What exactly has Andrew Neil done?

[RhymesWithOrange]

AN is acting churlish because women are not falling over themselves in gratitude for his support for women's rights in the face of gender self id.

Can someone tell me exactly what he's done bar send out a few tweets? Which are of course most welcome. But he's not exactly in Maya/Allison/Jo/Rosie/JK/Raquel/LGB Alliance territory, is he?

He is warning Andrew Neil that doctors simply wouldn't be performing these surgeries or prescribing the medications, without it being the best thing for the child. And is under the impression that the input of parents, doctors, psychologists, etc, can't all be wrong.

Possibly off-topic, but I find this quite a common attitude to all sorts of things doctors do, not just gender medicine. Years ago I once had a medical problem that was misdiagnosed, followed by a hospital doctor proposing drastically wrong treatment (luckily I ended up seeing a consultant before this could happen). I remember telling a friend about it, and she basically refused to believe me, saying I must have misunderstood the doctor. This despite the fact that both she and I are intelligent, educated women.

Yet if you decide to listen to other people's experiences, or even read newspaper reports, then you'll find that doctors get things dramatically wrong all the time, and then the hospital covers up for them. This is a fairly recent example, but there are a ton of others:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65904293

So it's not entirely surprising that people refuse to believe that doctors are giving young people dangerous drugs or performing harmful surgeries on them. They simply think that that's not the way doctors behave.

TBF it's probably easier for women to believe that healthcare isn't always in their best interests. We know our pain/incontinence/brain fog/mental health is taken less seriously.

If you were of the default human class, you might not believe the extent to which women are dismissed until you see it.

Saw a tweet where Andrew has said said HJ on trigger was very good and highly educational. 👍

I keep thinking wasn't there a Wes Streeting quote from ages ago, something about same finishing line, different route?

Yes, saw that. In my excitement I forgot that I could now have given it a like. As a few PPs have said, it would be great for him to bring her on his show.

I've now gone back through and liked as many relevant tweets as I can - a small contribution as a single Tweeter but it all helps. So many voices have been silent so far because of how toxic the debate is. The more people see likes growing, the braver people may start to feel about saying their thoughts - whether on social media or within their friendship or work circles.

He's definitely one to watch...

If that quote exists, Rosie needs to see it.

Mmm.

Labour have explained they are providing the T with exactly what they want. Including removing the spousal consent clause.

They want GP provision of hormones on demand and Labour have promised to tack on a certificate to the GP prescription to make it a handy one stop shop process.

The guidance will be legal once the biological sex amendment proposed by the EHRC is in place, something that Kemi Badenoch is trying to expedite the legal action against the chair, Baroness Falkner, in order to get on with. Labour have committed to blocking this.

That's the current state of play.

It doesn't need many does it?

Doctor shopping already goes on. This is creating a brand new market for online approval.

The guidance will be legal once the biological sex amendment proposed by the EHRC is in place, something that Kemi Badenoch is trying to expedite the legal action against the chair, Baroness Falkner, in order to get on with. Labour have committed to blocking this. (My emphasis)

@Hepwo, do you please have a recent source for this that I could cite if I take it up with my Labour MP? It seems pretty crucial.

True, but it would be harder to find a provider if the medical establishment stopped condoning it and started following the evidence.

Even the private sector need insurance. (In the UK, I realise HW practices abroad). If the insurance companies were to price their premiums according to risk, the provider pool would shrink.

A proper source please! Unlawful guidance is not simply perfected by legislation

Moreover, let me be clear: we are proud of the Equality Act and will oppose any Conservative attempt to undermine it. We will protect and uphold it in government, including both its protected characteristics and its provision for single-sex exemptions.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/24/labour-will-lead-on-reform-of-transgender-rights-and-we-wont-take-lectures-from-the-divisive-tories

We need to recognise that sex and gender are different – as the Equality Act does. We will make sure that nothing in our modernised gender recognition process would override the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act.

She tries here to claim that certificates on demand via a GP doesn't overide exceptions. They already do.

Put simply, this means that there will always be places where it is reasonable for biological women only to have access. Labour will defend those spaces, providing legal clarity for the providers of single-sex services.

