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

But you have said that individual feelings are what is important.

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.

You don't say! 😂

“A group all agreeing with each other doesn’t prove anything”. Yes. Now apply that to your “consensus” on “trans identity”.

The bodies responsible for collecting such data in these gender clinics simply did not do so, though. So we have had to rely on tracking and tracing down previous patients. If these agencies are so reputable why do they not adhere to normal professional standards?

Don't know how long you've been on Mumsnet - the length of this thread judging by AS. You need to do your research and read much of the numerous detailed evidence on here.

We've already done the research. The evidence of trans capture of the NHS is all around us. Posters on here have even audited the anti women nature of NHS guidance about single sex wards (and been centred in numerous press reports).

We can see how this dangerous ideology has done so much damage to children and undermined the social contract - the evidence is all over this board.

We're not your Mum. We're not responsible for spoon feeding you to resolve your lack of knowledge / comprehension about women's lives, feminism, child safeguarding and the dangers of extreme transactivism. You think some men should be enabled to commit voyeurism and indecent exposure because they're not really men - and women disagree with you.

That analogy actually proves my point. In your example, the ‘flat‑earth’ person is the one rejecting the global scientific consensus and relying on a small circle of people who all repeat the same claims to each other. That’s exactly what an echo chamber is. Agreement inside a closed group doesn’t turn anecdotes into evidence.

I’m not asking anyone to ‘believe me. I’m pointing to the fact that every major medical and psychological organization across multiple countries converges on the same evidence. If someone wants to reject that, they need credible bodies that support their position — and none have been named.

and

You’re not addressing the substance of anything I’ve said — you’re just appealing to authority. That’s not evidence. If you want to make a serious claim, name the credible medical or psychological organizations that support your position. So far, none have been provided.

This isn't just at you, I've asked everyone to provide one. No one can.

And honestly, I can’t believe you brought in the flat‑earth comparison — I was tempted to use that yesterday because it actually proves my point.

I find it unsurprising that trade bodies for professions that make billions from "gender affirming care" were quick to accept advice from activists like WPATH but slow to accept evidence from the Cass report that suggests their very lucrative work is harmful.

Several people here have asked me where I get my information, and I’ve provided sources so they can be critiqued and discussed. In a debate, that goes both ways — if you ask for evidence, I’m allowed to ask for yours.

What keeps happening instead is that you tell me to ‘go find it myself,’ which avoids scrutiny. If you actually linked the sources you’re relying on, I’d be able to examine them — and I suspect that’s exactly why you won’t. Most of what gets circulated here is rhetoric, conspiracy‑style claims, or anecdote.

You say you value things being measurable, but when the measurable evidence doesn’t support your position, you dismiss it and fall back on personal stories or group agreement. That’s not how evidence works.

The irony is that after demanding everything about trans people be ‘objective’ and ‘measurable,’ the groups own argument has now shifted entirely to feelings, impressions, and personal anecdotes. The standard you apply to trans people disappears the moment the measurable evidence doesn’t support your position.

Oh. We’re the flat-earthers. Well, who knew?

I shall ask MNHQ to rename this board forthwith.

Even if you could detect trans ness with a blood test, it STILL doesn't give trans males the right to claim the word woman. Woman already has a meaning. As you acknowledge, women have a right to single sex spaces. Many of those provisions are made using the word women, which at the time (and most of us believe still, as does the law in the UK as far as discrimination law goes) meant sex not identity feelings.

In claiming the word women, male people are trying to claim access to those provisions which you acknowledge are intended to be based on sex.

What's easier, getting every medical paper, law and provision for single sex spaces republished to replace the word women with female, or acknowledging that women means female as it always did, and that some male people having a feminine gender identity does not make them women?

I’ve provided sources

Have you? I don't remember you posting a single link to anything.

You say you value things being measurable, but when the measurable evidence doesn’t support your position,

What measurable evidence? There's no measurable evidence that someone is trans. There can't be, because it's purely a feeling, and feelings are not measurable.

Hold on, are we saying feelings and individual anecdotes don’t determine reality? I thought that was your whole argument @Collat that individuals and their experience are the only way to determine gender?

Right?? They switch their arguments around so often and so quickly, it makes me dizzy.

It’s epic isn’t it. They need a spreadsheet.

You've descended on a feminist board of predominantly women with your flat earth beliefs and are (as usual) demanding that women do the work for you when we dismiss them. You're one of a long list of self absorbed, entitled "people" who descend here to scold, dismiss, sneer and argue. That's fine - free speech and all that

What you can't expect is that women yet again drag out all the evidence / data to argue against your niche views. As I said - that's your Mum's responsibility to pander to your feelings.

