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

Hmm, I guess you're right! And heh, who am I to judge? I used to debate religion in a previous life 😆

Claiming that multiple independent medical bodies across several countries have been secretly ‘captured’ without providing evidence is, by definition, a conspiracy claim. Individual HR disputes and a political strategy document don’t demonstrate institutional takeover.

If you want to argue institutional capture, you need evidence of institutions being captured — not anecdotes and advocacy documents

And just to be clear: the Dentons document you keep referencing is an advocacy document — a political strategy guide — not a medical, scientific, or clinical source. Treating a lobbying playbook as if it overrides the positions of recognised medical bodies is exactly the problem here

so this is another "i cant provide"

There is plenty of evidence of institutional capture. Across government at all levels. Across the civil service. In the media. In the public sector overall. In the crime and justice system. In the healthcare system. In education. In sport. In political parties.

it would be quicker to say which institutions haven’t been captured. And the good thing is, it’s all documented here on Mumsnet FWR, over the past decade or so, and even longer in some cases. So should be easy for your “research” @Collat

You’ve listed books, opinion pieces, and individual cases, but none of that answers the question you address. Social contagion is a real psychological concept, but there is no evidence from any recognised medical, psychiatric, psychological, or scientific body that it causes trans or that ROGD is a validated diagnosis.

The research you’ve cited discusses social factors, not a proven causal mechanism. The Sokoto Educational Review article is conceptual, not clinical. The European study explicitly examines alternative explanations to ROGD. None of this constitutes medical consensus.

If ROGD were an accepted diagnosis, at least one credible medical organisation would endorse it. None do. Books and newspaper articles don’t override clinical evidence.

Saying ‘I work with kids’ is anecdotal, not evidence. It doesn’t validate a clinical claim, and it doesn’t substitute for research or the positions of recognised medical bodies. If anything, using personal authority in place of evidence is worrying, because it shifts the discussion away from data and into unverifiable personal assertions.

So I’ll repeat the same simple request: name one recognised medical, psychological, psychiatric, or scientific body that supports your claim. Just one. If you could provide one, you already would have. you cant.

And just to be clear, none of this has anything to do with anyone’s sex or gender in this group. Arguments stand or fall on evidence, not on who is making them. What has been happening, though, is a repeated pattern of bad‑faith tactics — shifting claims, reframing after the fact, merging unrelated issues, and avoiding direct answers. That’s why I keep bringing the discussion back to one simple point: if you have a credible medical or scientific body that supports your claim, name it. So far, you haven’t

@Collat

That’s why I keep bringing the discussion back to one simple point: if you have a credible medical or scientific body that supports your claim, name it.

All of biology backs our claim that there are only two sexes in humans, and that humans can't change sex.

There, done.

Now back up your claim that gender identity exists.

Why do you think most (every?) country (Sweden, Finland, Germany, even NZ, UK with the Cass review) that looked into the recommended treatment for children who claim to be transgender stopped providing the WPATH recommended pathways? Doesn't give me much confidence into what WPAT as a whole.

@Collat

So I’ll repeat the same simple request: name one recognised medical, psychological, psychiatric, or scientific body that supports your claim. Just one. If you could provide one, you already would have. you cant.

Can you provide specific evidence of one of the organisations you've previously listed showing they back up your ideology? You keep dismissing everyone else's as anecdotal without actually practising what you preach. I doubt you will as you know it will be rebutted.

I await another word salad of bluster from you.

Mirroring and projection. The “repeated pattern of bad faith tactics” is yours, as you’ve already been called out on by multiple pp. You didn’t engage with it, you popped it in your grab bag to DARVO back to women on the thread.

The only thing we really seem to differ on is whether the term "women" should be appropriated by trans identified men (collat's position) or not (everyone else including the trans person on the thread, thanks seethlaw). Which isn't something any scientist can prove one way or the other.

As a trained mathematician I can point out it causes a logical error if you define woman as "anyone who identifies as a woman". This is a circular definition and as such not possible to make sensible reasoning from. The proof of that is in the logic itself, no sources required.

Logically speaking you could potentially define woman as someone who identifies with the stereotypes, fashions or other cultural attributes they personally associate most strongly with the female sex. However, this is a) inconsistent with terminology used for any other species - a mare is a mare whatever behaviours she prefers, b) offensive to feminists as in many cultures the cultural gender expectations imposed on the female sex are oppressive, c) causes massive problems for provisions historically set up for the different needs of the female sex and labelled "for women" as women historically meant the female sex.

So, again, no. We object to the word women being redefined as a wishy-washy identity descriptor. Doing so has significant negative consequences for women, we don't consent.

Collat · Today 14:45
So I’ll repeat the same simple request: name one recognised medical, psychological, psychiatric, or scientific body that supports your claim.

Not again, Collat! Not another 'simple request' about a claim - without specifying which claim.

If you go on like this, you're going to force me to learn how to do bigly letters, maybe in a fancy font, to ask
WHAT CLAIM ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
Not a difficult question, is it?

But having asked it so many times, and having got no answer from you, just another request for evidence about an unspecified claim, I think no size or style of font is ever going to drag a simple answer out of you!

