BMA beclowning themselves over the SC judgement

[Theeyeballsinthesky]

Guess the TRA are still all over the committee then!

did they finish their review of Cass yet?

It is horrific how many people seriously seem to believe that women should lose rights including their humans rights so that men aren't sad and incommoded in their desire to abuse them.

Becausing demanding to be where a non consenting woman is in a state of undress because it somehow meets the man's needs is abusing them .

There is actually a man on another thread wailing that to have to use men's toilets and changing room is against his human rights as it's humiliating to undress in front of men and he doesn't want to be exposed to the male gaze.... with apparently no sense of irony. I really hadn't plumbed the depths of how inhuman women really are in modern Britain.

Bring on the court case proving that sex is real and binary, it's going to have to happen. As with that X thread today, the GI lobby may find it ends up reaching a very, very inconvenient conclusion that is then fixed into law.

Ok - back to being terrified.

We have always known that some people think women shouldn't have rights -but these doctors are at the very least licensed to prescribe medication.

I honestly don't think these doctors have the analytical skills to do that.

I really wouldn't be too worried.

The judgment clearly explains the definition of sex it is using to provide clarity and workability to that law.

Now let's test what 'sex' is in law, because emotive pleading and cod science won't wash there. Lets let Lord Winston take the stand and talk to an impartial judge. That'll take a few years to organise and get into a court room during which time the judgment will have stood.

Edited to add: If you're terrified that apparently qualified doctors are this insane and you might have to be treated by one who doesn't believe in sex and therefore may put you at serious risk because in treatment it matters...? I wholly see your point.

So how would your friend talk about genetic disorders like haemophilia or fragile X syndrome?

When he talks about pregnancy and fertility treatment does he understand that there is a name for the people who provide the eggs and have to gestate the babies, and that they have something in common with the patients who say they think they might have endometriosis or are experiencing debilitating menopause symptoms.

Does he understand that these things have a wider impact on people's lives, and might necessitate 'sex' specific rights?

Can he see that none of this is related to whether you identify as masculine or feminine?

[To be fair, I suspect he just hasn't thought about any of it. The BMA on the other hand...]

Yes - it's the second.

@Merrymouse I think you’re right and he just doesn’t think about it much. Honestly in other aspects he has excellent critical thinking skills and is a great doctor. But in this area we generally stay out of each other’s way. He told me once that he didn’t care about trans politics (maybe that was just a way of closing a discussion), and I regularly hope that his young daughters don’t have to come to some kind of harm before he realises that this affects all of us - hopefully they are now better protected due to the SC ruling that he agrees is scientifically illiterate

I was genuinely surprised that he thought this move by the BMA was a good one though.

TheOtherRaven · Today 18:42

Bring on the court case proving that sex is real and binary, it's going to have to happen.

I think that you're right there; unfortunately, I suspect that there will be a series of similar cases in tandem, as we saw after the Forstater ruling. Various organisations carried on with their reprehensible behaviour, apparently under the illusion that their policies trumped National Legislation.

From Helen Joyce quoted in the article:

“These junior doctors wildly misunderstand the role of the Supreme Court, which interprets the law rather than creating it or reflecting public opinion. They also seem to have missed the fact that no trans rights group such as Stonewall applied to intervene.”

They just sound so dim not having realised how the law works nor what a legal definition in a specific statute does and doesn’t mean.

If even one of these jokers had read the SC judgment themselves, they would have realised that the SC made it incredibly clear that their interpretation only applied to the terms in the EA 2010, so the fact they thought the SC was trying to come up with a new medical definition is laughable.

It makes them look like little children on work experience who haven’t yet learned how the world works. In a year or two, they will look back and cringe as to how naive and misguided they were in condemning the Supreme Court for performing its very-specific-and-in-no-way-medical function.

The BMA should stick to what they're supposed to do, which is campaigning about pay and conditions for doctors. The RDC seems to have been completely taken over. The wording of that motion was absolutely unbelievable.

