The NHS will test all children who believe they are transgender for autism under new plans seen by The Telegraph.

In essence, the Supreme Court's ruling clarifies that the GRA and the Equality Act operate in different legal contexts, with the Equality Act focusing on biological sex for specific purposes, while the GRA focuses on legal recognition of gender identity.

Right, so where sex, as opposed to 'gender identity' is relevant (ie single sex spaces, and sex-based statistics, sports categories and so on) the law says that male-born people are men, and may not be presumed to be women. 'Gender identity' is neither her nor there, other than in people's heads. So yes, people can continue to call 'Susan-who-used-to-be-Brian' Sue, and use female pronouns if they like (but presumably will no longer be compelled to do so), but Sue must use the Gents and if hospitalised will be on a male ward.

That's how I read it anyway. Does anyone think it means something else?

A GMC spokesperson said:

‘Our policies will always comply with the law.

Good. Biological sex has been defined and that definition is the law. The BMA has stated it will comply with the law, therefore the Junior Doctors' statement is, to me, an open defiance of the law and an expression of contempt for the Judiciary. Nothing to do with a lack of understanding concerning biological definitions, simply a desire to perpetuate the myth that humans can change sex at will.

The interpretations of the badly written 2010 Equality Act are to blame, and have caused immense damage.

Allira, I answered you and it vanished into the ether. I don't trust people who can't be accountable or apologise, it is true. I was replying to something else that was said that was untrue on a personal level so that is the context, I wasn't staying anything about opinions of which there are many. I am very often wrong I am sure but I am not sharing my opinion here as necessarily right or wrong just as it is.

If they decide sex isn't biological, fixed at conception and immutable then they'll have started the journey back to the dark ages, when myth and magic ruled. How can we believe them on anything if they really think being a man or woman is a choice, on a sliding scale with some being both/neither? Do they have any idea what causes pregnancies?

Following that up I looked up the GMC's reaction to the new ruling.

"Following the Supreme Court’s judgment last week defining a woman under the 2010 Equalities Act, and misleading media reporting that subsequently followed, the GMC has issued the following statement:
A GMC spokesperson said:

‘Our policies will always comply with the law.

‘We note the ruling of the Supreme Court. We will review the judgment in full and carefully consider its relevance to our own policies and processes.’

www.gmc-uk.org/news/news-archive/gmc-statement-following-supreme-court-judgment-on-definition-of-a-woman#:~:text=Following%20the%20Supreme%20Court's%20judgment,ruling%20of%20the%20Supreme%20Court.

This continues to either destroy trust in organisations or make them a laughing stock. It will also prove costly if they ignore the law.

I'm sure they know that. I think it's a very ill thought out clumsy attempt to say, "we dont agree with all the implications of the act in our work as doctors".

The BMA is a trade union but doctors have to be acknowledged as safe to practice by the GMC. We'll have to see firstly how the BMA as a whole reacts and if necessary I suppose it could be a GMC issue.

always good to know who has a prostate and who has a womb
🙈

As usual, that's a very verbose post PoliticsNerd and it fails to explain why Dr Upton, a fully qualified doctor, still hasn't grasped that he's a biological man; can never be the biological woman he claims to be and that biological sex is a nebulous term which doesn't really mean anything is basic scientific hogwash. Even if your trainee med students are a bit slow and hard of learning they'll hopefully cover basic biology before being let loose on patients. But it's rather worrying that a qualified doctor is already practising on patients and doesn't know which are which. Always good to know which one has a prostate and which one doesn't, don't you think?

It is a logical fallacy to claim that junior doctors or any medical professionals do not understand basic biology because they are still in training.
That’s true, especially when junior doctors may have been training for some time, but that makes the claim
BMA resident doctors, (formerly junior doctors, representing possibly 50,000 doctors in training,) concerning the judgement passed by the Supreme Court ruling that transwomen are not legally women, nor transmen legally men.

They called the ruling 'biologically nonsensical' and claimed a binary divide between sex and gender has no basis in science or medicine.
even more worrying. If they’ve had all that training and they still deny biological truth, it doesn’t say much about the knowledge they’ve acquired.

I like the way they say representing possibly . . . implying they have no concrete proof of their opinion.

Some explanations for the lack of understanding are here.

Biology is a vast field with many complex systems and processes, making it challenging for students to grasp the whole picture.

The interconnectedness of biological systems can be overwhelming, making it hard to see how individual concepts fit together, according to a discussion on the British Medical Association website.

Some junior doctors might struggle to see the relevance of certain biological concepts to their clinical practice, especially if their chosen specialty doesn't focus heavily on biological principles.

Not reassuring.

Allira

What happens now with people like Dr McCloud who have had their sex changed on their birth certificates?
Presumably after this ruling, as a legal document, it is now false.

Clearly the status and meaning of this has to be clarified for everyones' sake.

