Why are medical schools getting involved with overtly political organisations that are making highly specific demands on the way treatments are delivered despite having no medical expertise? Do the people in charge lack the cojones to say "no"?
If I’m honest it appears to be the other way around - pro gender identity doctors who call themselves ‘queer medical activists’ are getting themselves into high up positions (such as on the EDI board of the national Medical Schools Council) and then making those organisations do overtly political things such as this, which run contrary to the law. The fact that so many medical schools are going along with it is mind-boggling.
Medical schools are doing what they are told. I don't know your hierarchical structure in the U.K., but here in the U.S. the National Institutes of Health -- under Fauci's control though he heads the National Institutes of Allergic and Infectious Diseases (children's allergies have skyrocketed during his tenure) -- the CDC, and the FDA, all controlled by Fauci, push whatever agenda they are told to by the pharmaceutical and other health industry corporations.
Read The Real Anthony Fauci and then I will discuss him with you.
Anti-vaxxer is a cheap slur used by people who don't want to think. Always easier to use cheap slurs than to think, read, and discuss. Fauci used foster children in the U.S. and women and children in Africa to test his toxic vaccines -- not talking about covid here -- and seemingly had no concern about the harm and even deaths of many.
Chris, if you're going to make that claim you really need to back it up with counter-argument not ad hominem otherwise you just make yourself look like an abject charlatan and validate your opponent's argument.
I think it's time we stop asking redundant questions and start focussing on the acute criminal and malpractice liability of professionals who fold to the hate of LGBTQ.
LGBTQ is a paedophile front. In Britain, its willingness to be fronted by the historic paedophile advocate Peter Tatchell should be 'case closed' by itself.
Until we're willing to call out LGBTQ as a paedophile front and Peter Tatchell for advancing his paedophile agenda by stealth, LGBTQ will keep slithering to its finish line of abolition of the age of consent.
What we see here are Medical schools endorsing the denial of biology. This is student-led madness and the faculties are too chicken to resist. About time there was some serious pushback by the Professors.
Any doctor using pronouns is one I would avoid on principle. I would never want to be treated by someone who puts gender belief over sex reality and I assume the majority feel the same. If maximizing profits is the goal, doctors really ought to swerve this indoctrination.
But do children who are being mutilated and medicalized know enough to avoid such doctors? Our entire medical system in the U.S. is all about profits, patient care be damned.
And if they are all wearing pronoun badges, what then? This is what is coming, because some UK doctors and medical students live in a total middle to upper class bubble and are pushing all of this on to their colleagues.
What have we learned in the last few years? That we can trust next to no one. Not 'scientists', not 'medical doctors', not 'journalists', not 'academics', not 'therapists', not teachers, not NGO's, not 'experts'. Society now has a dire trust issue. Yes, trust has been betrayed before (churches, politicians etc.), but such an extensive destruction of trust is just one more bloody fallout of the bloody 'queering' of culture. Let's hear it for rock solid boundaries. Rock solid safeguarding. Rock solid regulation. Boundaries, safeguarding, and regulation that flow from informed good intention.
Mass madness. Unsafe?? Yes we all bloody well are. Especially our children. The ones who bleat about feeling unsafe are the ones bludgeoning through all the safeguards. Elaine Miller gets spat on in Edinburgh and shunned by colleagues and THEY are the ones feeling unsafe because of a talk based around evidence-based female health and healthcare?
But there are a lot of corners to turn because this ideology has travelled in so many directions, it has multiple centres. The knotweed and whack-a-mole analogies are appropriate, that's what it's like. This didn't happen all at once, it's a gradual process and the same probably applies to change, and there is a stronger basis for it than there was. The closure of the GID's clinic at the Tavistock, and the details that will eventually emerge will be a huge part of that.
Here's a bit of light-hearted fun that also makes a serious point: Mr Menno singing "Y Chromosome" to the tune of "YMCA". Gotta laugh to get the message across: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDmaPIKrC-A&t=75s
This will be a long-term problem both for the universities (the medical schools) and the NHS and private health firms who take out their students; they will be an acute source of financial woe as the civil cases fly-in over the next few decades. Indeed it is unlikely that medical indemnity insurance will pay-out for say an NHS Trust if it took on newly-qualified doctors from a teaching hospital signed-up to this American initiative, and was then subsequently sued for its poor care.
And practising an American form of institutionalised child abuse is not a good look for a UK medical school. Signing-up perhaps five years ago might have wriggled-through, but because of The Tavistock, there's no 'ignorance-as-a-defence' get-out to save such institutions from being writ-bait.
Each institution that has signed is now at risk in-the-future. The institutions that haven't signed might be the future survivors of what will likely be a self-inflicted cull of UK medical schools.
Am I the only one who finds it hard to believe that someone who doesn't yet know their last name can know that they're transgender or WTF transgender is?
Well, if anyone was thinking that the closure of GIDS was a sign we had won, this should sober them up pretty sharpish.
Collective insanity on an almost inconceivable scale. What hope is there for the future of Western civilization in the face of this? How can anyone ever trust a medical professional again?
Try even getting a GP appointment in this country at the moment. And yet untold millions of pounds will be wasted on the entirely unnecessary medicalisation and mutilation of our youth.
A very clever moment to choose to do this, just at a time when a vast proportion of the population will be facing financial hardships such on a scale that most will be distracted from even looking at this issue, let alone doing anything about it.
I've never been so relieved I don't have children.
An ironic twist on a negro spiritual Van the Man covered, but also a very serious point.
As a childless man the nation's children are my children, and my duty - our duty - as childless adults to protect them is perhaps greater.
We don't have the fear hanging over our heads that maybe our children will be taken from us for a contrived charge of 'bigotry' if we speak out against genderqueer evil.
Parents are in an incredibly difficult position.
Fearing what might happen to their children if they don't speak out against LGBTQ grooming.
Fearing what might happen to their children if they do.
Total shame on medical schools that sign up to this unscientific and deeply damaging nonsense !! Biology is real whether applied to humans or animals and if doctors don't learn the facts about human biology , especially the huge differences between males and females , then the damage will be profound. Has the medical profession not overseen , and ignored , enough medical scandals in recent years ? This is crass stupidity at the very least ,and downright evil at worst..Children really have no chance in this abhorrent culture. They'll either be victims of paedophiles or castrated and sterilised with mutilating surgeries and lifelong harmful drug " treatments ". Parents who love their children will have to be more vigilant now than ever before ,even against the medics we used to trust !! Such a tragedy for humanity and all the more reason to fight it tooth and nail.💪💔 Thanks , Graham.x
Is this the same old problem of the administration having more power than the academics - or medics in this case? Hope there are lots of experienced and reputable medics and profs who will feel able to speak out ... albeit at the risk of their jobs. Are the doctors' and dentists' associations [ie posh unions] also captured? EDIT - omg no! Just saw ASME and BMA ffs!
Then scroll down and look at the orgs that have ‘oversight’ presence on that board. The BMA, the GMC, Dental Schools Council, Medical Schools Council, Health Education England (HEE are directly funded by the government). Many other big ones.
Ps ASME are some of the worst, I have a thread in my pinned tweet on Twitter about that org re this stuff.
Lord Prof Robert Winston must even be even more livid than we are! Maybe we could write an open letter he could read out in the House of Lords or sthing?
He has done a few times. There have been many slowly plugging away behind the scenes and the older members in both Houses who've seen waves of fashions before. I've seen the exasperation when some Profs or those in STEM are trying to explain or talk and it is excruciating. The calmness you have to have when you are talking to someone who seems to be grappling with thoughts like a butterfly. