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

And personally I have no issue at all with people feeling deeply about their 'gender identity'. They can knock themselves out.

But that's of no relevance to me (or anyone else). Much like their religious beliefs or their star sign.

If we had relied as much on the certainties of medical and scientific bodies as Collat does women would still die of puerperal fever today because that crazy Dr Semmelweis and his funny ideas about washing hands was against all the wisdom of the medical establishment.

You still cannot tell me what you are actually arguing FOR. I'll try again for the third time. Can you tell us in one or two sentences with no world salad or deflection what your argument is?

One of the issues with this post is that the embedded use of coercive control / intimidation running through the trans extremists "working" in the civil service is rarely challenged. Does anyone remember this thread from 2019 where a mumsnetter sought support after being instructed on how to manage her body language / facial expression on finding a man in the women's toilets?
There's no sign that these neanderthal attitudes have disappeared - in fact the legal challenge about SEEN in the civil service suggests these men feel even more empowered.

This post offers the civil service bullies even greater opportunities to coerce women into accepting the unacceptable - as showcased here:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3520371-civil-service-trans-policy-what-can-i-do

The language, nonsensical claims and tactics change (seemingly with the wind) but the core of coercing women into accepting sex change and men in women's spaces, continues. And this govt are enabling this.

Collat doesn’t rely on any certainty. He relies on obsfucation, vagueness, and false statements. He evidences nothing and just produces endless streams of bluster and pomposity, constantly switching tack as arguments fail, frequently stating contradictions. It is about distraction.

What an extraordinary display of repetitive, reality-denying falsehoods, perversion of logic, accusations of ignorance and lack of comprehension, avoidance of actual engagement and staggering condescension, we have just seen, sustained over many pages and a number of days,

All in the service of attempting to justify male access to single sex spaces.

I have no doubt there is a civil servant activist in a post like this in the Scottish government. Possibly many. Just look at the Scottish Government’s argument for putting men in women’s prisons- ignoring treaties and Scottish laws as well as the Supreme Court ruling, and completely ignoring women’s rights.

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.

I did not 'question the legitimacy of trans people' - though I'm not 100% sure what that actually means. Trans people exist, most evidence points towards it being a mental health condition.

It is good to see that you agree that the NHS have rejected WPATH's low-evidence model.

The NHS are still providing gender-affirming care but the trend is towards providing less drugs and surgery and more mental health care.

When trans took off the NHS were faced with a need to provide care for the sharply increasing number of patients who were presenting (likely the effect of social contagion). Faced with an immediate need and the knowledge that a proper study would take years to complete, the NHS adopted WPATH's guidance as the best (perhaps only) option available to them.

The results of the Cass study have been published. WPATH's low-evidence approach is bogus and not supported by available clinical evidence.

The NHS have discarded WPATH's main thrust of unquestioning gender-affirmation in favour of a holistic approach that recognises patients' mental health issues and better protects children.

Bodies that have based their approach on WPATH's low-evidence guidance (the scientific consensus that you claim) have been put on notice - thorough analysis of the clinical data shows that WPATH's approach does not improve patient outcomes.

Depressing isn't? The civil service at the heart of government has been so deeply captured by extreme transactivism to the extent that some of our children have been so massively damaged. If the DfE & the NHS wasn't in thrall to transactivism they'd have been able to prioritise safeguarding children - society's fundamental purpose - rather than indulge the men promoting their fetishes and the age inappropriate notion of sex change.

The harm done to the young is off the scale.

So if people can’t change sex, why are transpeople demanding access to spaces reserved for the opposite sex?

Because this ideology is based on an ever shifting set of beliefs and niche demands that all appear to focus on removing the rights of women, removing aspects of child safeguarding and obliterating all single sex resources / spaces.

This isn't about intellectual coherence - it's about imposing an anti social belief on an unconsenting society.

What is the core issue? Just so that I know what you are looking for. Perfectly willing to go crawl pubmed, I would just like to know what you think the core issue is that there is no consensus for on 'our' side

@Collat Plenty of transwoman claim to be of the opposite sex due to an internal feeling. Ever heard of India Willoughby? Dr Beth Upton? Both claim to be biologically female and there are plenty more making the same claim.

What even does the. " legitimacy of trans people" even mean? That people are what they say they are regardless of the fact that they clearly are not?

Personally I don't view anyone who adopts a transgender identity to be anything other than some one who has adopted such an identity. People with trans identities are not a special category of human being, anymore than someone who professes a particular religious identity, or someone who has an identity that revolves around supporting a football club.

