[Tubby Isaacs]

There's a straightforward misquote there. Streeting isn't talking about trans women's presence in female facilities as being unpleasant. He's talking about trans men being sent into female spaces as being unpleasant to everyone (including the trans man himself).

That's a seriously dishonest account.

[Crabcakes]

Also stats for lefties is a known crank and shouldn't be relied upon.

This is the Mumsnet AMA with Streeting he’s referring to. I have read it and It’s all there.

You may well argue it’s a pessimistic take of what he says, but in the current environment where it seems to be convenience of a simplistic black and white ruling and draconian application of the same trumps any sort of consideration of fairness, reasonable accommodation etc., I’m struggling to give the benefit of the doubt.


https://www.mumsnet.com/news/wes-streeting-mumsnet-asks

[Crabcakes]

There's a straightforward misquote there. Streeting isn't talking about trans women's presence in female facilities as being unpleasant. He's talking about trans men being sent into female spaces as being unpleasant to everyone (including the trans man himself).

That's a seriously dishonest account.

Just to note it’s not actually a quote and as far as I can see doesn’t claim to be. It’s an observation. Trans women already are banned from women’s spaces - so that is correct as of now. And Streeting’s quote is about trans men in women’s spaces - which the law as set says is the only space they should use - also not being desirable. So saying his aim is to exclude trans people from all but third spaces is not an unreasonable conclusion. As I said below it could be argued it’s pessimistic, but it’s not inaccurate.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I'm not arguing it's good, but this is the existing policy in the NHS, such as it exists at all given that it would cost a fortune and take forever. To represent that as the Government setting up third spaces everywhere seems a bit dishonest. I note that the rest of the media haven't reacted to this story.

[Tubby Isaacs]

There's a straightforward misquote there. Streeting isn't talking about trans women's presence in female facilities as being unpleasant. He's talking about trans men being sent into female spaces as being unpleasant to everyone (including the trans man himself).

That's a seriously dishonest account.

Just to note it’s not actually a quote and as far as I can see doesn’t claim to be. It’s an observation. Trans women already are banned from women’s spaces - so that is correct as of now. And Streeting’s quote is about trans men in women’s spaces - which the law as set says is the only space they should use - also not being desirable. So saying his aim is to exclude trans people from all but third spaces is not an unreasonable conclusion. As I said below it could be argued it’s pessimistic, but it’s not inaccurate.

Not a quote? Well, all but a quote. I think he's either misrepresenting or has misread, that's all. He'd have said "this would mean.." or something.

If that is the law, what's the Secretary of State supposed to do? He can't change the law, if that's not the position of the Cabinet. The NHS will get sued all the time.

[Crabcakes]

If that is the law, what's the Secretary of State supposed to do? He can't change the law, if that's not the position of the Cabinet. The NHS will get sued all the time.

Well he could stand up for a marginalised minority rather than give the impression they’re an unpleasant inconvenience. As you say, he is the Secretary of State and sits in cabinet - *I* can’t do anything. I would very much hope *he* could.

I don’t want to drag this out, so I’ll just add I appreciate it hasn’t been picked up elsewhere (though lack of coverage doesn’t automatically mean lack of story), and I would be delighted if this all turned out to be wrong.

[Tubby Isaacs]

This may be no bad thing (apologies for the source). The Government has I presume realized the problems.

[Crabcakes]

I can see why they pushed releasing the guidelines back. It’s completely unworkable and, more importantly, a bigot’s dream where they can have their cake *and* eat it - you can question someone - anyone - about their gender based on their looks, ban them if you decide you don’t believe them, ban them from the facilities they identify with because they don’t look sufficiently male/female, plus ban them from the facilities that match their biology because they look like they’re the opposite sex.

It would in effect mean trans people would be excluded from public life at the whim of whoever owned facilities unless a specific, gender-neutral option were available, and cis people who exhibited any sort of gender fluidity in dress or behaviour would equally be up for scrutiny. And you could bet there would be a whole plethora of charmers itching to sign up to police toilets to their satisfaction.

An absolute mess.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Aside from anything else, the idea that the NHS is going to spend fortunes on creating third spaces is an obvious nonsense.

[Tubby Isaacs]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... ung-people

Two UK clinical trials to assess impact of puberty blockers in young people

Seems reasonable enough to me. I don't get this reaction. This is how trials always work, as someone else points out.

