Debate happening in House of Commons: Victoria Atkins on fire

[BonfireLady]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/15/rishi-sunak-david-cameron-downing-street-general-election/

I've just watched Wes Streeting ask Victoria Atkins how this was allowed to happen.

Well mate, maybe because you tried to demonise women who brought it up, and silence them by kicking them out of the party.

Whenever politicians talk of the toxicity coming from both sides, they really need to be questioned and pressed to provide examples. We know that TRAs would say TWANW protests is toxic. They would also say preventing children from socially transitioning at school without consulting the parents is toxic. Neither of these things are toxic to any sane grown up. This lie needs to stop.

It's only relatively recently that this law has been exposed as being fundamentally at odds with women's rights and freedom of speech

It was the HoL rather than HoC but some of these conflicts were anticipated before the Act was passed.

HoL debate and questions in 2003
Thread app: archive.is/6Oj7G
Web archive version: web.archive.org/web/20210911112830/twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1049289194370002945

datun I think given the Conservatives are the party in power it's a reasonable question from Streeting.
You've been round here ages, you know the Conservatives have culpability. More so than anyone else as it's their watch. The very best you can say is they were negligent and not paying attention.

It does seem as if there are things going on behind the scenes. Look at how amazed we all were to hear open debate in the HoC yesterday. Victoria Atkins has not spoken out publicly like that before (I don't think).
The nodding head just behind VA was Damian Hinds, one of a succession of previous Education ministers in 2018 /19. Then he responded to parents complaining about mixed sex changing rooms etc in schools with his view that mixed sex toilets were very inclusive for children . And yes I know it was a civil servant who wrote his letters, but he signed them.

He's evidently been educated out of his ignorance. No doubt alongside a number of other colleagues.

Streeting and Moyle’s gaslighting is awful

Make things hard for women then go on about toxicity

I loathe this take

Female politicians get loads of flack on social media. Lisa Nandy, Ash Sarkar, Stella Creasy, Jess Phillips have all spoken about it.

I don't think GC feminists are dishing out abuse but I do think the polarised debate gives abusive men an excuse to be disgusting and threaten women.

I also do think trans people are getting more abuse now because actual transphobics (I.e. the type that bash trans people for being trans) have felt vindicated by the debate.

I wish it was all less emotive and less name calling.

I'm interested that I don't think any straight men have been mentioned on here. It's all gay men and women? This debate is divisive and the men are largely ignoring it.

In any HoC debate you going to get a fair bit of politicking: it's what they do. And there was a bit last night, but still a very good debate, with many of the key issues raised. But as far as Labour is concerned, considering their obvious culpability in this shitshow, they've really only got two lines of attack:

a) You Tories have been in power forever; it's all happened on your watch!
and
b) Waiting lists, waiting lists, waiting lists.

That sounds like rational GC women are responsible for aggressive males

We’re not.

It’s a fresh take on attempting to suppress though. No thanks we can say no and discuss safeguarding for children as we like.

Especially given the harms.

Cass uses the term "toxic"/ "toxicity" three times in the report. She says that a variety of polarised positions (on the correct form of health care for trans people) are unsupported by evidence, and that the resulting toxicity made her job much more difficult, and also creates a negative environment for the people who need the healthcare. She doesn't use the expression "both sides".

She says:

Despite the best intentions of everyone with a stake in this complex issue, the toxicity of the debate is exceptional. I have faced criticism for engaging with groups and individuals who take a social justice approach and advocate for gender affirmation, and have equally been criticised for involving groups and individuals who urge more caution. The knowledge and expertise of experienced clinicians who have reached different conclusions about the best approach to care are sometimes dismissed and invalidated.

And

Yet from the start, the Review stepped into an arena where there were strong and widely divergent opinions unsupported by adequate evidence. The surrounding noise and increasingly toxic, ideological and polarised public debate has made the work of the Review significantly harder and does nothing to serve the children and young people who may already be subject to significant minority stress.

