In Oct 2019 I wrote about an article published by the British Association of Social Workers. It concerned me. It suggested that the transition of young children was not a safeguarding issue.
I was then sent a link to this.…
This is also worrying. It is clearly set out that the evidence base around issues of gender variance is poor.
This is in the context of a degree of ideological capture already demonstrated in use of word ‘assigned’.
And little to no curiosity about the impact of social contagion or those with a vested financial interest in promoting ‘gender variance’ in children.
And more than a whiff of an assumption that transition must invariably be positive.
Conclusions. I completely agree there is a need for awareness about conditions that impact a child’s emotional and physical well being.

But I also ask to what extent are social workers being asked to abandon the fundamental principles of safeguarding - that no one is exempt?
And it is of course one of the saddest ironies that the poor state of evidence around gender variance has been because of prevailing attitude that debate is hate and any kind of concern or challenge is ‘transphobia’.
If you find this opinion so unacceptable to render me unfit to continue as a member of a regulated profession, then please do complain to the Bar Standards Board.
Mystery solved - thanks @StoatlyL. @BASW_UK want the protected characteristic to be ‘gender identity’. And have done since 2016.…
The consequences of this institutional capture for all children are very serious.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Sarah Phillimore

Sarah Phillimore Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @SVPhillimore

16 Oct

Here’s where the rubber hits the road. We have a chance for our Manifesto to be on this channel. With nearly 90k subscribers.

But it’s right wing and supports Brexit. I am not and I don’t.

However right about now I don’t give a damn. I want the message out.
It will be a five minute monologue of me reading the Self Evident Truths.

This fits with our strategy discussed at the last meeting, about the need to get the message out in other mediums. It would be a useful bite sized chunk of info to send to the MPs who are ‘unsure’.
But I am very conscious the Manifesto isn’t ‘my’ document - it was drafted by many. So I don’t claim ownership of it. But I would like others to hear it.

Whether they are right wing and support Brexit or not.

Views welcome.
Read 4 tweets
16 Oct
Here is the tweet that got me reported to my Regulator for bringing the legal profession into disrepute and making me unfit to practice family law.

I publish it again.

It is an article worth reading. I am not aware that the Illinois Family Organisation is a criminal organisation or facing criminal investigation. If they have views that denigrate the dignity of homosexual people, I do not share those views.

But I read this article and agree.
It is also interesting to note that on August 15th 2020 I also had a public and polite discussion with @PlaceSteph who has since kindly invited me to provide a guest post for her blog.
Read 5 tweets
16 Oct
Some further thoughts on 'controversial opinion'. Because here we see exactly the hook upon which so many are caught.

It should not need to be said that calling people names, making jokes they don't find funny and doing it persistently when they ask you to stop is disgraceful.
Some examples of this behaviour are very serious and rightly cross over into the criminal law and all the sanctions that can deliver.

But what we face now is a deliberation conflation of behaviour that attracts criminal sanction and behaviour that 'someone' finds distasteful.
There remains however one very significant counter force - Article 10 of the ECHR.

My rights to speak about sex and gender are confirmed by Knowles J in #FairCopJR as protected political speech.

The collision of these two demands - be quiet! speak up! - is going to be painful
Read 8 tweets
16 Oct
We have a duty to be independent, to accept all instructions without discriminating against anyone. But our first duty is to the law.

I would represent any person to the best of my ability. But I will not lie about the law or reality to do so.
I have represented many people who made me feel very anxious indeed. But my personal feelings are irrelevant and it would be wholly wrong to rely on them. What matters are the facts that can be proved and the law that then applies.
Anyone of us, if involved in a legal battle, want our case to be put strongly and heard fairly. If people who are aware of my ‘controversial’ views do not want to instruct me - that is absolutely their right. You must have faith in your lawyer.
Read 5 tweets
11 Oct
I'm avoiding work. So I thought I would have a go at the Law Commission Consultation.

This was not a good idea in terms of my blood pressure, which is already too high.…
Question 7: We invite consultees’ views on whether “asexuality” should be included within the definition of sexual orientation.

My view: How are you going to define 'asexuality'? Is this something that must be persistent over time? Or does going through a 'dry spell' count?
Question 8: We provisionally propose that the current definition of “transgender” in hate crime laws be revised to include:
People who are or are presumed to be transgender
People who are or are presumed to be non-binary
People who cross dress (or are presumed to cross dress);
Read 28 tweets
11 Oct
Really good discussion. Whatever the outcome, as @Transgendertrd says, a brave woman has started a conversation. What a pity we had to go to a court to have it!

Also feeling that whatever the result, this will be going to the Supreme Court.
Feeling of those at court was that Keira's barrister was fully in command of his brief and was allowed to speak without interruption. The same could not be said of the Tavistock counsel.
Mermaids and Stonewall were refused permission to intervene because the material they presented to the court was either irrelevant or repeating the Tavistock case. @Transgendertrd however was able to provide evidence of value and were therefore accepted as intervenors.
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!