and yes did tacitly just blindly accuse all the people attending that webinar of being transphobic without evidence and the presenter's tweet was manipulative and unprofessional.

I want to be trans-age and collect my pension, for the next 50 years (hopefully, it's probably more likely I'll make it to 100 if I can retire now).

I agree and I think the Forstater decision will see more institutions having their gender ideology-pandering exposed and challenged as authoritarian and illegal.

People are less afraid to ask questions that have been suppressed by 'no debate' and the ideology proponents can't cope with that and have no answers-in essence what we've seen on FWR for years is spilling out into the wider world.

I disagree about the relevance of Hartland's sex. From some of the posts on here I got the impression that some people thought this masculine-presenting person was male. I think the fact that this is a female who is taking testosterone and has probably had a double mastectomy is very relevant. But it's the fact that it's someone who has medically transitioned rather than their sex which is important - I would be saying the same if it was someone who looked like a woman who was in fact male.

My view is that the RCP should not have selected a trans person to do this webinar. They should have selected someone who could give an objective view and answer questions objectively rather than someone who was likely to take any criticism as a personal attack and suffer an anxiety attack as a result.

I'm horrified that the man who wrote (essentially) about sex not being relevant in medical care is a GP and an assistant professor, according to his Twitter bio. And a drag artist. The pics of his surgery all bedecked in trans stuff is just shocking. His behaviour is shocking and deeply unprofessional. I know it's Brighton and miles from me, thank god, but no way would I ever consult him or his colleagues. Why haven't the GMC or anyone in authority stamped on this from a very great height?

But yay! Those present at the online meeting are threatening action. A glimmer of hope at least.