Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

New trans equality civil servant at the Cabinet Office to focus on the ‘implications’ of 2025’s Supreme Court judgment

748 replies

IwantToRetire · 19/01/2026 18:31

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

Civil Service to hire trans equality chief as Labour dithers over Supreme Court ruling

A new policy manager at the Cabinet Office will focus on the ‘implications’ of 2025’s Supreme Court judgment

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/01/19/civil-service-hire-trans-equality-chief-supreme-court/

OP posts:
Thread gallery
16
RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 21/01/2026 20:00

Collat · 21/01/2026 19:51

Anyone with half a brain can see…’ isn’t an argument, it’s a slogan.

Flat‑earthers say the same thing about their ‘evidence’—and they’re wrong for the same reason: they ignore what expert evidence‑reviewing bodies actually conclude.

you all should be able to point to at least one recognised medical, psychological, or psychiatric organisation that endorses any claim made.

So far, no one has been able to do that. That’s the difference between ‘thinking through the logic’ and just asserting you’re right

Flat earthers aren't wrong because they ignore 'expert evidence-reviewing bodies' but because each of their arguments can be demonstrated to be fallacious and to ignore the fundamentals of Physics. Likewise, the arguments of transactivists are incoherent and rely on fallacious reasoning, the conflation of different categories (but only when it suits them), and the elevation of feelings over facts. But as many people have pointed out, arguing with a TRA is like playing chess with a pigeon, or wrestling a pig.

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 21/01/2026 20:02

And can you point to a single 'expert evidence-reviewing body' that concludes that flat earth is false? I'm not at all clear what you are talking about.

rebax · 21/01/2026 20:09

Collat · 21/01/2026 19:53

Guys, honestly, at this point you could just say it: you don’t have a single recognised professional body backing your claims, and the sources you’re relying on are fringe studies and pseudoscience. That’s not an insult — it’s just the reality of what’s been presented so far.

"Guys" 😂

Repetition does not increase the strength of your argument, if you ever had one.

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 21/01/2026 20:29

They review the same body of research and reach their own conclusions. If multiple independent organisations across different countries look at the evidence and arrive at similar positions, that’s convergence, not copying.

I do not think that this is the case with the NHS - they used WPATH 7 to inform their approach to trans. They treated it as primary evidence and duplicated chunks of it for their own recommendations (i.e. 'Bumba'd it').

I have never seen an NHS analysis of WPATH's evidence - I am not sure that WPATH have ever fully published the evidence that they use to generate their recommendations.

Hilary Cass did review the relevant evidence over a four year period and found there to be no justification for the gender-affirming approach recommended by WPATH. Cass found significant evidence of negative outcomes when following WPATH's recommendations. Cass also found a woeful lack of documentation covering patient outcomes - some trans healthcare professionals did not seem to care what happened to their patients after treatment. This lack of trans healthcare professionalism was so bad that GIDS was closed down.

This is why the NHS have rejected the WPATH gender-affirmation model and have moved to their own holistic approach encompassing overall patient mental health, adolescent identity and extreme caution when treating children.

The NHS are a 'professional health body', they have analysed the same information as WPATH and specifically rejected WPATH's approach.

Any health body that is relying on WPATH's trans health care recommendations should take note - the NHS have rejected WPATH, continue to follow WPATH's advice at your own risk.

Namelessnelly · 21/01/2026 20:31

Collat · 21/01/2026 16:27

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.

Mate. You’re the one who believes people can be the opposite sex based on inner knowingness so we’re not expecting much of you in the way of reading comprehension or critical thinking.

Bluemin · 21/01/2026 21:46

Bluemin · 21/01/2026 16:48

@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.

Well @Collat it's a few hours later and I'm still none the wiser as to what your argument actually is. What are you arguing FOR? In one or two sentences with no word salad or deflection would be helpful.

Iamnotalemming · 21/01/2026 21:59

Bloody hell you lot are very patient...

Talkinpeace · 21/01/2026 22:16

Iamnotalemming · 21/01/2026 21:59

Bloody hell you lot are very patient...

The troll has done its job

diverted attention away from an egregious job advert into navel gazing

its a skill and people KEEP feeding them

thirdfiddle · 21/01/2026 22:23

Okay so who's applying? Good salary available for producing a regular supply of word salad and flags.

AstonScrapingsNameChange · 21/01/2026 22:50

I'm tempted to apply.

