NHS Plans to DNA test all babies in England - HUGE implications for TERFs and TRAs!!

[DiamondThrone]

The TRAs already hate Wes Streeting - this is going to make them hate him more.

Imagine the implications -

• No more "assigned sex at birth" nonsense
• No "intersex" nonsense - there will be males with DSDs, and females with DSDs (just as there are now, of course, IRL)
• No clownfish humans
• etc

I wonder if they are planning to let parents opt out of the testing? I haven't read all the coverage yet.

NHS plans to DNA test all babies in England to assess disease risk - BBC News

If the NHS can stop asking men if they've pregnant and call women that useful word "women" rather than cervix-havers (or similar) I think it's good news (and ditch any other daft rubbish!).

But will that include a check on the child's sex? If so, about fucking time. The WHO should be funding and encouraging a world wide roll-out so that children with vulnerabilities including rare DSDs can be detected early and given appropriate therapy.

Imagine the cost saving if we all had a DNA marker on our health records. No more unnecessary communication with Transwomen about smear tests.

No danger of the poor vulnerable boxer suddenly finding out (with no warning, no none at all …nothing that made anyone stop and 🤔) that she is a he and can no longer batter women in the ring.

And it could provide trans folk with the much needed scientific evidence they need to support a lot of their claims. ….or not.

I thought hmmmm, not sure, when I read this - but for different reasons. Obviously looking for risk of genetic diseases is a good thing, there are some rare diseases where treatment could help but is time critical.
But, this genetic data is hugely sensitive and very important to keep safe. Do I trust the NHS not to leak it? Will it be secure? Will your nosy neighbour who works in the local hospital be able to have a look? Will the police be able to access this DNA data for crime solving purposes?

@RNApolymerase I agree there are concerns regarding confidentiality and how the data will be used e.g. insurance.

However, there are also benefits for the baby, their parents and the state.

Why is the data more sensitive than any other medical data held by the NHS or other branches if the state?

Your nosy neighbour could already look up your data if they wanted to risk their job.

I might be an outlier here but I have no issue with the police accessing DNA records.

@RNApolymerase

Yes, and things like insurance companies getting hold of the data - especially if we moved to an insurance based healthcare system.

Just testing chromosomes would be ok, and would mean people with a DSD were identified and could be properly supported without a nasty shock when they hit puberty (or don't) and the difficulties that must entail.

I think we have to assume that data protection would be breached at some point and work backwards from that certainty.

Problems with leaky genetic data. I know this was a private company and not the NHS, but I wouldn't assume the NHS is somehow less likely to get hacked.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/feb/15/23andme-hack-data-genetic-data-selling-response

So I'm having a baby on Monday and am part of the trial for this. I'm fairly confident with what they've told me about data protection as far as it goes, and my opinion was that the medical/scientific benefits at this stage outweigh the risk. The data is anomynised and encrypted so you would have to have two or more leaks to match a baby's data to the actual numbers etc. not saying it couldn't happen but also I've weighed it up.
My understanding is they are not overtly looking at sex chromosomes although I am far from a scientist and I imagine that given the depth of what they are looking at this data will be in there somewhere.
I'm not sure it would ever debunk the TRA ideology though, their arguments are hardly based in reality!
Good to have more science on the right side though.

But surely our data could already be at risk of hacking like any other data held by the state. Wasn’t the genetic data referenced above at risk because of access to user accounts?

I don’t think risk of hacking in itself is a reason not to screen babies. Perhaps the risk of data loss is a reason not have systems that automatically talk to each other such as the police data base and any potential medical insurance system.

What total utter wanker person is suggesting data mining using public funds to create a database?

The cost to the public is not just money it a total loss of privacy.

Is there anyone belives that the NHS will start funding pre-medical treatments?

The data will be used without permission, sold on for profit and leaked.

It will be used by the State and State agents because it is available. (Eg the rape case in the US which was solved by family profiling)

it makes the NHS a nice buyout target for pharma who want super profits and dont want to provide expensive medical care to the masses.

I also had reservations about this but then I read the article linked within the OP’s link:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c70z8ppjlddo

This is more clear. It’s really important to screen for conditions an early diagnosis of such will make a difference, because there’s an intervention that can help.

