I've now finally caught up. I wanted to read all the posts because there have been so many fantastic, knowledgeable and thought-provoking contributions. This case really does bring so many aspects of the enforced belief in gender identity into one place. It's an Isla Bryson moment for the world, as described brilliantly in the Women Won't Wheesht X post.
I'd like to share my own experience of a conversation this week about it all. The part between the hypened lines includes the death of a child so that people can choose to skip it if preferred. I'm still processing that bit myself 😢
I caught up with someone I used to work closely with earlier this week. The work was intensive so we spent a lot of time unpicking it, which led to some conversations not always being just about work, despite us both being in different countries. I don't generally say much personal stuff in work but had talked to him about my daughter's situation when she was gender questioning (and going through her mental health crisis) and we spoke a little about gender identity belief in general.
Having not spoken to him in AGES, I was impressed that he still had an active interest in the subject of gender identity. He shared that his (newish) girlfriend had struggled with her body changing when she grew up and that he was pretty shocked at himself for agreeing with Trump on gender identity stuff. I said "me too!". Understandably, he hadn't come across the Peggie case as most of the international news on this stuff is Trump-focused in his country.
I started to tell him about it. When I got to the part about her menstrual flooding (I shared with him that I previously had no idea this was a "thing" in peri-menopause), he said "Can I interrupt you a moment? If you walked into a changing room and the only other person in there was a woman experiencing this, what would you do?" I replied that "I hadn't really thought about that but I would ask if she preferred to be given some privacy and, depending on how flustered she may or may not be, I might ask her if she needs any help with anything" I was thinking about new scrubs at the time but realise now that these are probably already available in the room.
In other words, I wouldn't be thinking about myself or that it was a moment to assert my (declared...) belief about myself. I then took the conversation onto this point, which is key to all of it: the impact of enforced belief.
I talked about the potential danger of a doctor who believes that sex is a "nebulous concept" (as outlined in the FWS Problem with Pete article) and a different example: what about a hypothetical doctor who was a Jehovah's Witness and who told patients in need of a blood transfusion that it was wrong for them to accept this treatment? Hopefully that couldn't happen but we've already seen that Dr U would tell a patient who wanted same-sex care that "I am a biological female". We've already seen that the NHS doesn't have a way of stopping doctors enforcing their belief on others.
----------
At this point he shared a recent experience of one of his friends, who is a surgeon where the patient in question was a child who needed an operation to save his life. The parents consulted a priest for guidance. They were Orthodox Christians and the priest advised that the child should not have the surgery....(a quick Google suggests that could be the belief that "the natural dying process should not be prolonged")... so the parents followed this advice. The part that I can't stop thinking about is that the surgeon/friend took a very long time to stop actively thinking about the child directly pleading with him that "I don't want to die" 😢😢😢😢 I have no idea if the child knew what the surgeon's advice was and/or why his parents didn't follow it. Frankly, that's too distressing to contemplate. But it does massively highlight the issue here: the impact of enforced belief is most keenly felt by those who are the most vulnerable. For as much as I can bring myself to contemplate it, on the assumption that this child was also a believer in this faith it demonstrates what that looks like for an individual - this child would have believed in this faith (and possibly/logically that dying was the only viable option, despite not wanting it) because the trusted adults in his life told him it was true. And that it was important. Most young children believe that what their parents tell them is true.
I don't directly challenge anyone's beliefs (I've mentioned previously that I accept that many people believe a virgin can give birth).
But FFS. This demonstrates just what kind of an impact personal beliefs can have, whether earnestly held (as by the parents in the case above) or simply declared to be held. I'm feeling both angry and tearful writing this. Angry that so many thousands of children are still being harmed worldwide by health institutions that are providing unevidenced "care", despite the findings and recommendations of the Cass Report. Tearful about this one child, under completely different circumstances 😢
----------
Focusing specifically on the impact of someone's belief, one thing is abundantly clear: beliefs can lead people to make decisions that can objectively lead to bad health outcomes, including death.
If any doctor says/believes that sex is a nebulous concept, how does anyone know how far they will go to uphold that belief in their medical practice? Commentary has been made on Dr U's monologue earlier on, including the assertion that fulfilling a request from a woman for same-sex care is fine because "I'm biologically female". A couple of interesting points float up to the top at a generic medical practice level (note to MNHQ that I am not saying that either of these points relate to Dr U):
- there is the question of "how do we spot the potential for dupers' delight?"
- how would we knew where any doctor who believed that it's possible for a male to be a "biological female" would take this in clinical terms? For example, would they support the Edinburgh trans health manifesto?
https://www.tumblr.com/edinburghath/163521055802/trans-health-manifesto
For me, the true meaning of an "Isla Bryson moment" is when someone suddenly realises the safeguarding impact of someone's belief being enforced. Unfortunately safeguarding really is a "nebulous concept" to so many people, in that it's everything and nothing all at the same time. Even to the point where many people might not even recognise that their lightbulb moment related to it, they might just be aware of an innate feeling that it's uncomfortable and not right.
IMO that's one of the reasons why it's often so difficult to get safeguarding woven through the core of policies and laws, despite all the changes that come off the back of the various different safeguarding scandals that we've seen over the years.