I could churn out word salad for that kind of money.

And every now and then I'd put something sensible in and see who noticed - bwahahahaaaa!

Doomscrollingforever · 21/01/2026 22:50

Talkinpeace · 21/01/2026 22:16

The troll has done its job

diverted attention away from an egregious job advert into navel gazing

its a skill and people KEEP feeding them

And kept it at the top of the page…

Doomscrollingforever · 21/01/2026 22:52

AstonScrapingsNameChange · 21/01/2026 22:50

I'm tempted to apply.

I could churn out word salad for that kind of money.

And every now and then I'd put something sensible in and see who noticed - bwahahahaaaa!

You could self ID as nonbinary as apparently all GC women must be. Then you could claim lived experience.

Iamnotalemming · 21/01/2026 22:56

I hope Kemi asks about the role in PMQs. While continuing to press about the guidance gathering dust on BP's desk.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 22/01/2026 01:08

Iamnotalemming · 21/01/2026 22:56

I hope Kemi asks about the role in PMQs. While continuing to press about the guidance gathering dust on BP's desk.

YY.

Collat · 22/01/2026 07:40

Namelessnelly · 21/01/2026 20:31

Mate. You’re the one who believes people can be the opposite sex based on inner knowingness so we’re not expecting much of you in the way of reading comprehension or critical thinking.

Nobody is claiming people can magically ‘become the opposite sex’ through inner feelings. That’s a strawman.

If that’s genuinely how you’ve interpreted the point, it suggests you’re not engaging with it at a level that reflects critical thought or basic comprehension.

TheKeatingFive · 22/01/2026 07:43

Collat · 22/01/2026 07:40

Nobody is claiming people can magically ‘become the opposite sex’ through inner feelings. That’s a strawman.

If that’s genuinely how you’ve interpreted the point, it suggests you’re not engaging with it at a level that reflects critical thought or basic comprehension.

If no one is actually claiming that, why are women still having to defend their rights to single sex spaces away from men, including the ones who call themselves transwomen?

Collat · 22/01/2026 07:49

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 21/01/2026 20:29

They review the same body of research and reach their own conclusions. If multiple independent organisations across different countries look at the evidence and arrive at similar positions, that’s convergence, not copying.

I do not think that this is the case with the NHS - they used WPATH 7 to inform their approach to trans. They treated it as primary evidence and duplicated chunks of it for their own recommendations (i.e. 'Bumba'd it').

I have never seen an NHS analysis of WPATH's evidence - I am not sure that WPATH have ever fully published the evidence that they use to generate their recommendations.

Hilary Cass did review the relevant evidence over a four year period and found there to be no justification for the gender-affirming approach recommended by WPATH. Cass found significant evidence of negative outcomes when following WPATH's recommendations. Cass also found a woeful lack of documentation covering patient outcomes - some trans healthcare professionals did not seem to care what happened to their patients after treatment. This lack of trans healthcare professionalism was so bad that GIDS was closed down.

This is why the NHS have rejected the WPATH gender-affirmation model and have moved to their own holistic approach encompassing overall patient mental health, adolescent identity and extreme caution when treating children.

The NHS are a 'professional health body', they have analysed the same information as WPATH and specifically rejected WPATH's approach.

Any health body that is relying on WPATH's trans health care recommendations should take note - the NHS have rejected WPATH, continue to follow WPATH's advice at your own risk.

The NHS recognises trans identity as a natural human variation and continues to provide gender‑affirming care. What they’ve rejected is WPATH’s low‑evidence model — not the legitimacy of trans people or gender‑related treatment.

Collat · 22/01/2026 07:56

Bluemin · 21/01/2026 21:46

Well @Collat it's a few hours later and I'm still none the wiser as to what your argument actually is. What are you arguing FOR? In one or two sentences with no word salad or deflection would be helpful.

My position aligns with the overwhelming consensus of major medical bodies. If you think all of them are wrong, the burden of proof is on you to show why. You don’t get to overturn a consensus with vibes and speculation.

You’re the ones making the counter‑consensus claims, so the burden of proof sits with you. And you haven’t met it. If anything you’ve said actually held up to scrutiny, at least one reputable medical, psychiatric, or clinical body would endorse it. None do. Not one. That should tell you something.

i really hope the reply again is not "what claims", at this point im not sure if you guys even know what a claim is, you have all made assertions against the consensus.

