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

I agree with part of your last sentence.

@Collat ok. Name one male who has given birth. Not a female claiming male identity. A male. And name one person who has changed sex. Not gender. Sex.

Those links don’t address medical or psychological consensus at all. They’re legal documents about how sex is defined in specific statutory contexts. Legal rulings don’t overturn clinical evidence, and they don’t speak for medical organizations.

If you want to challenge the consensus of 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, then you need to provide credible medical or scientific sources that support your position.

So far, you’ve provided none. Linking to a legal judgment about Scottish ministerial powers doesn’t disprove the medical consensus — it just shows you don’t have clinical evidence to point to.

I’ve provided sources so they can be examined and critiqued.

You’ve not provided a single source.

No no. There was the link to a marketing post blog. Be fair.

No mate, the flat earther is the one that doesn’t acknowledge the existence of biological sex, a rudimentary understanding of which is needed for every single human being to exist. Which is presumably what you were doing with your huffing about people saying sex is defined in terms of gametes. HTH.

Which comes back to exactly what ‘consensus’ are you referring to? Consensus about what?

i perceive an element of mirroring in Collat’s “arguments”, such as they are.

They do.....but you have to dig down into the granular detail of the reports.

Did you not read the Cass Review?

👏 I’m sure the pp is.

If you look carefully at Collats posts, having gone and read the earlier ones, most of them boil down to “no, u”.

Be careful what they put in your tea if you ever visit those organisations!

Sorry, yes I noticed that. I posted a copy and paste version a couple of posts down.

In my fairly broad experience, family rejection is a myth – unless you mean trans people rejecting their families if they don't affirm enthusiastically enough. I know literally dozens of parents, including DW and me, who have been rejected either completely or to a significant extent by their children. All those parents are distressed; all want the best for their children, which does not include poorly evidenced medical treatments with physically damaging effects. The children (and I'm talking about mostly adults) have been indoctrinated (not too strong a term) into the view that parents don't love them if they don't agree with them. The resulting estrangement is not put into effect by the parents, who are all trying to negotiate a really difficult conundrum – if we send messages to our children, we do not respect their decision to go "no contact"; if we do not send messages, that's proof we don't love our children. Catch 22.

This is the caption Steve Yemm added to he photograph of him with the four nurses:

Good to meet nurse heroines Sandie Peggie, Jennifer Melle and Darlington's Bethany Hutchinson and Lisa Lockey during their visit to Westminster today.
They have all shown tremendous courage and bravery in challenging an ideology and a culture of virtue signalling in their fight for women’s sex based rights and privacy and dignity for women👍🏻

Steve is a LABOUR MP! I was so heartened by his unequivocal statement I thought it was well worth sharing with a wider audience.

There is no 'concensus' though. It's a figment of your imagination and nothing you have posted supports it.

It probably comes as a shock to you that the things you believe are not evidence based and maybe the groups you belong to or what you have read online just isn't true. It's not a concensus to link to some organisations that echo trans beliefs somewhere on their website but not the evidence behind their claims. Just keep repeating opinions as facts is just propoganda.

I would like to see better research. A consensus at this point would be an agreement on all the things we don't know. A proper meta-analysis of all the sparsity of research. A hashing out of terms and how to test them.

Why don't we have one already that we can link to and show you? It's because few people are doing research and it's not reached the point of attracting mainstream, independant scientists.

Someone posted Genspect earlier as a credible source. I’ve done some digging and, unsurprisingly, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Genspect is an advocacy group, not a medical authority, and it promotes ROGD — a theory rejected by major medical bodies for lacking evidence.

Its positions aren’t endorsed by any recognized clinical organization, and the group has also been publicly criticized for promoting views that conflict with established clinical guidelines. It’s fine to read their material, but they’re not a credible source of medical evidence.

So I’ll ask again: if you want to challenge the established medical consensus, provide a credible medical or psychological organization that supports your position.

If someone wants to reply with “we can’t,” that’s absolutely fine — and probably the honest answer. It simply means you’re choosing to rely on less credible sources that lack evidential backing, most likely because they fit neatly into your existing worldview.

At this point, the lack of evidence is the evidence. If there were any recognized medical, clinical, psychiatric, or scientific bodies supporting your claim, they’d be easy to name. The fact that none exist speaks for itself.

If you can’t — and I’ll hang around a little longer to see if you can — I’ll leave you to your echo chamber, where, ironically, you end up reinforcing your feelings about other people’s feelings.

Consensus doesn’t mean perfect agreement — it means independent medical bodies across countries have reached broadly similar conclusions. That’s exactly what we have. The only groups disagreeing are advocacy organizations, not clinical authorities

If there were no consensus, you’d be able to name at least one recognized medical or psychiatric body that supports your position. You can’t — and that’s the point.

All it proves is that a load of medical and health organisations have sold out. Not the first time, doubt it’s the last. It doesn’t prove the truth of your claim. But do carry on arguing from authority.

Good guy! 👏

”the lack of evidence” is never the evidence.

And if you’re confident in your position, then give me a credible source that backs your claim.

which particular claim are you referring to, Collat?

The claim that sex and gender are not the same thing? You agree with that.

The claim that gender is not something observable or measurable? I think you agree with that too.

The claim that a person's sex is in every cell of their body, so it can never be changed? I think you've agreed with that too.

The claim that there a demographic that identifies as transgender? You certainly agree with that.

What claim are we not backing up, please?

I hope you read my post before you leave us, Collat, because I think it is very unclear what you want us to engage with - legal definitions, medical definitions, gender, sex... so telling us which particular claim we need to back up to your satisfaction would be useful,

So I guess you couldn’t discredit their findings? What about Cass?

It would, wouldn’t it.