The SC judgment is clear
Only women give birth
Sex change is impossible
Gender identity is an ever changing amorphous concept that has been imposed on much of society by intimidation, bullying, dismissal of other's rights and the creation of a group of people as being a "sacred caste" who should never be told no.

You don't get to come on here, ignore everything you don't like but insist that women dance in ways you deem acceptable. Your frustrated teenage level responses to women wearied by this dangerous to children, porn addled, toxic ideology are just that. Frustration that we won't obey your tedious instructions goes nowhere. Many / most of us have parented toddlers and teenagers and recognise that behaviour.

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

Which they rapidly had to remove and resulted in a police investigation due to the guidelines linking directly to a child abuse site.

It's the same old same old. Word salads, appeals to authority without links, careful selection of which posts to engage with, constantly changing arguments and always some children who need feeding or putting to bed.

@MrsOvertonsWindow has said all that needs to be said.

I'm out.

Your claims about 'consensus are false and have already been critiqued with supporting evidence. Here are some links to some important documents and studies of more recent times.

.https://sex-matters.org/posts/for-women-scotland-v-the-scottish-ministers/for-women-scotland-v-the-scottish-ministers-judgment/

https://genspect.org/resources/gender-dysphoria-support-tool/

www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/spec-services/npc-crg/gender-dysphoria-clinical-programme/implementing-advice-from-the-cass-review/

My frustration got the better of me with that post. But the same issues are being played out on other threads. Men demanding women's time and effort by engaging them with word salad nonsense - all with the ultimate aim of wedging some men into spaces where women undress and being allowed to continue to gaslight vulnerable children that their bodies are wrong but a sex change will cure them.

Back to the subject of the thread - imagine if a flat earther gets that civil service job 🙄

No — that’s not my argument at all. Gender is a social category, not a scientific measurement. People’s experiences tell us how they’re treated within that social system, but they don’t replace evidence.

Anecdotes don’t determine reality, and they don’t overturn research. That’s why I rely on data from credible medical and psychological organizations, not personal stories from a forum.

What’s dizzying isn’t the topic — it’s the way the standards keep shifting. When it comes to trans people, you demand everything be measurable and objective. But when the measurable evidence doesn’t support your position, suddenly it’s all about feelings, impressions, and anecdotes. That’s the inconsistency I’m pointing out

Agreed, despite reading most of Collat's posts (time I will never recover) I do not think that I could actually write down a five point summary of what their position is.

And the claim about suicide rates worsening after transition is simply not supported by the broader research.

I am sure you can link to that broader research with long term followup and no loss to followup. Because without any such evidence I will have to park that statement under ‘more spurious claims’

when the measurable evidence doesn’t support your position,

There's no such evidence, as demonstrated by the fact that you're unable to cite any.

And how could there be, when gender identity is a purely mental construct?

But have fun defending an indefensible position!

Multiple people here have asked me where I get my information, and I’ve provided sources so they can be examined and critiqued. In any debate, that goes both ways. If you ask for evidence, I’m allowed to ask for yours.
What keeps happening instead is that you tell me to ‘go find it myself,’ which conveniently avoids scrutiny. If you actually linked the sources you’re relying on, we could discuss them — but you don’t, because once they’re on the table, they can be evaluated.

And that’s the irony: after demanding everything be ‘objective’ and ‘measurable,’ your own argument has shifted entirely to feelings, impressions, and anecdotes. The standard you apply to trans people disappears the moment the measurable evidence doesn’t support your position.

If you want to claim that the NHS, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the British Psychological Society, the Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, and every other major medical body are all wrong, then name the credible organizations that support your position. So far, no one has provided a single one.

The Supreme Court judgment you’re referring to deals with legal definitions of sex in specific contexts. It does not say the broader claims you’re attaching to it. Legal rulings define how the law treats categories — they don’t settle medical, psychological, or social questions

Statements like ‘only women give birth’ or ‘sex change is impossible’ are not conclusions of that judgment — they’re interpretations you’re layering on top. And the claim that gender identity is some kind of imposed ideology isn’t part of any legal ruling; it’s a rhetorical position, not evidence.

If you want to rely on the judgment, rely on what it actually says. The rest of what you’ve added — about intimidation, bullying, or a ‘sacred caste’ — is commentary, not fact.

And just so we’re clear: you’re all talking to one person. I have multiple people replying at once, and I’ve addressed every point put to me that ive seen from quick scrolling. Nothing has been ignored on purpose — I’m responding adequately to each argument as it comes in.

you are not engaging in good faith.

And if you’re confident in your position, then give me a credible source that backs your claim. I’ve provided mine so they can be examined and critiqued — that’s how debate works. If you expect evidence from me, I’m entitled to expect the same from you.