You’re asking me to provide evidence that medical organisations support my ideology. That’s not how this works. I’m not presenting an ideology — I’m presenting the positions of recognised medical, psychological, psychiatric, and scientific bodies. Their guidelines are the evidence.

You’re offering anecdotes, books, journalism, and personal stories. I’m citing clinical organisations whose job is to evaluate evidence. Those are not equivalent sources

Yes — every organisation I listed publishes clinical guidelines, position statements, or evidence reviews. Those documents are the evidence of their positions. If you want to challenge them, you need to present an equivalent organisation that disagrees. You haven’t.

You still haven’t named a single recognised medical, psychological, psychiatric, or scientific body that supports your claim. Not one. If such a body existed, you would have cited it already.

As I said - I knew you'd dismiss all this.
Cass and countless others have highlighted the lack of professional curiosity into what has generated the explosion in teenage girls suddenly believing that their bodies are flawed but a sex change will bhe the cure.
The threats to careers (see Liss Littman & countless other researchers / scientists) & open bullying / intimidation of professionals has resulted in children being left in the hands of extreme transactivists - to the detriment of the young

We're not obliged to educate you out of your faulty beliefs You're just another transactivist seeking an online place where women speak freely, to dump your incoherent beliefs on us and demand that we respond according to your rules.

We're not a hive mind or one "group". We're mainly women, mothers, sisters, daughters, feminists. Some of us are lesbians (and have rolled our eyes at your weaponising & misrepresenting LGB issues). We discuss, agree and disagree, empathise, sometimes cry and often laugh at all this.

What we won't do is bend to the demands of a toxic ideology that attempts to upturn facts and science, decriminalise sex crimes, remove safeguarding from children and trample all over women's rights.

We know what women are - and we know that men are not, and can never become, women.

@Collat

I’m presenting the positions of recognised medical, psychological, psychiatric, and scientific bodies.

So you're presenting the position that gender incongruence is a mental illness and a disease? Then once again, you agree with GC people.

See, Collat, really, you're one of us after all!

i already answered this the first time, you as a community have made several claims. but you personally

you’ve claimed that gender dysphoria in adolescents is driven by social contagion, that research into this was suppressed by a “powerful trans lobby,” that medical institutions were “captured” by activists, that GIDS was shut down because clinicians were influenced by ideology rather than evidence, that ROGD is a real and suppressed diagnosis, that professionals have been intimidated out of researching it, and that rising numbers of trans adolescents—especially girls—are the result of peer influence rather than genuine dysphoria. You’ve also implied that books, journalists, and personal anecdotes constitute stronger evidence than clinical guidelines from recognised medical bodies. Those are the claims on the table. pick anyone! there's more out there that have been implied.

I’m asking for a recognised medical, psychological, psychiatric, or scientific body that supports any of the claims you’ve made. If you can’t name one, that’s the point

Asking me to specify your claim is just a way of avoiding stating it clearly yourself. If you want to defend a position, define it. If you can’t define it, you can’t defend it.

You’ve made multiple claims and provided zero credible sources. Pretending you don’t know what your own claims are isn’t clever — it’s just a way of avoiding evidence.

So I’ll repeat the same simple request: name one recognised medical, psychological, psychiatric, or scientific body that supports your claim. Just one. If you could provide one, you already would have.

WPATH Standards are exceptionally influential, with major medical organizations and regional groups frequently adopting or adapting their guidelines.

• Global Influence: WPATH SOC (currently version 8) is generally accepted as the primary international clinical guideline for transgender healthcare, used by many organizations to inform their policies on hormonal and surgical care.
• Medical Organization Alignment: Major bodies—such as the Endocrine Society, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians—have issued statements supporting or relying on WPATH standards.
• Regional Variations & Criticism: Despite the widespread adoption, some countries and medical bodies have developed their own guidelines, often due to increasing skepticism regarding the evidence base behind WPATH's "gender-affirming" model, particularly for children and adolescents.
• Recent Developments: Reports in 2024 (such as the "WPATH Files") have highlighted internal discussions raising questions about the evidence base of the guidelines, leading to calls for increased independence from WPATH standards by some critics and, in some cases, national health systems.

And this is what WPATH say about themselves:

"The following Transgender Medical Benefits are based on the Standards of Care published by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). All transgender services that meet the prior approval requirements are subject to the most current Standards of Care published by WPATH"

https://wpath.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Transgender-Medical-Benefits.pdf

Medical Bodies and Health Authorities That Have Critiqued or Departed from WPATH:

