Weird how an obviously ridiculous notion takes hold. No one encourages children into a cycle of psychological treatment then drugs and then surgery. Who chooses that for a child? I guess the myth is just easier to grapple with than the reality.
It's true there is a real increase in transgender children, which we should try to understand. And that the evidence is clear that telling those kids their feelings are wrong harms their mental health. But no parent or teacher spontaneously pushes children to change gender.
In the UK - an international outlier because we've given over health policy in the sphere to the equivalent of anti-vaxers - trans kids wait years to access even the psychological evaluation which is itself a precondition to accessing (reversible) puberty blockers.
This creates dreadful incentives - kids driven in desperation to buy drugs from unlicensed suppliers and to abandon the reversible 'cooling off' period of puberty blockers and to move straight to irreversible cross-sex hormones.
Meanwhile, most remarkably of all, the right wing press portrays an amateur hobbyist, insulated by her wealth from any real consequence, as victim and just flat ignores the day-to-day lived reality of the thousands of children whose lives she makes more difficult.
Anyway. @GoodLawProject won't stand by whilst the healthcare needs of thousands of children are sidelined by prejudice. We hope to make an announcement shortly.
If you want to inform yourself, here is the NHS's description of the staged model of care provided (albeit only to the few who can access it in time) gids.nhs.uk/puberty-and-ph… and here is the world-leading Mayo Clinic's (not run by anti-vaxers) description mayoclinic.org/diseases-condi…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Basically operating a fraud is @wizzair, @WizzAirUK_W9. 🧵
So, last night I tried to check in - I am speaking at a conference - and I couldn't because there was a technical issue with their software.
This morning, I came to the airport - the flight is delayed, of course - and because I hadn't checked in yesterday I was charged another £44.50, two thirds of the cost of the ticket, to be issued with a boarding card.
The Minister who introduced the Gender Recognition Bill in the House of Lords in 2003 made it clear that "a transsexual person would have protection under the Sex Discrimination Act [the predecessor to the Equality Act] as a person of the acquired sex or gender."
This was reflected in the Explanatory Notes to the Gender Recognition Act when it was published.
The Supreme Court dismissed the explanatory notes as not indicating Parliament's intention.
But it seems entirely unaware of the speech of the Minister introducing the Bill, who made it perfectly clear that it was intended to extend the protections beyond biological sex.
I've been reflecting some more overnight on the For Some Women Scotland case. 🧵
In this piece, which I am proud of and I stand by every word, I make two serious criticisms of the procedure that the Supreme Court adopted. goodlawproject.org/the-supreme-co…
The first is that in a case which is fundamentally about the rights of trans people with gender recognition certificates the Supreme Court excluded all trans voices and added in the voices of those opposed to the right and dignities of trans people.
Good Law Project holds a copy of new NHS Guidance published yesterday and it is clear that Wes Streeting is continuing his war on trans people.
Remarkably the national health service is now directing GPs to cause harm to the community. 🧵
Background: the UK is a serious international outlier in how it approaches healthcare for young trans people. All over the world Governments are declining to follow the policy based evidence making of the Cass report. I believe we now have the most hostile regime anywhere.
Families in the UK who want to follow best medical practice - rather than pleasing Wes Streeting's true electorate (right wing media barons) - obtain puberty blockers (criminalised in the UK) from regulated prescribers in eg France or Netherlands or Switzerland.
One or both were marked “private and confidential - not for publication”.
We have long (👇) deplored the practice of making threats which you say are confidential to try and stop your critics from telling the world you are trying to silence them. goodlawproject.org/they-want-to-s…
Neither letter pretends to be a formal letter under the pre-action protocol for defamation claims - a necessary precondition to suing. Yet each is pregnant with threat.
To intimate you have a legal claim which you don’t actually have also feels to us like a misuse of the law.
New article in the New England Journal of Medicine, founded in 1812 and amongst the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals. Its 2023 impact factor was 96.2, ranking it 2nd out of 168 journals in the category "Medicine, General & Internal".
I will share some extracts from it but tl;dr it is highly critical. It "transgresses medical law, policy and practice... deviates from pharmaceutical regulatory standards in the UK. And if it had been published in the United States... it would have violated federal law."
It calls for "evidentiary standards... that are not applied elsewhere in pediatric medicine... [and] are not applied to cisgender young people receiving gender-affirming care."