We will prosecute any medical professional or anyone in ANY position of authority who has deliberately mutilated a young child in the name of gender ideology.

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

I do like someone who speaks their mind, clearly.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DUiPrqDYHD/

Restore - Rupert Lowe

"Important news. The sick puberty blocking trial has been stopped, for now.

A real win for everyone who has campaigned against it.

Our petition sent a strong message, but it is definitely not enough.

Restore Britain is clear here. We will prosecute any medical professional or anyone in ANY position of authority who has deliberately mutilated a young child in the name of gender ideology.

That will apply retrospectively.

We must keep this filth away from young children. We are sending a message that will hopefully make them think twice now.

Well done to all involved who have fought this - particularly James Esses and Rosie Duffield.

Heroes.

A good win. But the fight has just begun."

(FWIW Rupert says plenty of things I agree with, so does Zack , I hold a spectrum of views and I refuse to get involved in the polarising omnicause attitude both "sides" appear to have)

I am however, for reasons that may be clear if you have followed my exploits, not to mention the ones I have not yet shared, a single cause voter. ... not that they're going to win in Brighton...

I wish the left would stop co-opting feminism and pretending they are in any way acting in womens' or childrens' interests to push their own agenda.

Works both ways.

Agreed.

Cyanide is a known fatal poison with no medical applications.

It is in no way reasonably comparable to puberty blockers.

what if all that were true and the administration were not and could not have been the best course of action?

It would not matter unless you could prove that the doctors concerned were acting maliciously with the intention to cause harm. If they are following established protocol and medical guidance - even if that later turns out to be wrong - there is no case to prosecute.

It's the same reason doctors were not prosecuted for prescribing thalidomide. That was quite clearly not the right course of action but at the time it was thought to be.

“Thought to be” how, though? As @Shedmistress points out, it wasn’t administration of something for one purpose, which turned out to be bad in another way – it was administration for one purpose and that purpose was a bad one. You don’t get round that just because those administering memed themselves into thinking the purpose was a good one. Again, it wouldn’t be a good defence against administering cyanide.

Your thalidomide comparison might work, actually – except the scenario would be a group of practitioners who persuaded themselves to continue prescribing after it became known that birth defects would result.

These drugs are prescribed off label for this purpose. In children they are only licenced for precocious puberty, so any doctor prescribing them to delay puberty in a child going through puberty at a normal age is not following normal prescribing guidelines.

I'm not a medical professional, and I don't know what justification a doctor needs to prescribe medication off label, but their decision to prescribe in this way is presumably open to more questions than when they follow normal prescribing guidelines. I don't know if they can be prosecuted for prescribing off label inappropriately.

I think there is a problem with the expression “deliberately mutilated“. Lots of surgical interventions are deliberate mutilation, but for a therapeutic purpose.

If this was done in accordance with accepted medical practice at the time and there was no negligent or malicious intention, then deciding what constitutes deliberate mutilation is going to cause problems. It’s like saying that the doctors deliberately harm a child.

I know what we all think about these processes. Nevertheless, I think one has to be aware of the difference between high-minded political bandwagoning and an actual criminal offence.

If the actions weren’t in accordance with accepted medical practice at the time, then no new legislation is required. It would be negligence and possibly assault. I just don’t see this.

Best define the "hard right" first.

Do tell me which one of these policies you consider "extremist and or racist"

https://www.restorebritain.org.uk/policies

I like these ones:

Sex is biological

• Biological sex is not a social construct – it is a fixed trait determined by genetics and encoded in every cell of the human body.
• Men and women are morally equal, but not physically identical. This reality must be acknowledged, respected, and inform lawmaking.
• Men must not be allowed to enter women-only spaces including lavatories, prisons, and sporting contests. Permitting this puts women and girls at risk.
• Objective truth, not ideology, must guide governance.

Restore biological reality

• The Gender Recognition Act must be fully repealed. The state must no longer issue legal documents that permit individuals to change their sex in law. Biological sex will be recognised as immutable and recorded accordingly.
• Reinstate clear, sex-based definitions in legislation to ensure women-only spaces, services, and protections are preserved - including prisons, refuges, and sport.
• Abolish the concept of ‘legal gender change.’ Documents such as birth certificates and passports must reflect biological sex, not subjective identity.
• Repeal any public sector policies or training requirements that compel the use of preferred pronouns, or punish those who refuse to deny biological reality.

And in the meantime we have people taking this at face value (that it is possible, that it is serious policy, that the Restore "party" is committed to this course of action) and amplifying it.

So Restore is getting kudos in one particular area of feminist politics for saying some words allegedly from Lowe on SM and they don't actually need to do anything, just the publicity is enough and it'll get shared, moderate people saying oh he's got my vote and other moderate people go well he can't be that bad if XYZ is gonna vote for him, I think XYZ is a decent person, hmm maybe this Lowe guy is going up in my estimation.

And so it goes.

@HoppityBun Of course that raises the question of what is ‘accepted medical practice’, and how does that consensus get produced. Which is exactly the sort of corrupting of our institutions, from another angle, that we’ve been horrified by here pretty much for decades now.

*Best define the "hard right" first.
Do tell me which one of these policies you consider "extremist and or racist" *
https://www.restorebritain.org.uk/policies

Mass deportations anyone?

Maybe, if Lowe dressed up as St George like in those AI pictures his fans share on X, that would really shift the policy landscape.

So here's Rupert's spokesman endorsing Sharia law

https://x.com/Khaledhzakariah/status/2031360048966803616

I mean it is darkly funny in a way. Lowe has gained a lot of publicity by adopting super hardline language on grooming gangs, and crowdfunding his fake inquiry.

