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

Exactly. So @Collat is agreeing with us that transwomen are biologically male: men.

I also suspect autism, plus an inherent lack of political instinct.

I don’t have it to hand but maybe someone else will?

This?

All these words to try to justify men going into the ladies’ loos, goodness me.

(Try again)

genspect.org/wpaths-annus-horribilis/

Cass Adds to WPATH’s Woes
As part of its investigation, the Cass Review commissioned a systematic review of the guidelines in gender medicine, which revealed that WPATH, along with the Endocrine Society, manufactured a false consensus on so-called gender-affirming care. It began with WPATH’s Standards of Care 6 (SOC6) in 2001, a set of guidelines steeped in ideology but lacking scientific rigor. Eight years later, the Endocrine Society issued its own guidelines, relying on SOC6 despite its weak evidence base; many Endocrine Society authors were also WPATH members, and WPATH co-sponsored the production of these guidelines. Then, in 2012, WPATH produced its Standards of Care 7 (SOC7), based on the recommendations of the Endocrine Society, which were in turn based on WPATH’s own unsubstantiated SOC6.
This level of collusion and deception is already staggering, but the story gets yet more unbelievable. The Cass Review revealed that WPATH’s SOC7 set off a chain reaction, with medical associations worldwide being duped by WPATH into producing equally flimsy guidelines based on WPATH’s unsupported recommendations. “The circularity of this approach may explain why there has been an apparent consensus on key areas of practice despite the evidence being poor,” wrote Cass in her characteristically measured tone.
Then, in 2022, WPATH took this citation cartel to a new extreme with its outrageously ideological Standards of Care 8 (SOC8), infamous for its Eunuch chapter. To legitimize its recommendations, SOC8 cites many of those same international guidelines—guidelines that were themselves built on WPATH’s earlier, unscientific claims. In essence, what this means is that at the heart of this tangled web of circular citations lies an empty shell, devoid of real science.

Of course they do, because they are organisations which operate under the tenets of trans ideology; in the same way that if you asked a religious organisation for a view on something it might well frame the responses acording to, or within, a particular religious framweork.

WPATH , for one, has some quite shady origins in its founding members, and even some of its own findings have long been discredited.

It also promotes and links to some very unsavoury peccadilloes and fetish websites. For example, a few years ago it added a new 'gender identity' to its list of possible gender identities; that of 'Eunuch' and we were told that children as young as three could develop 'a Eunuch identity'.

This section then actually linked to a very concerning websit in which men fantasised about castrating boys, and to a whole dark world in which men pay to watch other men be castrated or have their genitalia removed.

Another example is of the previous U.S secretary for health, who was a trans identified man, Dr Rachel Levine. He commissioned a study by John Hopkins University into child gender transition. The findings were not favourable to the ideology or desired outcome and so he suppressed these findings, and continued to promote then transitioning of children. He wanted no lower age limit at all.

On the contrary, there continue to be studies done, worldwide, which show no consistent or great positive mental health benefit to 'transitioning', and also show a negative impact of puberty blocker use that have led to the withdrawal of such treatments in various countries.Some studies show worsening mental health outcomes and suicide rates after transitioning, once the initial euphoria does down.

And of course you only have to listen to the stories and accounts of detransitioners to understand how the ideology operates and how transitioning doesn't always resolve dysphoria.

Boiled (and others) can do bigly (even bigger than mine) letters in really fancy scripts. Maybe we need to get her to help.

Thanks!

I wonder if an interpretive dance might do the trick?

It always does the trick :)

Trans is indeed a framing device. It frames people's feelings of distress or discomfort and clothes them in the language of gender identity theory and transgender ideology more broadly.

Detransitioners talk, for example, of how their feelings of distress, at certain points in their life, had manifested in anorexia or other eating disorders, but how after they got into the concept of 'gender dysphoria' they then started framing and experiencing their distress through this lens.

'Trans' is a lens with which to understand distress or discomfort with oneself and/or one's developing body and/or sexual orinetation/Sexuality. Or which can be used to explain cross sex 'gendered' preferences ( such as certain hobbies, likes, dislikes etc)

I see Collat is still ignoring Seethlaw...

To be fair, I'm being annoying 😛
More seriously, they did answer a lot of my posts. I suspect Real Life got them?

You're almost there.......'Gender' is the term given to the associations and expectations that are in favour culturally, socially or familiarly, and is applied to people who feel they are more like members of the opposite sex in certain ways.

People then fixate on this idea that they are actually of the opposite sex and make an identity around it. The whole personality and self expression then tends to revolve entirely around this aspect of themselves.

Maybe the world's fastest spag bol again.

I merely saw them waffle at you not address the validity of your viewpoint, but if you're fine with it then great.

I think the posts that are being ignored are the ones where @Seethlaw states that she considers herself to have a disorder. Indeed, we had a couple of trans-identified males on a thread yesterday saying the same thing.

@Collat wants being trans to be considered a natural aspect of human experience, not a disorder.

Now check what they think about detransitioners, who rather inconveniently disprove the gender identity is innate and immutable narrative.

It's like coming on to a geography thread and telling all the geographers that they need to educate themselves on the fact that all the major players in the geography world agree that the earth is flat - every expert I've read says that the earth is flat - what's wrong with you people? why can't you just grasp the fact that the earth is flat? why do you keep arguing with me when I'm right and you're wrong?

If you want to move past WPATH, that’s fine — now list the other major medical bodies you think are wrong, because they all say the same thing. The stories you’re bringing up don’t change the fact that every credible organization — NHS England, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, and more — all converge on the same evidence base.

And the claim about suicide rates worsening after transition is simply not supported by the broader research. What is well‑documented is that suicide risk is driven by external factors: discrimination, family rejection, bullying, and social hostility. When those pressures decrease, mental‑health outcomes improve. That’s why supportive environments consistently correlate with lower suicide risk.

Individual anecdotes don’t overturn the consensus of multiple independent medical bodies across different countries. If you want to dismiss WPATH, you still have to explain why all the others — including the NHS — reach the same conclusions

Since you’re dismissing every major medical organization, which credible bodies actually support your position? Give me the opportunity to critique those who support your position as i have given you all that same opportunity.

at the moment its all the same old rhetoric and conspiracy that does not hold up to actual facts.

Except I was talking about the extreme adherence of the Civil Service to trans ideology, nothing to do with any other organisation.

A group all agreeing with each other doesn’t prove anything. That’s just an echo chamber — people repeating the same claims until they feel like facts. Personal stories can be meaningful, but they’re still anecdotes, not evidence. They reflect individual feelings and experiences, not population‑level data. Independent research from credible organizations matters more than a closed loop of people reinforcing each other’s beliefs.

The medical bodies you have already cited were directly influenced by, or were following, WPATH guidelines. Someone has posted a great example, above, of how this has worked in practice.

The WPATH guidelines were used by the Scottish NHS and published on their website.

Dr Hillary Cass has already discussed the circular impact of WPATH guidelines.

The American organisations you cite, similarly

@Collat you appear to be ignoring these posts, and furthermore committing the fallacy of the argument from authority, as well as the straw men fallacy. Please engage with people’s points.

There could be “a consensus” that the moon is made of green cheese, which might seem compelling until you realise that it was simply the Green Cheese Professional Board which had said so and because it was a complicated issue everyone else just assumed they must know what they were talking about and didn’t really want to get involved anyway so were happy to rubber stamp their “standards”.