This is why Wilson/Jungner criteria for screening is clear on this.

If you screen for a range of other conditions that can’t be helped, there’s a significant risk of emotional harm. Take for example Batten disease. This is a horrible condition for which there is no cure and children gradually regress and deteriorate. But from a later childhood age. If this is detected at birth, parents will spend years watching their healthy looking child wondering when they’re going to start deteriorating. Or Huntington’s disease. A condition that won’t affect someone till adulthood (usually). It’s important that these sorts of conditions are not tested for, or you’re opening up a real can of ethical worms.

The second article makes it clear that it will be targeted rather than blanket WES.

There’s also the risk people might be charged more for health insurance or a mortgage, prevented from immigrating to certain countries, refused entry to certain careers, etc. on the basis of a genetic risk that hasn’t yet (and may never) become an actual health problem.

I’m not sure it’s any different to the newborn screening that happens now is it? I’d like assurances that once they’ve tested for the conditions, the sequenced data is destroyed which isn’t the plan though.

Only a matter of time before they DNA test in utero as standard and women (in the UK) can abort a pregnancy that has imperfect DNA.

The NHS cannot just decide to take a newborn's DNA. They must have permission surely.

All the best for Monday @Disco2022 !!!

It isn’t a case of leaking it. The NHS already sells “genome” data to Chinese entities, all of whom report to the CCP. The absolute dopes.

So will they feed it in to the genetic family tree stuff that already exists?

Interesting podcast called "the gift" which looks at examples of people who have done the Ancestry / 23 and me tests or similar, and some of the unintended consequences.
Mumsnet doesn't seem to want to let me post the link but it's on BBC sounds

Imagine the implications -

• No more "assigned sex at birth" nonsense
• No "intersex" nonsense - there will be males with DSDs, and females with DSDs (just as there are now, of course, IRL)
• No clownfish humans
• etc

A lovely thought, but I don't think it will work that way. They do complete sequencing but then probe for specific conditions in the 'useful to know' category.

Of course they'd be nuts not to look at karyotype, and that would immediately pick up the abnormal ones, but those don't lead to sex ambiguity as such, but global developmental anomalies that involve the reproductive tract (and which can also be caused by environmental factors).

The interesting, and very rare, conditions involve a karyotype which looks normal but behind which is hiding a specific genetic difference, such as an XX containing a translocated SRY region or an XY accompanied by a defective or missing SRY region or defective or missing genes related to T-processing or T-receptor formation.

I'm not saying they couldn't probe for any of those genes, but they don't need to do it for every baby in order to spot the individuals for whom this is an issue: a simple comparison of the karyotype with the actual baby is enough! Once the issue is detected, there are various diagnostic options of which gene probing is only one.

I fully expect that XX males will continue to be registered male, and XY females as female. And maybe fewer will slip through the net, and be taken by surprise at puberty or when TTC.

OP, you're trying to apply logical consistency to TRAs' arguments. It's impossible. TRAs live in a world where logic twists itself to match whatever they currently want to be true. So, for example: TIM athletes should compete against women because sport should be divided by gender, not sex... but non-binary people should also compete against women, even though their gender doesn't match... and it's unfair that Nikki Hiltz would be banned from the women's category if "they" took testosterone... and sex doesn't even exist in the first place, it's a social construct... but "AFAB" non-binary people are discriminated against because of their sex...

Babies being DNA-tested at birth will make no odds to them, because they already claim DNA has nothing to do with being male or female.

Regarding the ethics of DNA-testing every baby: society just needs to accept that this is inevitable. We can fight against it all we like, but the technology isn't going anywhere. We now live in a world where people get given DNA tests as birthday presents. Anyone who thinks they can get away with lying to a child about their true parentage nowadays - keeping quiet about an affair, or lying about donor eggs, or letting a child believe their stepdad is their biological father - is kidding themselves. Science will eventually progress to a point in which DNA testing is a routine part of healthcare. I suspect most people born in the twenty-first century will end up having a DNA test at some point in their lifespan.

How exciting. Wishing you well.

I work in this field and they will only be testing for a smallish number of things which are very severe but can be treated or in some cases completely prevented if known about at birth.
So no sex testing unless it was directly linked to the disease.