Every child referred to a gender clinic will be “screened for neurodevelopmental conditions” such as autism and ADHD under new guidance, to be introduced in the wake of the Cass review.
The review, by paediatrician Baroness Cass, found that the mental health conditions were disproportionately common among children and young people with gender dysphoria.
Medics will also evaluate each child’s mental health, their relationship with their family and their sexual development, including whether they are experiencing same-sex attraction.
As part of a proposal to incorporate Lady Cass’s recommendations, the health service will move away from the “medical model” operated by the controversial Tavistock’s Gender Identity Development Service in favour of a “holistic” approach.”
What do we think? I think no child should be referred to a gender clinic at all. They should be referred to CAMHS for mental health support and told that biology doesn’t have to determine their interests or achievements. Gender clinics should only be available to adults and should be privately funded. Not the remit of the NHS. Keep out and concentrate on mending broken bones.
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?
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.
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"
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.
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?
always good to know who has a prostate and who has a womb
🙈
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.
This continues to either destroy trust in organisations or make them a laughing stock. It will also prove costly if they ignore the law.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
As regards the GMC I'm sure they will be sensible/follow the law, just will be interested in what they discuss.
Thats as much as I know Doodledog. Will there be issues around still being able to change birth certificates, passports, driving licences, I dont know.
I'm not really sure why it's necessary to have sex declared on a passport. I'm almost certain that 'gender' is not relevant, as it's all in the mind. I don't mean that disrespectfully, incidentally - it's just that 'gender' is not measurable, and not easy to define as it changes over time and across cultures, so it's not clear to me why you need it on a driving licence.
I don't think that birth certificates should be allowed to be altered, as they are official records.
On passports it would make sense to have something that indicates that a person is male but 'identifies' as female (or vice versa) in case of accident or imprisonment when abroad. It feels like a security risk to have someone cross a border as 'female' when they are biologically male. It must hamper the policing of any incidents that occur.
I realise that my post above is contradictory. Clearly I do understand why sex news to be declared - not so gender though.
I think in that case they will have to change GRC law and what it can do legally.
Or include it in the detailed guidance on the new act when it's published? I dont know
The difficulty is that those who don’t accept the ruling that only biological women are women and only biological men are men will continue to try and conflate sex (real) with gender identity (in the mind) to suit their own purposes.
Doodledog
Your post that
On passports it would make sense to have something that indicates that a person is male but 'identifies' as female (or vice versa) in case of accident or imprisonment when abroad. It feels like a security risk to have someone cross a border as 'female' when they are biologically male. It must hamper the policing of any incidents that occur.
seems a good idea.
Wyllow3
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"
So birth certificates which were changed due to erroneous beliefs at that time should be corrected but a GRC could be carried with it for explanatory reasons.
Luminance
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.
Sometimes I think you can post a reply at the exact same time as another poster and it disappears. It has happened to me.
Agree 👍
Allira, it is just as likely I did not press the right button. Ha.
My friend has a trans daughter. They have always had a learning disability but still went ahead with surgery. Now, 15 years later they really regret it but no way of going back.
I'm glad they are looking at this in children now. Perhaps it will save others from making a huge mistake. On the other hand 2 trans people I know have no regrets and are very happy with their lives, but they don't have learning disabilities, autism, mental health etc.
Sadly, having a trans child, or trans children, or failing that, a non-binary child seems to be an essential fashion accessory for some celebrities or even wannabe celebrities nowadays.
I wonder how much counselling these children got before they were opted in/allowed to have, something where they can’t possibly understand the future ramifications.
Thankfully, having a BIID child isn’t seen as an advantage yet.
sazz1
I’m sorry about the results for your friend’s offspring, especially if there’s no going back.
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
