Gillian Keegan: I'll stop saying Transwomen are women

[DirtyDuchess]

I unfortunately haven't got a token for this but hopefully someone can share it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/24/gillian-keegan-will-stop-saying-trans-women-are-women/

You're very pessimistic, @IwantToRetire. I think you're also underestimating the Isla Bryson effect and the Scottish GRA furore.

I'm pretty sure it's being considered / planned, bearing in mind it was in The Telegraph last month. Whether there's enough parliament time to get it done before an election (July having not been discounted as the date), is something else, or if it will be a manifesto pledge.

There is definitely a momentum building up. While I would agree that we are a long way off full understanding/interest in the public discourse, it's getting closer all the time. The final piece of the puzzle will be public understanding of how autogynophiles operate and why it's dangerous to women and children.

Isla Bryson's case created a chink in the public consciousness. Women's sports had already got some momentum in public discussion by this point, albeit in a fringe way but the combination of the two opened up talking points. When I was speaking to people (decision makers, friends) IRL about the impact on children, my opener wasn't the Interim Cass Report, although I did go there pretty quickly, it was a combination of Isla and sports, followed by a principle that I still hold today: everyone should be free to believe in whatever they believe in (that "we all have a gender identity", in god, in Allah, in ghosts, in reincarnation etc), but noone should ever force their belief as a truth on anyone else. Many people cite the right to the protected "gender critical" belief as the big win from the Maya Forstater case. Whilst it's obviously significant, for me the bigger win is that she also secured the right not to believe that everyone has a gender identity. See screenshot. Although her win only applies to everything covered by the Equality Act, it has a much broader application in conversations about the difference between sex (fact) and gender identity (belief).

My understanding is that in law, there is no such thing as a scientific truth/fact. So "gender critical belief" has legal parity with the belief that the earth is round. The biggest difference between the two is that there is only a niche group of people who believe that the earth is flat and they have no traction on getting policies and books etc amended to accommodate flat earth as a truth. If they did, I would imagine that a court would uphold the same right to a) believe that the earth was a globe and b) not believe that it is flat.

The Cass Report has opened up another gap for more conversations to take place. This is more than a chink because it's much easier for the public to grasp the full harm (and horror 😢) of what is happening as the news continues to unfold the details of what has been happening.

Lots and lots more dots will continue to be joined up. There is only one way this is going. I have no doubt that the EA will be amended at some point (probably not under a Labour government but it depends how hard the Tories push in opposition, or how much they use this as a wedge issue to stay in government.. they have very little else to use to secure more votes).

I was reading about John Seddon, the New Zealand Prime Minister who was in office when New Zealand gave women the vote in 1893. Apparently it was well-known that he hated women but he was won over by the fact that supporting this Bill kept him in power. I have no idea how much truth there is to this but I do like the idea that even reluctant politicians can concede that it's something that matters to people when it comes to politics. Obviously the ones who actually believe it are more impressive, but politics has sadly never only been about integrity.

I share this perspective.

Posters have discerned new dawns, turning tides etc. many hundreds of times on FWR.

I have no reason to be more optimistic than my earlier comment in this thread. The people governed by this ideology are still in post and ready to remove people with GC beliefs from their professions and organisations.

I would be delighted for all those who feel every bit of the dissonance of preference falsification and the threads of discontent with this ideology to coalesce and find each other, leading to what would seem like an overnight fall of this ideology. That time doesn't feel like now, especially not in the teeth of an election and facing a new government.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5061755-gillian-keegan-ill-stop-saying-transwomen-are-women?reply=134794474&

Interesting. Is that why Humza's Hate Act couldn't be used against JKR for all those tweets? And, even if they'd tried, that's where it would have failed?

Sadly, and I do blame the media as much as individuals, not everyone is good at joining up the dots or even has the time to.

If say the BBC (ha ha) did an in depth documentary or ITV a docu drama about how queer politics spread out from universities in the 80s and onwards, that showed how queer politics has impacted life in 21st century.

ie not only has it under mined gay rights (see thread about a Pride march for lesbians) but hijacked the real issue of gender dysphoria to make it a touchstone issue of individual rights disrupting society (or what ever their analysis is) more people would maybe join the links between men in women's prisons, men in women's sports and the complete madness of having an EA where the word sex (in past centuries has always meant biological) was qualifies by the inclusion of gender identity.

Not forgetting that queer politics is concocted and practiced as all politics are based on men's rights.

When it comes down to it, all these political and social movements are about men reasserting their rights over women.

It just takes a different form in suceeding generations.

In fact Women's Liberation is the only recent social / political movement that within a decade there was an orchestrated backlash against it.

How do you know a majority are not "pro-trans"? In my experience most people have a live and let live attitude, though I have seen no data on these questions.

The Cass review gives no evidence of puberty blockers or any trans care being any significant danger to children. Cass herself has said that she did not call for a ban on puberty blockers or trans care for children. That decision was a political one, not a medical one. In fact, the BMA is now investigating the subject and will give their own conclusions soon.

If say the BBC (ha ha) did an in depth documentary or ITV a docu drama about how queer politics spread out from universities in the 80s and onwards, that showed how queer politics has impacted life in 21st century.

We need a The History Man for the 21st century, showing the latter-day Howard Kirks for what they are.

www.imdb.com/title/tt0081898/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_8_nm_0_in_0_q_history%2520man

Just in case anyone's been out of the country for the last year and actually believes the utter nonsense in this post, below is the overview of the key findings of the Cass Review: c & p from the review, (bolding mine) .

