New trans equality civil servant at the Cabinet Office to focus on the ‘implications’ of 2025’s Supreme Court judgment

[IwantToRetire]

Well, well, well.

Talk about sending a clear message about who is more important to Labour.

Trans will get their own cheer leader to make sure they are not discriminated against.

Women have no one to stop the discriminiation of blocking the implementation of singe sex provision.

Full article https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/01/19/civil-service-hire-trans-equality-chief-supreme-court/

And at https://archive.is/S57Uv

"And on this topic, the scientific and medical consensus overwhelmingly supports trans people and the reality of gender identity".

Yet you've provided not a single piece of evidence - peer reviewed or otherwise - to support your grandiose statements about trans ideology / gender identity.

The main believers in GI are the gaslit young, many too young to have developed confidence / critical thinking / life skills of dealing with bullshit to navigate these niche beliefs. Plus of course the very powerful porn soaked predatory adults who see men wedging themselves into spaces where women and girls undress as a boundary to be breached.

There are lots of very informed women on here who understand and can critique the most complex of research / evidence presented.

Go for it - in between feeding the kiddos 😂

You cant change sex chromosomes, but certain physical elements can be changed through surgery.

not sure if you meant it like this but mental construct makes it sound like its imaginary / made up. which it isn't.

They'll be a true believer - no doubt with a degree in silencing and coercive control

Changed, yes, but not to become the actual thing. Just a facsimile.

It is imaginary. Cosmetic surgery doesn’t change that.

You’re framing this as if I’ve made big claims with nothing behind them, but the evidence on gender identity and trans healthcare is well‑established across psychology, and medicine. Every major medical and psychological body recognizes gender identity as a real, measurable aspect of human experience — that’s not ideology.

And it’s worth noting that most people who accept that sexual orientation (gay, straight, bi) is innate didn’t personally sift through peer‑reviewed studies either. They trust the consensus of those same institutions. It’s inconsistent to treat that consensus as reliable for LGB people but suddenly dismiss it as “belief” or “ideology” when it comes to trans people. The research comes from the same scientific process, and very similar theories on how it occurs.

The idea that only “gaslit young people” or “predatory adults” believe in gender identity isn’t evidence — it’s a narrative. It sidesteps the actual data and replaces it with caricatures. If we’re going to talk about evidence, then let’s actually talk about evidence, not imagined motives or who we think the “believers” are.

If you want to engage on the substance, I’m here for that. But the claims you’ve made above don’t reflect the consensus of the fields that study this.

None of these bodies below are activist groups — they’re professional medical and psychological organizations whose positions are based on the scientific consensus. they recognize gender identity as a deeply rooted internal sense of self that develops early in life and is not chosen. They treat it as an innate aspect of human psychology, not a belief or ideology. This aligns with my position.

WHO
APA
NHS‑linked clinical guidance
British Psychological Society (BPS)
WPATH
BAGIS

WHO
APA
NHS‑linked clinical guidance
British Psychological Society (BPS)
WPATH
BAGIS

All of whom are captured organisations, some of whom are facing criminal charges in the USA, all of these organisation are telling you what you want to hear.

There a plenty of threads on Mumsnet that can give you completely different information, they go back years, and all of the information can be verified not just taken on faith, as you have with these organisations.

I don't think you've missed out a single post-modern cliché, all of your post sound like course work for a Gender Studies course, you're not debating your repeating doctrine.

on this topic, the scientific and medical consensus overwhelmingly supports trans people and the reality of gender identity.

What scientific and medical consensus? I don't know of any piece of scientific or medical evidence that even begins to support the reality of gender identity. Unless of course you only mean that people who call themselves trans exist, and that they believe they have a gender identity, none of which is in dispute.

A changed physical element doesn't change sex. My flat chest is not a male flat chest; it's still a female flat chest.

Every major medical and psychological body recognizes gender identity as a real, measurable aspect of human experience

How do you measure gender identity? What scale do you use? What unit? What is being measured?

You have no idea.

The Equality Act applies in all areas where it is applicable
not just those where certain individuals think it is applicable

not understanding that has become too expensive for private sector bodies to risk
which is why the remaining tribunals are happening in the public sector (where directors cannot be sacked by shareholders)

But it is made up. Gender is a load of made up bollocks used to put people in boxes. No one can possibly change sex and unless you rely on outdated sexist stereotypes, no one can actually know what it is to “live as the opposite sex”. So yeah, gender ideology is a load of made up bollocks.

If it's an internal sense of self, the rest of us should just be allowed to ignore it then. What goes on inside someone else's mind is their own business.

When there is a medical or scientific concensus then there are papers published in reputable, high impact journals.

A number of independant, international researchers come together and publish a concensus with proper references to research papers on all the agreed issues which supports the concensus.

Nothing like this exists on trans research. Probably because there is so little of it.

Almost nothing is known. There are papers in niche journals but these are usually low quality ( which is why no high impact journals will publish them).

We had had posters previously posting links to research but these are rarely replicated or properly controlled or cover a reasonable number of people.

It's an area that really needs research.

Are you suggesting that I'm less female/less of a woman because I had a mastectomy due to breast cancer?

So now we’re into conspiracy theories about organisations being “captured.” There’s no credibility to that claim at all. And even if you could point to something, it would be anecdotal — not actual evidence.

I’ve seen most of the “research” used to support your side. None of it holds up to scrutiny, and very little of it is verifiable. Yes, the field is still developing, and it’s easy to poke holes in individual studies — that’s true of any emerging area. But when every credible medical and psychological organization is taking one side of the evidence and not the other, and your only explanation is a global conspiracy… that just doesn’t add up, especially when most of the world is currently hostile to trans rights.

You’re also saying I’m not debating, but I’m literally replying to people’s points and explaining why their claims are incorrect. What I’m not doing is what you’re doing now — dismissing entire fields of expertise with a wave of the hand.
And I have no doubt that older threads here are full of the same rhetoric and misinformation I’ve seen today. That doesn’t make it correct. It just means you’ve built an echo chamber where the same incorrect claims get repeated until they feel true.

The irony is that it’s not me suggesting a woman without breasts is “less of a woman.” That logic comes from the people who define womanhood purely in terms of anatomy. My point actually undermines that view — I’m saying surgical changes don’t determine whether someone is a woman. So your mastectomy doesn’t make you any less of a woman, and it never would.

And since I never gave a definition of “female,” it doesn’t make sense to claim I was calling anyone “less female.” You’re attributing to me an argument that actually belongs to the other side of this debate.

@Collat Are you aware that there are currently two trans-identified males on another thread describing their dysphoria as a mental health condition?

You said that physical elements of sex can be changed through surgery. What was your point if not to suggest that sex can be changed?

Add to them one transman on this thread who would also describe it as "something wrong in my head".

If you think an internal sense of self is someone’s own business and the rest of the world should just ignore it, then you’ve basically landed on what trans people have been asking for. They want to get on with their lives without strangers policing their identity, their bodies, or their existence.

The only reason this becomes a public issue is because other people don’t mind their own business. If everyone actually followed the principle you’ve just stated, most of the conflict around this topic would disappear.

@Collat What's your definition of female, then?

Yes, I note @Collat is not engaging with you, Seethlaw

Why are you creating a straw man about gender critical feminism? A woman without breasts isn’t a man. A woman without breasts is not less of a woman. A man isn’t a woman. A man without a penis isn’t a woman. A man who “identifies” as a woman is a man.