Some serious googling results in

"The recent Supreme Court ruling on the definition of "woman" in the Equality Act 2010, specifically in relation to transgender people, has several implications for the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004. While the GRA itself remains in effect, the Supreme Court's interpretation of "sex" in the Equality Act, which defines it as biological sex, means that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not automatically confer the legal status of "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act."

however

"In essence, the Supreme Court's ruling clarifies that the GRA and the Equality Act operate in different legal contexts, with the Equality Act focusing on biological sex for specific purposes, while the GRA focuses on legal recognition of gender identity"

eazybee

What concerns me is the motion passed by the BMA resident doctors, (formerly junior doctors, representing possibly 50,000 doctors in training,) concerning the judgement passed by the Supreme Court ruling that transwomen are not legally women, nor transmen legally men.
They called the ruling 'biologically nonsensical' and claimed a binary divide between sex and gender has no basis in science or medicine while being actively harmful to transgender and gender- diverse people. . It condemns 'scientifically illiterate rulings from the Supreme court, made without consulting relevant experts and stakeholders that will cause real world harm to the trans, non-binary and intersex communities in this country.'
So even though it is the law they will reject it as they sought to do with the Cass Review last summer.
It worries me that these doctors may well be the ones conducting examinations on children to identify possible autism.

It is a logical fallacy to claim that junior doctors or any medical professionals do not understand basic biology because they are still in training.

Just as a law student is still learning but understands the law well enough to practice under supervision, junior doctors have foundational medical knowledge and are trained to interpret scientific evidence. Dismissing their expertise based solely on their training stage ignores the rigorous education they have received and the scientific consensus they rely on. Expertise is developed through training and experience, not solely by the number of years in practice.

Could you also reference any "openly declared defiance of the law". If someone defies the law by not obeying it they are breaking it and can be charged. However, they are as at liberty as you and I to challenge any law while we are a still a democracy.

Allira

What happens now with people like Dr McCloud who have had their sex changed on their birth certificates?
Presumably after this ruling, as a legal document, it is now false.

They’ll fight to keep the falsehood going of course.
Does this sort of behaviour really enhance the perception of trans?

What happens now with people like Dr McCloud who have had their sex changed on their birth certificates?
Presumably after this ruling, as a legal document, it is now false.

I saw that too Eazybee. Just another bloke saying "the law doesn't suit me so I'm going to get it changed to the way I want it".

Another one.
Britain's first Transgender Judge is planning to take the Government to the European Court of Human Rights in the wake of the Supreme Court Ruling.
Victoria McCloud quit the profession ( legal?) claiming he could no longer do his job without politicising the judiciary.
He has a gender recognition certificate, and intends to use the ECHR to have the ruling declared unlawful.
He claims "I am a woman for all purposes in law but I am a man for the Equality Act 2010....so I have to probably guess on any given occasion which sex I am in fact supposed to be."
Claims to feel 'contained and segregated' as a result of the ruling.
Apparently little chance of winning the case.; the Scottish Government has already accepted the ruling; no route to take the government to the ECHR.
Again, it is these people thinking they are above the law.

I'd like just one of these arrogant young doctors to show the world the third, fourth or more gamete. If they don't understand that biological sex is determined solely by the gametes a body should be able to produce then I don't want them to so much as take my pulse. Every single mammal reproduces by sexual reproduction, one contributing a large gamete and called female, the other contributing a small gamete and called male. They're juniors who profess to know more than a world leading expert in fertility and therefore biological sex, Sir Robert Winston. As for their despicable use of 'intersex' people, every single DSD is exclusive either to males or females, they are not a third or hybrid sex.

Allira

Luminance
I never have to avoid people I disagree with who can be accountable and apologise

But what if, in fact, they are right and you are wrong? Why should they apologise? Would you apologise? Or are you always right?

That a really pertinent question Allira.

Well said eazybee.
These young doctors might have Big Brains but no humility. The Supreme Court isn’t to be dismissed in the way eg the original Harry Potter child stars dismissed JKR

The motion concerning the Supreme Court ruling is due to be discussed in June. It is the openly declared defiance of the law that is so concerning; the body proposing it includes students in various levels of training and those I believe to be qualified doctors in the early stages of their career, the notorious Dr.Beth Upton being one such.
The contemptuous terms of the statement, 'biologically nonsensical' and ' scientifically illiterate',are a clear indication of the arrogance of these putative members of the medical profession and do not bode well for the future.

The youngest child can tell the difference between men and women. It's really not that difficult. Medical students are dealing with real bodies not imaginary ones.

Carlotta

7 years of medical school and they still haven't grasped O level biology eazybee; terrifying when you think about it.

Depends what they were taught in school I suppose.

Luminance

I never have to avoid people I disagree with who can be accountable and apologise, they would be welcome in my own living room to discuss a topic with me and quite often are. I have never felt I had to agree with someone to have a positive relationship with them.

I never have to avoid people I disagree with who can be accountable and apologise

But what if, in fact, they are right and you are wrong? Why should they apologise? Would you apologise? Or are you always right?
🤔

In a sense what does it matter, Streeting has been really clear that the NHS must follow the law. There was always going to be a lot of shouting following the ruling.

Sounds very strange indeed.

Its standing is currently a motion by Junior Doctors, but it is understood that the BMA's official position will not be decided until a conference in June.