And

There are polarised debates about a range of societal issues involving transgender people in the UK, ranging from use of single sex spaces to participation in sports. Although these issues are outside the scope of this Review, they have an impact on gender-questioning young people because of the inflexibility of the factional opinion and resulting toxicity of the debates. Services for children and young people have evolved within the context of this broader picture and every person involved in this work has been and continues to be affected by the dialogue

I am going to assume that she knows what she's talking about, and that she's being quite nuanced. She's not interested in who started it. She's concerned with the effect it is having on the children she sees as her responsibility. She is not on "our side" or "their side". She has her own side, which as a doctor she should. She's commenting on the crossfire.

At least if Labour is bellowing 'you let this happen!' they're acknowledging it shouldn't have happened.

The fact that if Labour had been in power it would likely have been worse sticks in the craw, the massive hypocrites, but hopefully they'll struggle to just dismiss Cass when they get in power.

Actually, she's not being nuanced at all. She's saying it like it is.

Indeed. And let's hope, that if waiting lists are going to become a political hot potato, they bloody well get sorted.

Me too.

Streeting is hoping that only a few niche terfs watched what he did with that twat Lily Madigan.

I mean, for fuck's sake Lily Madigan.

We need to be careful we don't think of CAMHS as some magic panacea. My DS was seen by CAMHS from age 5-16 and other than them finally putting him on a waiting list for an ASD assessment aged 10 (diagnosed age 13) they really weren't very useful at all.

I found them to be very medication focused, always looking at upping a dose (he was on adhd medication for a while), sleep issues - prescribe medication, when we were struggling with behaviour and meltdowns they wanted to give him risperidone, which I declined. I'm not suggesting medication doesn't ever help but I felt they were typical of the saying 'when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail'

A lot of the time he wouldn't engage with them or even attend the appointment so for years I'd go there every 3-6 months and say my piece, they'd make notes and that would be that until the next time. Rinse and repeat.

Now we are out the other side and he's an adult I can reflect what we actually needed was support around the family, support with school refusal, respite and so on. CAMHS don't do that very well or at least they didn't. Most of all he just needed space to grow and develop at his own pace because he was out of kilter with his peers.

Sorry that turned into a ramble but I keep seeing it repeated that children being able to see CAMHS quicker is a solution but unless CAMHS has radically changed their model, for a lot of people it will just be another let down that doesn't really fix anything.

Female politicians get loads of flack on social media. Lisa Nandy, Ash Sarkar, Stella Creasy, Jess Phillips have all spoken about it.

Speaking of Ash Sarkar, here's Novara's hot-take. They've gone straight to the experts! 😄

https://novaramedia.com/2024/04/15/spare-a-thought-for-hilary-cass/

I'm so grateful to Hilary Cass.

But that does read like "bothsidesism".

But that does read like "bothsidesism".

Only in the sense that it is not possible to respond robustly to toxic attacks without raising the general level of toxicity. There's a "heated debate" going on. There will be bangs and crashes. Sorry!

This really only gets political attention due to women speaking up. We can only get change by speaking clearly. And if males are aggressive, which they are, that’s their issue to resolve.

It doesn’t just happen otherwise

That's not what bothsidesism means.

Anyway, let's not bother arguing about it. Agree to disagree, as they say.

Omg that article is atrocious!

I don't want to derail the thread by talking about myself. But I'm not saying CAMHS is a panacea. I'm saying for a lot of children, there is nothing. The GP refers to a black hole then you are left, for years, watching your child get increasingly impacted by the challenges of being additional needs in mainstream life.

It's awful. And a big part of the issue with gender questioning children too. If children were being seen more quickly maybe some if these challenges around "social transition" could be handled better.

Yes I understand that. I picked up on your post but really I was talking in more general terms because a lot of people including politicians give the impression that CAMHS will resolve the issues that the Tavistock wasn't even looking at and I don't think it's that simple.

The straight men with skin in the game are mostly parents of trans offspring. It’s hard for us to speak out publicly, and if we did, we probably wouldn’t have much reach.

Most men in positions of power and influence either are invested in identity politics (because that’s how you’re supposed to think if you’re on the left), or they have a vested interest in gender stereotypes (because they are socially conservative or have benefitted from the sidelining of most women). Also, more sensitive men are occasionally aware that speaking on behalf of women is not universally welcome!

A few vocal gay men have seen what’s happening, but I don’t think even they have that much reach beyond GC circles. And of course there is Graham Linehan.