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

lack of evidence is the evidence

Is evidence of what? The fact you are making statements that are all untrue?

This poster doesn’t appear to be hugely consistent in their views. Arguing with me over the horror of a gamete based definition of sex. Yet supports “single sex spaces” where necessary. So does that include men in women’s spaces, or not? Not clear.

So far we have been told that:

some people disagree with us on our position about something but we are not told what that position is

and

there is a vague consensus on something but have not been told what that is (possibly that the earth is flat)

They also seemed to have moved from their grand revelation that sex and gender are different to desperately conflating the two.

Yes, so I don’t trust when they say that “single sex spaces” should be protected that they actually mean female only. Especially as they don’t seem to know what a female mammal is.

Or that biological definitions apply across species, including plants.

I asked a very straightforward question: what is the claim that we are failing to back up?
It's hard to engage with someone when you're not quite sure what they are asking.
Collat said they would stick around for a bit -

Collat · Today 12:45
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.

But they appear not to have hung around till 12.57 to answer my post looking for clarification.

So that's a no i cant.

here is a conspiracy, as i said about 6 pages back, all you have is conspiracy and rhetoric. Nothing credible.

what i said isn’t a fallacious appeal to authority. It’s a reference to the organizations whose job is to evaluate evidence and set clinical standards. In medicine, that’s what consensus is. If you think they’re wrong, you need to provide an equivalent body that disagrees — and you haven’t. (and can't)

I think it's a shame that almost the whole of a 20 page thread about the appointment of a civil servant has focused on one poster who can't even define what we are supposed to be disagreeing with.

I'm not even sure this poster is based in the UK given some of the americanised spellings in their posts.

I’m not conflating anything — I’m addressing several distinct points because the community raised several distinct points. Sex, gender, evidence standards, consensus, and credibility are separate issues, and I’ve treated them separately. What you’re doing is merging them together so you don’t have to answer each one individually.

Referencing the Cass Review doesn’t change the consensus. Cass is a service review commissioned by NHS England, not a medical, psychiatric, or scientific body. It doesn’t endorse your claims, it doesn’t validate ROGD, and it doesn’t overturn the positions of the recognized clinical organizations I’ve already listed

I am UK based,

the spell checker for some reason keep highlighting words, mainly words like recognise (its doing it now) so i let spell checker do its thing.

But it wouldn't matter if i wasn't UK based, everything i said is still true.

you (the community) have already made claims in previous posts. feel free to restate them clearly. You’ve criticised consensus, dismissed medical bodies, referenced advocacy groups, and implied that established evidence is bias or dismissible. Those are all claims. If you want them taken seriously, you need to articulate them clearly and back them with credible evidence.

I'm also taking this as i can't provide...

You’ve all asked me for so much — definitions, explanations, evidence, sources, clarifications. I’m only asking for one thing in return: a single credible medical, psychological, or scientific body that supports your position. Just one. And it isn’t there.

So what exactly do you disagree with us on?

I've read the entire thread and would love you to respond to Marie DeGournay's post of 12.57?

@Collat

a single credible medical, psychological, or scientific body that supports your position

But what is the position you think we hold? Because you've agreed with pretty much everything we've said at one point or another. So what position do you still disagree with?

@Collat, the thing is is that when you say it's a conspiracy theory that institutions have been captured, it's actually not. Below are two people that have been cancelled for disagreeing with your ideological viewpoint.

https://www.thejc.com/news/trainee-psychotherapist-settles-part-of-dispute-over-gender-ideology-a4a34q6z

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-34613148

There's also the Denton document, demonstrating how institutional capture was planned and executed.

I've read every comment of yours. You have no substance, you just pivot to being condescending and then listing a bunch of organisations without detailing specific evidence of how they support your viewpoint. I suspect the vagueness is because you know you haven't a scientific leg to stand on.

You are clearly avoiding any evidence which counters your claims because you have blind faith in your position and therefore refuse to countenance it could be on shaky ground.

Dr Cass is an eminent paediatrician and under-took a four year study involving many clinical practitioners.

I don’t need to play by your rules, no. It’s not a conspiracy theory, as you would be able to see if you read the threads people have kindly linked. The “consensus” comes from WPATH setting standards, and everyone else following because WPATH probably know best, right.

Exactly. Zero actual substance. And as you note, bluster to get out of having to back anything up.

On the contrary - those of us who work with children / adolescents know that social contagion is a verifiable condition that's been openly recognised in the treatment / management of children with eating disorders, self harm and related mental health issues for decades.
Research into the fact that children are influenced by social media / peers into thinking their developing pubertal bodies meant they're really the opposite sex, was opposed from the outset by the powerful adult trans lobby. They were terrified at any challenge to their myth of the trans child - this is vital to enable their disordered beliefs to be accepted by the population.

GIDs was shut down because of the lack of evidence and research - all dominated by captured medics in thrall to transactivists rather than practising ethical medical treatment for children.

Societies are finally recognising the harm that of social media and its influence. Try reading some Jonathan Haidt, https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/book

Hannah Barnes "Time to Think" https://timesbookshop.co.uk/time-to-think-9781800751132/

Or the current campaigns by experts worldwide to restrict the use of social media by children:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/hilary-cass-backs-ban-on-social-media-for-under-16s-bjtccsfhs

archive link - https://archive.ph/cA1jd

Transactivists have successfully threatened & intimidated professionals out of researching all the reasons for this explosion in girls thinking they must be boys (ROGD) and finally society has woken up to the impact of their bullying. Hence all the new gender services being located in children's hospitals where ethical medical treatment is baked into practice.

I suspect @Collat that you'll dismiss all this as you have done all the words of women on here. I'm just posting it for any lurkers who are unfamiliar with the evidence of how children (and those who professionally care for them) have been silenced and abused by proponents of this ideology

You've been given details and links but have dismissed them.

In my youth I briefly flirted with evangelical Christianity. Whilst in the church I was able to observe how group think and cult like behaviour operates. True believers are encouraged, simply, to not engage with anyone or anything which is thought to lead the faithful away from Christ. Any counter-evidence is met with blank refusals as those in the church get sucked into ever greater circles of purity and denial.

That is what you appear to be doing. You have not directly engaged with any substantive point that has been made by anyone. Your posts are full of contradictions and evasions. It is pointless trying to engage with you any further.
I don't know what your investment in trans ideology is but at some point i can guarantee you that it will run its course and you will begin to see what people have been trying to explain to you.

Others before you have already trodden this path.

There are numerous threads on this board ( from over the last 8 years or so) where you will be able to find the precise evidence you require. Most here have been very patient in trying to explain to you, but have been around the block too many times on this issue to go into every last detail again here. We also have lives, jobs, and other resposibilities to attend to during our day.

The weirdest part of all this is that @Collat is not even properly defending the TRA position. For example, just their agreement that sometimes sex matters would have them being torn apart by the people they defend. So what's the point of all this angry waffling?? So weird.

Some people have had to, grudgingly, accept and deal with the nature of reality and biological sex because they know should they continue to deny it they would just look stupid.......but they cannot let go of the faith and the true belief entirely. It is emotional, not rational, and people's identities and sense of themselves are involved.

Thank you for replying to my post asking, Collat , I appreciate that you came back to answer it and other posts.

But I'm afraid it's not really an answer to my simple question - you have been asking us to back up our 'claim' but what claim are you referring to?.

Now you are requesting we back up our 'position':
I’m only asking for one thing in return: a single credible medical, psychological, or scientific body that supports your position

But again - what position are you referring to?

I too am only asking for one thing: what is the specific 'position' or 'claim' - you keep referring to?