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 asked for articles, journalism, anything relevant — yes. But I also asked for one very specific thing that none of your links have provided:

a recognised medical, psychological, psychiatric, or scientific body that supports your claim.

A BMJ news article is journalism.
Psychiatric News is journalism.
The Economist is journalism.
CAN‑SG and SEGM are advocacy groups.

Individual psychiatrists writing opinion pieces are not medical bodies.
None of these are clinical guidelines or institutional positions from the organisations I asked for. So no — you haven’t provided what I requested.

If you can’t provide one, it’s okay to say so. It will collapse the argument you’ve all been making, but at least we’ll be dealing with the reality of the evidence.

Agree. As always.

@collat I have read this entire thread and still don't understand what is the point you're actually making. Its just a load of word salad and deflection.

Can you clearly set out in one or two sentences what the point or claim you are trying to make actually is? No word salad. No deflection. Just tell us the point you are trying to make.

Do you accept that lobotomies were accepted as a good treatment for a time?

Do you agree that there was for a while a consensus on giving thalidomide for morning sickness?

That sodium valporate was considered fine given to pregnant women?

That all US pain societies promoted oxycodone as an addiction-free opioid?

We have a situation where governments, health services, politicians, and the public are all slowly but surely moving away from gender ideology.

Professional bodies and the pharmaceutical industry, who stand to lose billions if gender ideology collapses, are understandably behind that curve. So of course these bodies are the only ones you think matter.

There is no evidence of the sort you are claiming as the relevent organisations involved in gender medicine have not been gathering it - by their own admission.

I accept your apology, I understand that it's difficult to keep track of everything in a long discussion like this.

I'm not even sure what you mean by "scientific body". I mean I'm a scientific body, I'm a scientist and I have a body (channeling Dr Upton here).

Organisations like the British Psychological Society, or the American Academic of Pediatrics are professional associations that represent their members interests. They are not ‘scientific bodies’ or ‘clinical organisations’. The don’t carry out research. Members pay into them in return for them representing them. Of course if their members make a lot of money from providing certain treatments then their membership body would promote that treatment. And certainly in the case of AAP, they operate very much in the capitalist market place where income holds massive sway.

😅That's not how Mumsnet works, We don't jump to the demands of transactivists. We don't obey the instructions that men can become women and and that unconsenting women will undress in front of them.
We reject the misogynistic framing of women as support humans for sad men with disordered thinking. And we reject the tenets of gender ideology that's done so much harm to children, women and the vulnerable.

You can spend as much time as you like on here insisting, demanding, sneering and throwing around allegations of echo chambers, seeking to minimise and gotcha at women. But women won't wheesht.

We understand facts, reality and the importance of safeguarding the vulnerable from those who mean them harm. That's all.

An actual TRA Appeal to Authority argument in the wild.🙄

Professional associations are scientific and clinical bodies — they set standards, publish research, issue guidelines, and represent the scientific consensus in their fields. Dismissing them as ‘just membership groups’ is factually wrong and looks like an attempt to avoid admitting that no recognised medical or scientific organisation supports your claim

Which claim is that? The one that the earth is not actually flat?

We are still waiting on any published peer-reviewed research that supports your side Collat. Funny how you haven’t been able to link a single thing. Is thst because there is no research that supports your claim?

WPATH is a trans advocacy group with many of its members deeply committed to trans ideology.

WPATH internally built a set of treatment guidelines with little or no external input. The resulting guidelines are essentially students marking their own homework, recommendations created in an echo chamber.

Their guidelines were released at a time when there was little or no decent clinical research to guide healthcare professionals and so gained favor as the only horse in the race.

As the only available guidelines, many health bodies adopted their initial recommendations.

WPATH then embarked on a frog boiling exercise with regular updates that gradually changed the thrust of their guidelines further and further away from their initial position. This gave us such gems as medical professionals advocating for a eunuch gender in WPATH 8

The tide is turning - many healthcare bodies are now looking carefully at their blind acceptance of what WPATH are recommending and then discretely dropping them.

Remove the blind acceptance of what WPATH recommend and the whole 'everyone agrees' house of cards collapses. 'Everyone agrees' is not a consensus in this case it simply reflects that everyone is reading from the same set of recommendations.

Where the internal workings of WPATH have been exposed - for instance in the so called WPATH files - it is clear that their advice is not well founded. Examples are clear instances of clinicians recommending irreversible treatment to patients that are unlikely to be able to give informed consent, patients that are too young to give informed consent and patients that have other serious mental health issues. Read the files, they are primary evidence as to how WPATH works internally.

The workings of WPATH were further exposed in disclosure associated with United States v. Skrmetti where it became clear that WPATH adjusted the wording of their recommendations in order to try to prevent legislators reining them in.

