Feminist Library statement on the NHS Cass Report

[IwantToRetire]

The Cass Report is the final report of Dr. Hilary Cass’s review of trans healthcare for children and young people in the NHS. The report is unequivocally transphobic, rejecting the agency and self-determination of trans people. We at the Feminist Library stand in solidarity with trans people in the fight for their healthcare, and see the struggle as part of wider Feminist struggles for bodily autonomy and healthcare equality. We echo the statements of @transationbloc and @thedykeproject in our position. Below is a statement written by a volunteer on the report and public response to it.

https://feministlibrary.co.uk/statement-on-the-nhs-cass-report/

Or doing away with age of consent.

It's a slow burn. 😄

Shitblizzards? Are we back to genderfluid hippos?

They don't use Dewey.

'Our feminist Classification system is unique, not Dewey, currently under review to update.'

Imagine this.

The Cass Review points out that the cohort who have go through the Tavistock are NOT a homogeneous group, they are a heterogeneous.

One of the characteristics of this has been a MASSIVE uptick in young girls.

Yet the FEMINIST LIBRARY starts off by talking about trans people not women or girls.

Nor does it reflect on how there is a known issue with healthcare for females being substandard compared to males because female bodies work differently.

It has not even entered their heads that transition could be particularly detrimental for young girls with a huge detransition rate, but might be ok for boys.

But we don't know this, because the evidence is not there.

My point is that its staggering that they can't see women and girls - they are invisible in their language and statement. How can that possibly be feminist if its gender neutral?? Being gender neutral we know defaults to default human which is male. Its just the erasure of women and girls so we can't see harms to them based on their sex.

We used to call this sexism. Now sexism is called 'inclusion'.

We see you.

I thought the statement was interesting. I read it as a anti-Cass statement that had a sentence tacked on the end 'Below is a statement written by a volunteer on the report and public response to it.' They did not endorse or own this statement by the individual who unsubscribe as volunteer (so not official standing). I got the feeling that the Library group may not have been as 'so all in' as Aislinn Evans. As this was written on 17th April - so before Dawn Butler and Stonewall changed their tune - that gap may be wider now.

There is part of me that is not surprised that TRAs have targetted an organisation that has if not an influential role overtly, does have influence as a source of historical material about feminism.

But there is part of me that is most angry is that they have basically stolen the Library and its archives. And the archives are made up of donations made by women at a time when the politics of the organisation was one they shared, and more importantly accepted the proviso that the personal would only be made available to other biological women.

What type of corrupt untrustworthy sort of person would feel entitled to do that.

I think it is quite likely that as a group they are quite isolated but for a few individuals it has created their own little world where they are the tyrants and thrive on it.

And are totally uninterested in the original concepts, let alone respecting the wishe of other women.

That's why I called them cuckoos. But in fact that is unkind to cuckoos. These are colonisers ie taking over someone else's place and living off the products of that place for their own aggrandisement.

It's possible to reply to the comments on their instagram and also @like@ existing comments. For now anyway - not sure what they will do if they get a reasonable amount of dissent.

👏👏👏

Seems to be an obsession of mine.

Who funds them?

I suspect this library burns books and has no copy of 'Invisible Women'.

’Our feminist Classification system is unique, not Dewey, currently under review to update.'

Catalogued from ‘trans purity’ through to ‘watch out there might be a passing mention of biological sex but we will offer therapy, a support dog and a safe space to recover’. Everything else is incinerated.

God damn their lies. How dare they pretend to speak for black or working-class children. Or indeed for anyone, other than for sex fetishists and those who make money out of medicalising children. As for pretending to be feminists -- why do they even bother to lie?

Latest cuckoo behaviour: they are promoting an event today from which women are excluded. As in, real women. It's for "trans girls" only and is explicitly described as a trans takeover.

I'm sure I can't be the only one who's a bit worried about what's going to happen to the material they're supposed to be looking after. Accidentally-on-purpose losing the works of women they've retrospectively decided are 'problematic', for example. A bit like that ex-Waterstones employee Tilly Fitzgerald, who said the quiet part out loud the other day. If i want to make use of their archives for a future project one day I don't want to find half the material is missing.

To adapt a phrase 'you ain't no feminist, bro!'.

Its actually great when these pro-trans organisations come out with guff like this.

it validates everything that we have been saying about how their positions are unevidenced and unscientific and utterly ideological.

Now the decision makers can see this too. They are making the case against themselves.

But this is an admission that trans women are not women.

Transphobes!

Seriously , if that whole movement owned and was proud to be trans, recognising that as a separate thing of its own - and organised trans only stuff, just like we have women only stuff, that would be great.

Zombie thread! But in the last few months the trustees have halved https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/5102479/trustees

Tbh I imagine FL runs on the efforts of idealistic young things in their early 20s plus a few older women. And almost all the young'uns sing along to the new gender tune. So it makes sense this is the kind of thing they put out.

They're a library, not a research body - libraries exist to provide source material for others to research and build arguments. They need to go back to brass tacks.

They have the gall to use a man (transwoman) to write about the review and attempt to trash it - referring to Cass herself in terms of her being a liberal white woman. Feminist? Women? Totally captured.

But would still be misogynist and homophobic, sadly.