NHS England (UK): The NHS officially moved away from WPATH guidelines for youth gender services, with the Cass Review finding that the evidence base for gender-affirming care was "weak". The NHS now restricts the routine use of puberty blockers.
National Board of Health and Welfare (Sweden): In 2022, Sweden updated its guidelines to recommend against puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors outside of research settings, noting the science is "uncertain".
Council for Choices in Health Care (Finland): Similar to Sweden, Finland revised its guidelines in 2020 to prioritize psychological support and social transitions over medical interventions for minors, moving away from the "affirm-only" model often promoted by WPATH.
The Cass Review (UK): Led by Dr. Hilary Cass, this independent review of gender identity services for children and young people concluded that the evidence supporting WPATH’s standards was not robust, stating they lacked developmental rigour.
Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM): This group of international researchers and clinicians has consistently criticized WPATH for promoting "low-quality" evidence and for having a "strong overlap" with groups creating international guidelines, raising concerns about potential bias and lack of transparency.
Genspect: An international organization that advocates for a more cautious, evidence-based approach to gender care, which has heavily criticized WPATH for its "affirm-only" model.
Commission on Evidence-Based Care (Various European nations): Several European bodies have challenged the "consensus-based" (rather than evidence-based) approach to care promoted by WPATH.
Key Points of Criticism:
Suppression of Evidence: Leaked documents suggested that WPATH leadership suppressed internal reviews that indicated low evidence for its treatment recommendations.
Political Interference: Reports indicate that WPATH altered its SOC8 guidelines to remove age limits under pressure from activist groups and, in some cases, to avoid legal risks, rather than relying on clinical evidence.
Lack of Evidence: Reviews have shown that the guidelines are largely based on expert opinion rather than systematic reviews.
While some major US organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Endocrine Society have historically aligned with WPATH, the international consensus is shifting towards a more cautious, evidence-based approach.

I’m not dismissing anything — I’m asking for evidence. Books, anecdotes, and political commentary aren’t substitutes for clinical consensus

Cass highlighted gaps in evidence and the need for better research. That is not the same as proving social contagion, institutional capture, or activist control. Those are your interpretations, not the findings

Littman’s paper was revised, not ‘suppressed’. Peer review and methodological critique are not intimidation — they’re how science works.

You’ve repeatedly shifted claims, merged unrelated issues, and avoided defining the specific claim you want to defend. That’s why I keep bringing the discussion back to evidence.

You’ve made several claims — social contagion, institutional capture, activist control of clinicians, ROGD as a diagnosis, and the idea that rising numbers of trans adolescents are caused by peer influence. If you want those claims taken seriously, you need to cite a recognised medical, psychological, psychiatric, or scientific body that supports them.

So I’ll repeat the same simple request: name one recognised medical, psychological, psychiatric, or scientific body that supports your claim. Just one. If you could provide one, you already would have.

Insults, group identity, and rhetoric don’t replace evidence. If you want to continue the discussion, define the claim you’re standing behind and provide a credible source. If not, that’s fine — but don’t pretend the lack of evidence is my fault.

There is no "clinical consensus". Organisations have almost exclusively relied on WPATH and its recommendations.

Why would “clinical guidelines” constitute better evidence for institutional capture than journalism or lived experiences?

Just to be clear: countries and health authorities are free to move away from WPATH if they choose. I’ve never said otherwise. Service models change all the time based on local policy decisions, capacity, and evidence reviews.

But none of that answers the actual question. Moving away from WPATH is not the same as endorsing your claims.

Even if we exclude WPATH entirely, the rest of the evidence remains unchanged. The clinical positions I’m referencing come from established medical and scientific organisations, not from WPATH alone.

So I’ll repeat the same simple request: name one recognised medical, psychological, psychiatric, or scientific body that supports your claim. Just one. If you could provide one, you already would have

I've just given you another list; others I provided earlier you have already dismissed. Nothing is going to interfere is it, with your blind faith?

WPATH is a corrupted and decidely dodgy organisation.

https://can-sg.org/2024/03/08/wpath-files/

"Robert Garofalo, chief of adolescent medicine at the Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago, WPATH member and one of the authors of WPATH SOC7 told a podcast interviewer in May 2022 that the evidence base remained “a challenge . . . it is a discipline where the evidence base is now being assembled” and that “it’s truly lagging behind [clinical practice] in some ways.”

Only now, I think, are we really beginning to do the type of research where we’re looking at short, medium, and long term outcomes of the care that we are providing in a way that I think hopefully will be either reassuring to institutions and families and patients or also will shed a light on things that we can be doing better.
Robert Garofalo"

So, even in 2022, a leading member of WPATH admits the evidence base is still being assembled. Yet that does not stop WPATH claiming to be an “evidence based” organisation and making strong recommendations about medical and surgical interventions for gender questioning children, adolescents and adults that many countries around the world, including the UK, are following.

Collat · Today 15:13

i already answered this the first time, you as a community have made several claims. but you personally
you’ve claimed that gender dysphoria in adolescents is driven by social contagion, that research into this was suppressed by a “powerful trans lobby,” that medical institutions were “captured” by activists, that GIDS was shut down because clinicians were influenced by ideology rather than evidence, that ROGD is a real and suppressed diagnosis

Please quote a post of mine in which I make any of these claims that you say I have personally made.
Any post.
Just one.
Waiting....

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/09/disturbing-leaks-from-us-gender-group-wpath-ring-alarm-bells-in-nhs

https://bmjgroup.com/the-bmj-investigates-dispute-over-us-groups-involvement-in-whos-trans-health-guideline/