So where she could have said that she agreed with EHRC, she didn't. She said "will oppose any Conservative attempt to undermine it."

Bear in mind all this is written by trans inclusive lawyers and policy makers who have inclusion as the default. Trans inclusive Labour believes that legal and biological sex are the SAME THING. As Stella Creasy has confirmed.
They always have done.

When the EHRC said what they said about biological sex, Labour promised to take a look as "clarification was always a good thing"

This is their clarification.

Easier certificates. More people with legal sex certificates which they consider the same as biological sex.

She said "will oppose any Conservative attempt to undermine it."

"Undermining it" means the conservatives making biological sex mean biological sex.

It's all there.

I'm not sure what you are asking for? Or even if you are asking me actually!

I've always thought that some people who have refused to listen to women's concerns and even played a part in abusing us would pretend to suddenly see the light so that they could try to take control of the narrative.

I think people like WS and the Labour Party more generally are moving towards attempting to colonise the GC movement. One doctor sign off for a GRC is simply a stepping stone towards self ID that they hope will fool the wider public for whom this remains a fringe issue. I think we should be wary of celebrating too soon.

I must say that there is tendency here to construe matters negatively.

From my reading, the Labour Party have moved effectively to ratify that there are places where biological women must have single sex provision. Okay, arguably that was always the intention of the law and the amendment to be made should clarify that. So this reads to me that in effect, the Labour Party agree with much Tory thought and planning? The bit about undermining the EA means what? Looks like posturing.

What of course is different is this guidance, which was part of the issue as to why self ID ran and ran, because public institutions produced guidance that went further, much further than primary legislation allowed.

Both sides are guilty of this manipulative behaviour, using guidance to achieve their aims. Both are bad imo. No scrutiny and captive to one side or the other. Not discussed in Parliament either.

As for the doctor policy, let's see. But sceptical it will ever happen.

This is a good spot. Food for thought.

Yes, thanks, @Hepwo

I must say that there is tendency here to construe matters negatively.
Guilty as charged. That's because I voted Labour in 2019 because they were my party and I wanted to believe them when they said they would protect single sex spaces. I won't be so gullible next time.

How are you construing the Labour commitment to removing the spousal exit clause?

Labour have put that back into their package when it's been only just ruled out after the public consultation?

Labour are going to drag us all through that again?

Are you construing that positively?

Is there a positive statement to the effect that women under Labour will not be able to divorce a man who seeks to adjust their gender?

I don't want to split hairs about this but hopefully everyone here realises a political promise is only as good as the person who gives it, that it lasts until a new government arrives?

And yes, the Labour Party could re run the consultation, ignore or otherwise have a totally different policy if they became the next government.

From my reading, the Labour Party have moved effectively to ratify that there are places where biological women must have single sex provision

That isn't what they've said. They keep talking about women having 'safe spaces' but deliberately avoiding the term single sex.

They need to clarify what they mean by 'safe spaces' and whether these spaces are single sex. If they don't it's not unreasonable of us to assume it's more Labour word salad.

As for the doctor policy, let's see. But sceptical it will ever happen.

So they’re untrustworthy then

Totally agree, but not just on Dr idea

The use of single sex exemptions is featured in the press release of the Labour Party below. It draws on the legislation. I would take that as a positive sign, though I would also agree "safe spaces" is of no legal meaning for biological women.

Is there a positive statement to the effect that women under Labour will not be able to divorce a man who seeks to adjust their gender?

There's a few issues with the removal of the spousal exit clause not necessarily fixed with no fault divorces. Other women on here are more knowledgable on this but off the top of my head.

• For some women in some cultures divorce is not an option. Annulment is a work around that means they could leave and not be ostracised.

• Women do not want to be in the position where their marriage certificate is changed to say they married a 'woman' and then have to go through the process of divorcing a 'woman'.

• If the marriage certificate stays unchanged but the husband changes all his other documents and gains a GRC then effectively a woman is trying to divorce a man who legally no longer exists. What might the ramifications of that be for her in a divorce situation?

I quite like Andrew Neil, he seems to be on the side of facts and reality, unless I have missed something.