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

"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."

What are the positions you are referencing? Do you even know?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11103900/

The gender-affirming model of care is incompatible with competent, ethical medical practice

https://can-sg.org/2024/06/28/scandalous-suppression-of-research-on-transgender-health/

https://segm.org/The-Economist-WPATH-Research-Trans-Medicine-Manipulated

https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/the-facade-of-medical-consensus-chloe-jones/

The Façade of Medical Consensus: How Medical Associations Prioritize Politics Over Science

PP doesn’t seem to have grasped this key point.

https://www.bmj.com/content/389/bmj.r884

"Executive order for a “review of evidence and best practices” for treatment of paediatric gender dysphoria in late January,1 demanding that the Department for Health and Human Services (HHS) “publish a review of the existing literature on best practices for promoting the health of children who assert gender dysphoria, rapid-onset gender dysphoria, or other identity-based confusion” within 90 days.

The 409 page report, released on 1 May, gave an overview of 17 systematic reviews and concluded that the “quality of evidence for outcomes such as gender dysphoria, mental health, quality of life, and regret remains very low across all intervention types.”

https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.pn.2025.07.7.23.a

Widespread dependence on the latter two guidelines has resulted in an “apparent consensus on key areas of practice for which evidence remains lacking” (Taylor, et al., 2024).

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/06/27/research-into-trans-medicine-has-been-manipulated

https://bmjgroup.com/gender-dysphoria-is-rising-and-so-is-professional-disagreement/

Is there an evidence-based standard of care in the US?

"More adolescents with no history of gender dysphoria are presenting at gender clinics. For example, a recent analysis of insurance claims found that nearly 18,000 US minors began taking puberty blockers or hormones from 2017 to 2021, the number rising each year.

Meanwhile, the number of US private clinics focused on providing hormones and surgeries have grown from just a few a decade ago to more than 100 today.
American medical professional groups are aligned in support of “gender affirming care” for gender dysphoria, which may include hormone treatment to suppress puberty and promote secondary sex characteristics, and surgical removal or augmentation of breasts, genitals, and other physical features.

Three organisations in particular have had a major role in shaping the US approach to gender dysphoria care: The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Endocrine Society, all of which have guidelines or policies that support early medical treatment for gender dysphoria in young people"

Lol - I couldn't be arsed to point that out when I read it 😁

That's the trouble when someone sees women as an amorphous blob or group to be played with.

I owe Marie an apology — the social contagion claim wasn’t theirs. It was yours, MrsOvertons. It’s genuinely hard to keep track when several of you are jumping in, but since no one has corrected or disagreed with that claim, I’m assuming it’s shared or at least accepted within the group. If that’s not the case, feel free to clarify who actually stands behind it

This is a credible publication, but it still isn’t what I asked for. It’s a single psychiatrist’s opinion piece — not a guideline, not a consensus statement, and not the position of any recognised medical, psychological, psychiatric, or scientific body. So while it’s a legitimate source in the sense that it’s published in a peer‑reviewed journal, it does not meet the criteria I asked for.

This is an advocacy article from CAN‑SG. It’s not a clinical guideline, not a consensus statement, and not the position of any recognised medical, psychological, psychiatric, or scientific body. So while it’s a legitimate advocacy piece, it doesn’t meet the criteria I asked for.

This is a BMJ news article reporting on a politically commissioned review. It isn’t a guideline, a consensus statement, or the position of any recognised medical, psychological, psychiatric, or scientific body. So while it’s a credible publication, it doesn’t meet the criteria I asked for

This is a Psychiatric News article — a media piece, not an APA guideline or position statement. It doesn’t represent the stance of any recognised medical, psychological, psychiatric, or scientific body, so it doesn’t answer the question I asked.

This is an Economist news article reporting on alleged interference in research. It isn’t a guideline, a consensus statement, or the position of any recognised medical, psychological, psychiatric, or scientific body. So while it’s credible journalism, it doesn’t meet the criteria I asked for.

If none of your links come from an actual medical or scientific body, it’s fine to just say you can’t provide one.

You asked for articles, journalism, "anything" you said......there are papers above by psychology organisations, the BMJ, medical societies etc ...as you requested.

Some of them do. Take your time to read and digest.

Indeed.

Commenting on a four year long review into child gender services , conducted by an eminent paediatrician and involving many medical professionals.

All here for anyone to read who is interested, and also now everyone can see your bllnd intransigence

There’s no evidence anywhere that a man can become a woman, a male person become a female (or however one prefers to put it), there is no plausible mechanism by which this could happen and no one in their right mind believes it can happen.

All these pages of nonsensical, condescending, patronising guff is being churned out for one purpose only, to justify male access to female single sex spaces. That’s it.

There is no consensus apart from those who subscribe to the WPATH guidelines.

“Politically commissioned review” bingo square and mask slip