I would never go to him as a doctor if it came to it and I had this information. His stupidity on this would mean his mind was too closed to see any organism holistically enough to understand an illness.

Sorry, that was to
Prestissimo · Yesterday 18:23

Thanks! It’s been getting progressively more unhinged and absurd. I fear there will need to be some sort of national de radicalisation programme for people.

I mean I posted a news report of a “woman” who put a cat in a blender and murdered someone, their response was essentially why are you being mean to these marginalised women 🙄

There really is no limit to the excuses these women will make in order to advance political transvestism.

I do sometimes wonder how much they actually believe and how much is a deliberate strategy to steal feminists’ attention away from the bigger issues (currently things like holding politicians and organisations to account on the SC ruling (and archiving the receipts), keeping an eye on all the legal challenges, etc).

New article in the Times:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/a7ee2155-36f2-4f84-8390-c7f3f584be04?shareToken=d7cffa7aca03d25ca5e515b7bd02747d

I'm drafting a complaint to the BMA. They might only accept complaints from members, it's not clear, but I'll send it anyway. The motion isn't currently official policy but will be voted on by the wider membership, interesting to see what will happen there and if there will be a rift between RDC and the wider BMA. Their email is [email protected] if anyone else wants it

Oh this is frightening. Do doctors not think biology matters any more? They don't know that sex exists? How are babies made? What are they working by instead? How can I trust them to care for my female body? I find this honestly frightening.

I know doctors have often been in the middle of scandals but to formally publicly announce as a professional body that they don't know how babies are made. Literally how is babby formed.

I'm really disturbed by this. How can you trust people with your life when they are saying things like this.

Totally Handmaid's Tale!

I'm sure they know exactly how babies are made. This is a political stance.

Of course, it makes them look utterly stupid, and the headlines write themselves, but I don't think they truly believe any of it.

They're junior doctors. Educated in queer theory and fondly imagining they're being progressive.

I suspect when the rest of the BMA gets to vote, it will be completely different

Just to reassure those of you querying the medical profession as a whole, there are plenty of us as doctors working to say this is ‘not in our name’ - such as those quoted by the Times today and many others in organisations such as SEENHealth. Unfortunately with this area a lot of it has to be done with caution but we are here and we are standing up for medical science and for our patients.

I'm glad to hear some doctors are not insane, but I do still think the BMA is generally understood to be "in the name" of doctors. The BMA and GMC are the name of doctors, to the public. The tagline if you google BMA is literally "the voice of doctors".

GMC have only said this https://www.gmc-uk.org/news/news-archive/gmc-statement-following-supreme-court-judgment-on-definition-of-a-woman

A doctor I know eye rolls and is pleased he no longer has to ask elderly men if they might be pregnant 🙄

It's not reassuring that doctors don't feel able to discuss issues that relate only to medical practice and standards.

Leaving aside the political issues, taken at face value, their announcement suggests that everyone should be concerned about prostate cancer, not just men, because who knows what sex you might be?

The only thing that suggests this conclusion to be wrong is 'common sense'. But sometimes you have to trust doctors when they say something that isn't obviously common sense - so who do you trust?

I’ve not RTFT so this may have been pointed out, but the BMA isn’t the doctors’ ‘professional body’ (that’s the GMC who have made a short neutral statement at this point). The BMA is the doctors’ trade union. So…. They can probably see various of their members in all sorts of shit for their illegal and dangerous work re ‘gender’, which they’ve been complicit in. I’m not at all surprised they’re doubling down - no idea whether unions can be held to account for providing appalling advice to its members and probably discriminating against some.

It remains a mystery to me why so many unions are so vociferously anti-women’s rights. But that’s a matter for a whole other thread.

I used to work on a project with some senior consultants and they had zero truck with it, they took the piss the few times the subject came up (as public facing comms) in meetings.