This has attracted an audience of Lowe enjoyers on X who, amongst other things, have been calling Matt Goodwin a race traitor because Matt believes immigrants can integrate and become British.

But then you put Rupert's spokesman on a panel with a couple of Islamists and the first place his mind goes is "Yeah we have a real problem in this country with white girls dressing immodestly"

Do tell me which one of these policies you consider "extremist and or racist"

Of course the biological sex policies are basic common sense founded on everyday reality. If pretty much else is very obvious "fringe loony" then the one sensible policy is easily dismissed by floating voters.

Puberty blockers and other medical interventions for gender-confused children are not accepted medical practice. As I mentioned in my earlier post, puberty blockers are only licenced for children in cases of precocious puberty, not for children who think they want to be the opposite sex.

If it was accepted medical practice then there wouldn't have to be a trial like the one which has just been put on hold, and doctors would just be carrying on prescribing as normal.

At GIDS, all the doctors tried to make sure that they couldn't be held responsible for any malpractice. When the GIDS doctors recommended that a child should be given puberty blockers, they didn't prescribe the drugs themselves, they sent them to the endocrinologists saying that the child should have their puberty blocked, then the endocrinologists prescribed the drugs.

So if this turns out to be malpractice, who is responsible? The GIDS doctor who diagnosed gender dysphoria, or the endocrinologist who prescribed the puberty blockers on their recommendation?

It's a basic question of political strategy, isn't it?

If you want biological sex to be recognised in law, as per the Supreme Court, there are basically two approaches.

1. You can try to lobby politicians who normie voters will support - it may be Kemi Badenoch or Nigel Farage or maybe you can find a sensible politician on the left - who won't give you 100% of what you want, because they don't want to seem like istaphobes, but will give you most of what you want.

OR

2. You notice that Rupert Lowe's Black Shorts movement is saying exciting stuff like "we will prosecute gender doctors" and you're so excited to see someone taking a hard line on your key issue that you're willing to overlook Black Shorts spokesmen saying other things that might put off normie voters like "let's ban contraception" or "you know historians have been really unfair to the Wehrmacht".

To me it's a pragmatic question of how to achieve the important things, but YMMV.

It would work if having perfect babies was 'heteronormative' as per Sally Hines' reasoning of why women who think they are men should be totally ok taking drugs that might affect the baby because that's qweer.

You think deporting illegal immigrants is extremist?

Saying you do not believe in borders is fine, just be clear about it.

I assume you don't lock your doors when you leave the house, or even close them.

Well, I'd certainly like to hear a take on whether anyone here agrees with Restore Britain's "campaigns director" that England deserved the grooming gangs because it turned its back on God:
Restore members: Do you think English people ‘deserve’ grooming gangs?

This is the same Charlie Downes who, when debating Islamists, thought it was a clever point to say that the country has a massive problem with white girls dressing immodestly.

Even if you find Lowe personally impressive, sooner or later you'll have to confront the fact that he's hired idiots, and it's the idiots who are running things.

What a nonsensical straw man argument! It's long been accepted that some people on the right might have a handful of incontrovertible views or policies based on provable fact. The fact that Trump might go outside and say, 'hey the grass outside the White House (if any remains, that is) is green!' and that I would agree with him doesn't mean I am also in agreement with him or someone like him about the rest of his policies or beliefs or observations.

I don't give a shiny one about whatever Reform and Restore claim are their policies about women's spaces and women's/girls' rights and safeguarding. I KNOW that biological sex is not a social construct - it is demonstrably a fact that can be proved. So what? So I agree with them on one provable fact. It doesn't follow that I would therefore vote them in on one shared observation. The rest of their policies are quite clearly extremist, racist and repressionist. I want nothing of that. I'm not prepared to vote on this one issue, I'm afraid, and I'm deeply concerned at the numbers of women I actually know in RL who have previously been fairly lefty trad feminists who seem to be drifting towards the Right on this one issue.

These extreme right-wing parties have nothing for us. They are not interested in human rights, they are not interested in women's rights. They are not, for instance, interested in housing immigrant women who are fleeing extremist regimes where they're at risk for their lives. They have clearly taken up a 'cause' that they think might claw them a few more votes, and they're coming at this from a diametrically opposed place. They are conservative: they WANT women in their 'place'. That place might be single-sex changing rooms, hospital wings etc (fine and good) but it is also in the household, being a mother, having more kids.

Fuck that.

They're not just talking about illegals though, are they? Or even balkanised ethnic enclaves that don't integrate?

If you pay attention to Downes and Tomlinson, they've gone to some pains to tell us that Jews aren't British. Where do you think they're going with that?

Oh sorry - I forgot I was supposed to judge people on what you reckon they said, rather than what they ACTUALLY SAY in their published policies.

Sorry

Silly me.

Glad to know you don't believe in borders AND you can mind read.

Again, tell me which of the published policies makes Restore one of what you call "extreme right-wing parties" and why?

Thats just not a dog whistle that works any more.

Restore and Reform are polling 35% combined.

You're throwing around the term 'conservative' as if it's an insult, which is childish, given about 50% of the worlds population could be categorised as having leanings that way.

Shouting far right or nazi or some other meaningless phrase does not shut down debate.

ANYWAY

Looks like it's working, the Overton window is moving. Good.

Mr Tomlinson, who is part of Lowe's inner circle, didn't used to have a problem with Jews, but if you're trying to forge a career as the British version of Nick Fuentes, I suppose you have to chase a Nick Fuentes audience:
Farage continues to face nationalist backlash over Reform UK’s Jewish and pro-Israel groups - Jewish News