Shortshriftandlethal · 22/01/2026 08:01

Collat · 21/01/2026 19:47

That’s not how credibility works. Professional organisations don’t ‘follow WPATH’

They review the same body of research and reach their own conclusions. If multiple independent organisations across different countries look at the evidence and arrive at similar positions, that’s convergence, not copying.

Agreement doesn’t mean they’re following each other — it means the evidence points in the same direction.

How many times do you have to be told WPATH have themselves stated ( with evidence of that posted above )that their 'guidance' was put in place without any body of evidence, let alone the serious scientific consensus you keep imagining.

All of the main gender bodies ( and even national health services) have followed the WPATH guidelines, pretty much without question, since questioning is not permitted; only blind acceptance is. This is one of the many reasons the Tavistock clinic was closed down. There was no scientific/medical or professional rigour at all. No evidence was collected either.

Shortshriftandlethal · 22/01/2026 08:03

Collat · 22/01/2026 07:56

My position aligns with the overwhelming consensus of major medical bodies. If you think all of them are wrong, the burden of proof is on you to show why. You don’t get to overturn a consensus with vibes and speculation.

You’re the ones making the counter‑consensus claims, so the burden of proof sits with you. And you haven’t met it. If anything you’ve said actually held up to scrutiny, at least one reputable medical, psychiatric, or clinical body would endorse it. None do. Not one. That should tell you something.

i really hope the reply again is not "what claims", at this point im not sure if you guys even know what a claim is, you have all made assertions against the consensus.

Repetition of falsities does not make them true. Falsities are the prayer beads you keep running through your fingers.

Shortshriftandlethal · 22/01/2026 08:09

Collat · 22/01/2026 07:49

The NHS recognises trans identity as a natural human variation and continues to provide gender‑affirming care. What they’ve rejected is WPATH’s low‑evidence model — not the legitimacy of trans people or gender‑related treatment.

No, the NHS is a health service that trreats people with mental health issues related to dysphoria or distress. 'Gender Identity' is not a protected characteristic, It is a post modern phenomenon...and as it gradually unravels the evidence for this is gathering pace. This is the reason that a couple of NHS bodies have recently been found guilty of permitting men into female only spaces where they have no right to be.

NHS Scotland had to hurriedly pull its trans guidance a couple of years ago when it was discovered what WPATH were actually saying and doing - because as you've been told on numerous occasions all conforming bodies have relied almost entirely on their highly ideological guidance when drawing up documents - and without even reading it in full. Like you.

Collat · 22/01/2026 08:12

TheKeatingFive · 22/01/2026 07:43

If no one is actually claiming that, why are women still having to defend their rights to single sex spaces away from men, including the ones who call themselves transwomen?

I’ve already tried engaging across multiple sub‑topics, and all that achieved was people accusing me of ‘conflation’ simply because several conversations were happening at once. It’s perfectly normal to mix up users or threads when ten people are talking at the same time, but that doesn’t mean I was conflating arguments.

That’s exactly why I’m now sticking to one point only — no side‑tracks, no topic‑hopping, no conflation. Just the core issue.

And on that core issue, the overwhelming medical and psychiatric consensus does not support the claims your community is making. You’re the ones making the counter‑consensus claims, so the burden of proof sits with you. And you haven’t met it.

If anything you’ve (the community) argued would actually hold up to scrutiny, at least one reputable medical, psychiatric, or clinical body somewhere in the Western world would endorse it. None do. Not one. The only explanation you ever offer for that is the conspiracy theory that all these institutions are ‘captured’. That’s not evidence — it’s a way to avoid the fact that your claims have zero institutional backing.

When I asked for evidence of this supposed ‘capture’, the most common reply I got was, ‘everyone on Mumsnet knows it’. That doesn’t demonstrate institutional corruption — it demonstrates exactly the echo‑chamber problem I’ve been pointing out

And all I asked was for one person to simply acknowledge, out loud, that what I’m saying is true: none of the major medical, psychiatric, or clinical bodies endorse the claims you’re making. Not one.

But nobody here will admit that, because you all understand how bad it looks for your side of the argument when the entire professional landscape contradicts you. And it shows your dishonesty in the conversation.

And yes, by your own community’s analogy, that makes your side the flat‑earthers here.