WPATH chose not to include things like minimum ages for drug and surgical treatments to reduce pushback from the general public. WPATH also chose to doctor language within documents replacing phrases like 'insufficient data' and 'limited data' with 'medical necessity' and 'evidence based'

A medical body that finds it necessary to obfuscate and reframe its recommendations to deceive the general public into acceptance is an advocacy group.

I’ve asked for evidence in the same way I was asked to provide mine — and I did, backed by the consensus of professional organisations and research from actual experts. You still haven’t produced anything equivalent.

it’s simply about backing up the claims you made. And it’s hard to take statements about ‘facts and reality’ seriously when the evidence goes one way and you keep going the other — it’s the same flat‑earth dynamic: lots of certainty, no credible professional support.

Name one recognised medical, psychological, psychiatric, or scientific body that supports your claim. Just one.

Please don’t reply with ‘which claim’ — you’ve made several, all stated clearly before. Pick any one of them.

I still don't know who claims what. That there is such a thing as measurable gender, or what? What is you actual claim? Ideally with proper definitions of the terms you are using in your claim. What is it that all those scientific bodies are agreeing upon? What????
Although, I'm off to watch Fallout with ds, watching ghouls getting battered is more rewarding than this pigeon chess, so my enlightenment wrt the claim will have to wait until much later.

Still unable to back up your claim with any evidence there Collat?

Yet you post such an easily disprovable lie that you have provided evidence to back up your claim….

Nah. I don't need to provide evidence that only women give birth. That sex is binary. That girls with ROGD are completely different to men with AGP and that the interests of girls are not well served by these men.
That women and many men have been bullied by employers signed up to the trans delusion. That the social contract has been undermined by transactivists insisting that unconsenting women must undress in front of random men who claim to be women. That many in the LGB community regret the forced teaming with the T. And that children across the UK have been gaslit by trans extremists into believing that a sex change is a desirable alternative to undergoing an uncomfortable but essential puberty.

Your insistence that we debate according to your terms displays a very Victorian attitude to women.

Anyway - good luck with all your certainty and theorising about why women must accept male dominance. I've spent enough time on this thread.

But it will be educational to see which civil servant is appointed to this post.

Who are "trans people" exactly? Fancy a go at defining this group in a way that would stand up as a definition that could be used in law? You know, the way that "sexual orientation" is used to define if someone is gay, straight or bisexual or "sex" which determines who is male and who is female?

Nobody has a "right" to recognition of being something that they're objectively not. Caucasian people do not have a "right" to be recognised as non-white in law.Adults do not have a "right" to be recognised as being under 18 when they're not. Male people do not have a "right" to be recognised as female, since they are not.

Is this helping?

"Trans" is a quasi religious belief system based, as far as I can see, on regressive, limiting sex stereotypes. Which, contrary to its claims, has little to do with support for gender nonconformity, and is certainly not the only ideological position to do that - radical feminists ('terfs') do too and with far more freedom and no call whatsoever for kids to be medicalised or cut body parts off for not fitting regressive sex stereotypes enough for narrow minded people who think "woman" and "man" are lazy pink and blue boxes from the 1950s. Of course in reality, "Woman" and "man" are not personality types, hairstyles, outfits or limiting sets of likes and dislikes.

People who identify as trans have the same human and equality rights as everyone else in society, as they should do. They have freedom of belief, freedom of expression, the right not to be discriminated against at work or with housing. They do not, however, have "the right" to impose their belief system and self perceptions on the rest of society, as that impacts others' human rights and is authoritarian and controlling.

I’m asking for the same level of evidence that i provided: support from a credible professional body. If your claim is evidence‑based, naming one shouldn’t be difficult. And citing credible professional bodies is evidence — they’re the ones who review the research, assess the data, and publish the scientific consensus.

Just say you don’t have it. The sources you’ve all relied on so far come from fringe studies and pseudoscience, not from any credible professional body.

Nothing I’ve said has anything to do with ‘male dominance,’ and it’s telling that you’ve had to invent motives I never expressed. Everything you’ve listed there is rhetoric, not evidence. All I’ve done is ask you to provide the same level of evidence that I provided: support from a credible professional body. If your claim is evidence‑based, naming one shouldn’t be difficult.

Just say you don’t have it. its simpler that way, and the truth.

I’ve asked for evidence in the same way I was asked to provide mine — and I did, backed by the consensus of professional organisations and research from actual experts.

Err no you didn't!

To go back to the topic of the thread. I'm probably being overly optimistic, but could this be an attempt to create a dumping place for trans complaints, in order to get the TRAs off their heels? All they would need then is someone who is very good at saying, "No can do, so very sorry."

"Just say you don’t have it. The sources you’ve all relied on so far come from fringe studies and pseudoscience, not from any credible professional body"

Honest to goodness you couldn't make this up.