Rosie Duffield is here, at best ignorantly and at worst dishonestly, spreading harmful falsehoods about trans healthcare. No one "so young" gets surgery. You can't have it in the UK as a child.
Twitter is a hostile place for all and women suffer more than men. I don't invite threats against anyone. But this gross misrepresentation of reality causes real harm to a beseiged and vulnerable community. It has to be described clearly as what is: a harmful falsehood.
You can't pretend to be a good faith participant in this discussion, you can't pretend to care about the lives of trans people, and stand by silently whilst someone in a position of notional authority, an MP, actively spreads damaging falsehoods.
The only treatment available on the NHS - in theory because in practice it is usually not available - to those under 16 is reversible puberty blockers. Not partially irreversible cross-sex hormones, which you can only get after a further assessment from 16. Or surgery, from 18.
This is a good explainer from @TheEndoSociety. It is the international body of specialists who prescribe hormones: not just to trans people, but to cancer patients, to those with menopausal symptoms and to many others. It has no axe to grind: please read. endocrine.org/news-and-advoc…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"The pandemic was lucky for some – even those supplying facemasks the NHS couldn't use. One can only guess how large a fortune Andrew Mills made – he has changed the status of his companies so that we can't see how much public money went into his pocket.” opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-…
A reminder that civil servants were worried about the consequences of not giving Andrew Mills a contract because he was an advisor to @trussliz.
A reminder that the Department of Health didn't consider conflicts of interest before giving Ayanda a £252m contract. nao.org.uk/press-release/…
As we process the news that Wayne Couzens took advantage of his status as a police office to kidnap before murdering Sarah Everard on 3 March, it's worth remembering the warning signs about him that seem not to have been taken sufficiently seriously (policeconduct.gov.uk/news/update-in…).
There is a large enough body of evidence that the police often fail to take seriously violence, including sexual violence, against women that this should come as no surprise. But it is still pretty sickening.
Thoughts and solidarity with Ms Everards' family and friends.
There are so, so many examples: like Shana Grice who was fined by Sussex Police for "time wasting" for reporting the man who then slit her throat shortly after. mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/t…
Well played the media for tone-policing @AngelaRayner whilst ignoring that what she said about the actual Prime Minister is basically true.
And where's the scrutiny of @michaelgove - who attacked not one single politician but the whole "cruel, dirty, toothless face" of the North?
Politics is a tricky business. Anyone who says they know the answers is a fool. But I'm pretty sure they don't include taking advice from those who want you to fail.
But only three weeks ago Public Health England, who we are supposed to be able to trust, was insisting "schools are not the drivers and not the hubs of infection". bbc.com/news/uk-584187…
The Sunday Times is right to point to the relationship between your place in society's screwed up pecking order and the amount of abuse you attract online. THREAD
1. But the thing about pecking orders is that everyone sits in a power relationship to everyone else. So it can be true both that the group 'women' gets more abuse than 'men' and that other groups get more abuse than women.
That you are not at the top of the pecking order doesn't mean you are at the bottom. If you don't like pecking orders - if they don't sit with your ideas about equality - then make sure you always peck up - never peck down.
Iinteresting story about the judge ("J") who is widely believed to have written the appalling Bell decision. J used to be a hero to many around me for heroically despatching Paul Conrathe (who acted for Ms Bell) in a case he brought attacking abortion rights.
I spoke to someone I trust who had watched the hearing. They said that they had been shocked at J's treatment of Conrathe's client in that case. They didn't think the conduct of the case had been remotely fair - and that J had been bullying.
Anyway. It was a reminder to me, and perhaps to you, to care more about the independence of the law and of judges generally. It's never right - even when convenient to you - for judges to bring their personal politics into the courtroom.