Shortshriftandlethal · 22/01/2026 08:13

Collat · 22/01/2026 07:40

Nobody is claiming people can magically ‘become the opposite sex’ through inner feelings. That’s a strawman.

If that’s genuinely how you’ve interpreted the point, it suggests you’re not engaging with it at a level that reflects critical thought or basic comprehension.

We get it you accept, unquestioningly, the concept of 'gender identity'. When will you understand that there is no consensus it is other than a recent phenomena and a particular framing device for distress; and that most people here do not accept it as a fact in the way you do.

Personal feelings are not enough to give credence to such a claim. Nobody denies that some people feel things or have developed ideas of themselves. Ideas which bear no relation to reality - unfortunately for them.

Shortshriftandlethal · 22/01/2026 08:15

Collat · 22/01/2026 08:12

I’ve already tried engaging across multiple sub‑topics, and all that achieved was people accusing me of ‘conflation’ simply because several conversations were happening at once. It’s perfectly normal to mix up users or threads when ten people are talking at the same time, but that doesn’t mean I was conflating arguments.

That’s exactly why I’m now sticking to one point only — no side‑tracks, no topic‑hopping, no conflation. Just the core issue.

And on that core issue, the overwhelming medical and psychiatric consensus does not support the claims your community is making. You’re the ones making the counter‑consensus claims, so the burden of proof sits with you. And you haven’t met it.

If anything you’ve (the community) argued would actually hold up to scrutiny, at least one reputable medical, psychiatric, or clinical body somewhere in the Western world would endorse it. None do. Not one. The only explanation you ever offer for that is the conspiracy theory that all these institutions are ‘captured’. That’s not evidence — it’s a way to avoid the fact that your claims have zero institutional backing.

When I asked for evidence of this supposed ‘capture’, the most common reply I got was, ‘everyone on Mumsnet knows it’. That doesn’t demonstrate institutional corruption — it demonstrates exactly the echo‑chamber problem I’ve been pointing out

And all I asked was for one person to simply acknowledge, out loud, that what I’m saying is true: none of the major medical, psychiatric, or clinical bodies endorse the claims you’re making. Not one.

But nobody here will admit that, because you all understand how bad it looks for your side of the argument when the entire professional landscape contradicts you. And it shows your dishonesty in the conversation.

And yes, by your own community’s analogy, that makes your side the flat‑earthers here.

If you spent as much time researching this board as you do repeating falsities you'd have plenty of the evidence you are looking for.

TheKeatingFive · 22/01/2026 08:18

Collat · 22/01/2026 08:12

I’ve already tried engaging across multiple sub‑topics, and all that achieved was people accusing me of ‘conflation’ simply because several conversations were happening at once. It’s perfectly normal to mix up users or threads when ten people are talking at the same time, but that doesn’t mean I was conflating arguments.

That’s exactly why I’m now sticking to one point only — no side‑tracks, no topic‑hopping, no conflation. Just the core issue.

And on that core issue, the overwhelming medical and psychiatric consensus does not support the claims your community is making. You’re the ones making the counter‑consensus claims, so the burden of proof sits with you. And you haven’t met it.

If anything you’ve (the community) argued would actually hold up to scrutiny, at least one reputable medical, psychiatric, or clinical body somewhere in the Western world would endorse it. None do. Not one. The only explanation you ever offer for that is the conspiracy theory that all these institutions are ‘captured’. That’s not evidence — it’s a way to avoid the fact that your claims have zero institutional backing.

When I asked for evidence of this supposed ‘capture’, the most common reply I got was, ‘everyone on Mumsnet knows it’. That doesn’t demonstrate institutional corruption — it demonstrates exactly the echo‑chamber problem I’ve been pointing out

And all I asked was for one person to simply acknowledge, out loud, that what I’m saying is true: none of the major medical, psychiatric, or clinical bodies endorse the claims you’re making. Not one.

But nobody here will admit that, because you all understand how bad it looks for your side of the argument when the entire professional landscape contradicts you. And it shows your dishonesty in the conversation.

And yes, by your own community’s analogy, that makes your side the flat‑earthers here.

Absolutely none of that diatribe answers the question though

Of no one is claiming men can change sex, why are women's single sex spaces even on the table for the TRAs?

And no, standing up for scientific facts and women's rights does not make us the 'flat earthers', I mean listen to yourself 🫠

Swipe left for the next trending thread