Overview of key findings

• There is no simple explanation for the increase in the numbers of predominantly young people and young adults who have a trans or gender diverse identity, but there is broad agreement that it is a result of a complex interplay between biological, psychological and social factors. This balance of factors will be different in each individual.
• There are conflicting views about the clinical approach, with expectations of care at times being far from usual clinical practice. This has made some clinicians fearful of working with gender-questioning young people, despite their presentation being similar to many children and young people presenting to other NHS services.
• An appraisal of international guidelines for care and treatment of children and young people with gender incongruence found that that no single guideline could be applied in its entirety to the NHS in England.
• While a considerable amount of research has been published in this field, systematic evidence reviews demonstrated the poor quality of the published studies, meaning there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices.
• The strengths and weaknesses of the evidence base on the care of children and young people are often misrepresented and overstated, both in scientific publications and social debate.
• The controversy surrounding the use of medical treatments has taken focus away from what the individualised care and treatment is intended to achieve for individuals seeking support from NHS gender services.
• The rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health. The effect on cognitive and psychosexual development remains unknown.
• The use of masculinising / feminising hormones in those under the age of 18 also presents many unknowns, despite their longstanding use in the adult transgender population. The lack of long-term follow-up data on those commencing treatment at an earlier age means we have inadequate information about the range of outcomes for this group.
• Clinicians are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity.
• For the majority of young people, a medical pathway may not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress. For those young people for whom a medical pathway is clinically indicated, it is not enough to provide this without also addressing wider mental health and/or psychosocially challenging problems.
• Innovation is important if medicine is to move forward, but there must be a proportionate level of monitoring, oversight and regulation that does not stifle progress, while preventing creep of unproven approaches into clinical practice. Innovation must draw from and contribute to the evidence base.

I didn't believe the nonsense, but I do love the summary.

I doubt the NHS believes it either, as it's commissioned a Cass-style review of adult gender services too now:

https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/review-of-nhs-adult-gender-dysphoria-clinics/#:~:text=dysphoria%20clinics-,Review%20of%20NHS%20adult%20gender%20dysphoria%20ccinics,improvements%20we%20want%20to%20see.

It was the NHS who commissioned the Cass Review, facilitated by then Health Secretary Matt Hancock and later by Sajid Javid. Then on its release in 2024, it was supported by Victoria Atkins before the Tories lost the election.. and it's now supported by Wes Streeting. So I'm guessing they all don't believe the nonsense either. Difficult to say for certain, though 🙃

"In fact, the BMA is now investigating the subject and will give their own conclusions soon."

This is the kind of misrepresentation of reality that TRAs are so fond of.

The reality is that a rogue group of just 11 or so activists in the BMA Council voted to 'investigate' the Cass review without consulting its members.

After a massive outcry from the BMA membership, including around 1000 doctors leaving the BMA, the activists have had to backtrack on their criticism of the review.

The BMJ recently published a detailed paper explaining why any criticism of the Cass review was misplaced.

Gender medicine and the Cass Review: why medicine and the law make poor bedfellows | Archives of Disease in Childhood

From the paper:

"in July, the British Medical Association Council, without consulting its own members, unexpectedly passed a motion calling for a public critique of the Review, citing concerns over methodological weaknesses - a position it then softened following public criticism from members, concluding that their review would come instead from a position of neutrality.
The original motion was based on two non-peer-reviewed online papers, prominently the work of McNamara et al—a paper which was written for a primarily litigious, rather than academic, purpose. We critically examine these sources and analyse the wider legal context in which they have been applied. We conclude that these sources misrepresent the Cass Review’s role and process (specifically, by mistakenly comparing the Review to clinical practice guideline development), while many of the methodological criticisms directed at the Cass Review, including its use of evidence appraisal and systematic reviews conducted by York University, are unfounded.
These misunderstandings, based on flawed and non-peer-reviewed analyses intended for legal (rather than clinical) purposes, jeopardise the implementation of crucial reforms in the care of gender dysphoric youth. The UK clinical community should move beyond these critiques and focus on the Cass Review’s recommendations to establish a safer, more holistic and evidence-based service model for children and young people experiencing gender identity issues."

"In fact, the BMA is now investigating the subject and will give their own conclusions soon."

However the BMA is not, as may be implied by that quote, an official body that directs doctors' views, but rather a trade union, who have not put the opinions of their leadership on this topic before their membership.

A handful of lunatics still appear to be trying to run the asylum at the BMA HQ but thankfully have had their wings clipped. Really the rogue group should be sanctioned by the BMA as a whole. Reality denying fools bringing the entire medical profession into disrepute.

After a massive outcry from the BMA membership, including around 1000 doctors leaving the BMA

Massive?

That's only 0.5% of their membership.

It may only be a fraction of their membership who actually took the drastic step of leaving the union, but I'm sure you agree that the 1000 or so doctors who resigned massively outnumber the 11 or so doctors who criticised the Cass review based on flaky evidence that wasn't even peer reviewed.

~23,000 members leave the BMA each year for various reasons - 1,000 is less than 5% extra.

fun fact : I was an extra in The History Man

Love to see it re-screened, I think there are connections to be made there. And Antony Sher was brilliant.

Except these were members leaving in protest not just because of natural attrition which you would expect to be replaced by new entrants to the sector.

I just checked the cast list, Miriam Margolyes was in it and Geraldine James and Michael Horden...not in the scenes I was in 😆

How do you know that 100% of those 23,000 left through natural attrition?

Most big trade unions are now run by radicals and extremists. The BMA is certainly one of those. These are people who hijack the representative bodies of their profession and use them to further their own personal political grievances,rather than representing their membership, which is what they are supoposed to do. Many unions are now staffed by wannabe political careerists.

We don't know. But what point are you trying to make? Are you suggesting that 23,000 members might have left because of the BMA leaders' batshit views about gender? That would be interesting if you have some evidence of that.