We can all recognise that this is part of their identity...but it doesn't change the nature of reality for anyone else, nor impinge upon the normal functioning or organisation of society. We all have the same civil rights and protections regrdless of what we identify with. And some groups have additional or special protections.

The biggest problem with quoting or making reference to anything the NHS has said, is the fact, that the NHS has been completely consumed by gender ideology, something made very obvious by the recent tribunal and legal cases, involving the Darlington nurses, Sandi Peggie and Jennifer Melle.
In 2023 North Bristol NHS Trust stated - "the Trust will not guarantee same-sex intimate care for patients, putting staff preferences above the needs of patients. This is despite the trust’s biggest hospital recording up to 30 sexual assaults against females having taken place on hospital property."

https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/gender-identity-ideology-in-the-nhs/

He won’t say. He is like an abusive man who refuses to say what he wants so he can punish women for never meeting his requests.

Yet we have activists on here saying there is no imposition from the centre in response to a job advert specifically to do just that.

Agreed. Which is why wedging this post into the Cabinet Office at the top of government is so dangerous - to the vulnerable in society and frankly to the credibility of politicians and government.

Hannah Arendt had a lot to say about politicians lying to citizens being a deliberate strategy.

"Factual truth (events, shared reality) is crucial for common ground in politics, but totalitarianism treats facts as enemies, seeking to control reality itself"

That final statement could be a book review of George Orwell's "1984".

As a former CS, I very much doubt it.

I've got a severe case of déjà vu re collat. That posting style is so familiar.

What’s happening here does not feel accidental anymore. This is exactly what you see when a position can’t meet the evidentiary bar it’s being held to.
Specific claims are being made that run directly counter to the established medical and scientific consensus. In that situation (social contagion being one of many that popped up), the burden of proof does not sit with the consensus position — it sits with those challenging it.

Yet instead of providing evidence, the response has consistently been to demand that i disprove claims that have never been substantiated in the first place, or to shift the discussion onto tone and motives. That’s not how evidence-based debate works.

If you want to overturn or seriously challenge a consensus, you have to demonstrate it with credible, institutional evidence. Until that happens, repeatedly asking me for proof is simply a reversal of the burden of proof, not a rebuttal.

I’ve outlined the claims and the consensus multiple times. Repeatedly asking what they are suggests bad-faith engagement, not confusion. If this is confusion rather than bad faith, then it reflects a basic misunderstanding of how claims, consensus, and burden of proof function from your end.

For example:

Someone from your community claims that being trans is a social contagion. That is your claim, because it goes against the established medical and scientific consensus — which is my position.

The burden of proof is on you, not me. You now need to provide credible, institutionally backed evidence to support it.

If you cannot provide that evidence, it remains opinion, not fact.
This same process applies to all claims made against the consensus. Every claim — social contagion, ideology capture, inherent harm — must be backed by recognized medical, psychiatric, or clinical evidence.

Going back to my point from five pages ago, I already know there is no institutionally backed evidence for any of these positions. That means they are all opinions, not facts. you are welcome to your opinion, but that does not make them factual.

Unless, of course, you can provide it. (i know you cant, but maybe something changed in the last 24 hours?)

Just like flat-earthers, your side relies on opinions shaped by personal beliefs and feelings, not on credible evidence or facts.

What I’ve outlined above is exactly the status quo.

Just like flat-earthers, your side relies on opinions shaped by personal beliefs and feelings, not on credible evidence or facts.

Nah. Sex is a fact. Gender identity is a feeling and a belief. The burden of proof that it even exists is on you.

Is there a Judaism Equality Civil Servant at the Cabinet Office? After all, there are about as many people in the UK who identify as Jewish as there are people in the UK who identify as trans. There is documented evidence of the increasing number of physical violence and fatal attacks being perpetrated upon Jewish people, as well as documented evidence of both ‘hate crimes’ and incitement to violence upon Jewish people. I wonder what the ratio is of Jewish peopled harmed because they were Jewish to trans people harmed because they were trans.

But, no, no need to appoint someone to focus on ensuring that UK citizens are safe living their lives according to UK law. Rather, it’s more important to appoint someone to focus on ensuring that a special caste of citizens are protected to live their lives outwith UK law, protected from the consequences of their actions, and punishing anybody who points out that they are breaking the law.

But we all know sex exists Collat. Our society has been arranged around that binary for millennia.

You can't even tell us what 'gender identity' is.

So the flat earther label is all on you.