Chay Brown, the health director for the advocacy group TransActual, raised ethical concerns about the trial, describing it as “coercive in nature”.

“It is, and will be for a long time to come, the only means that young people have of accessing puberty blockers through the NHS,” he said.

“Worse, the fact that it is a randomised controlled trial, which means leaving some of the young people waiting an extra year for puberty suppression, is not a neutral act. Those in that group will experience distressing pubertal changes that those in the other group will not.

“While we are glad that some young people will be able to access the care they need without being criminalised, we fear that this is overall bad news for young trans people in the UK.”

I get the feeling that the medical establishment, for want of a better word, are happy for puberty blockers to be take off their desk. Perhaps they're unnecessarily cautious, I'm sure it's happened before. But I think it's going to be very hard for a political party to argue against the medical establishment. I wonder if the Greens will continue to do so?

[Samanfur]

What still sticks out for me is that the ban was only for treatment of gender dysphoria. Somehow, the exact same drugs have remained perfectly safe for cisgender children.

I feel for Keira Bell, but she really needs to come to terms with the fact that one person's negative experiences doesn't invalidate thousands of positive ones, and presenting herself as some sort of crusader for children's rights when (cf. my above paragraph) what she really is is one of TERF ideology's useful idiots.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Delaying precocious puberty is a bit different, isn't it? But I appreciate that medics in other places regard them as safe treatment of gender dysphoria, so perhaps it is a case of the UK medical establishment being out of step, either because of the wider politics or because of some sort of conservatism.

In terms of some sort of "middle way" though all this, which doesn't seem very easy to find, perhaps there's something in combining the current approach to puberty blockers with a more liberal approach to gender generally. So a young person experiencing dysphoria would at least be reassured that the changes they were experiencing weren't something that necessarily goes against their gender identity?

[Samanfur]

I see what you're saying about precocious puberty, but it's hard to see the disparity when the drugs were banned as dysphoria treatment on the grounds that they were unproven and/or unsafe, but still somehow safe and proven enough for other children to use:

Dr Hilary Cass, author of the independent review of gender identity services for children and young people, said:

Puberty blockers are powerful drugs with unproven benefits and significant risks, and that is why I recommended that they should only be prescribed following a multi-disciplinary assessment and within a research protocol.

I support the government’s decision to continue restrictions on the dispensing of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria outside the NHS where these essential safeguards are not being provided.

James Palmer, NHS Medical Director for Specialised Services, said:

Evidence reviews by NICE and NHS England, supported by Dr Cass, clearly showed there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of puberty suppressing hormones for the treatment of gender dysphoria or incongruence, which is why the NHS decided that they would no longer be routinely offered to children and young people.

We welcome the government’s decision to further ban access through private prescribers, which closes a loophole that posed a risk to the safety of children and young people, but this will be a difficult time for young people and their families who are affected, so we are extending an offer of targeted support to anyone affected by the banning order from their local mental health services.

As you say, that feels more political than clinical.

[Tubby Isaacs]

It certainly could be, I agree. I can't remember before Cass really, did the medical establishment really stick up for puberty blockers? May be a mixture of existing unease and political pressure?

[The Weeping Angel]

They certainly are in the States. Several other countries have banned or restricted puberty blockers, such as Sweden, for example.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... ung-people

Two UK clinical trials to assess impact of puberty blockers in young people

Seems reasonable enough to me. I don't get this reaction. This is how trials always work, as someone else points out.

Chay Brown, the health director for the advocacy group TransActual, raised ethical concerns about the trial, describing it as “coercive in nature”.

“It is, and will be for a long time to come, the only means that young people have of accessing puberty blockers through the NHS,” he said.

“Worse, the fact that it is a randomised controlled trial, which means leaving some of the young people waiting an extra year for puberty suppression, is not a neutral act. Those in that group will experience distressing pubertal changes that those in the other group will not.

“While we are glad that some young people will be able to access the care they need without being criminalised, we fear that this is overall bad news for young trans people in the UK.”

I get the feeling that the medical establishment, for want of a better word, are happy for puberty blockers to be take off their desk. Perhaps they're unnecessarily cautious, I'm sure it's happened before. But I think it's going to be very hard for a political party to argue against the medical establishment. I wonder if the Greens will continue to do so?

Yup. It's nonsense, anti-science.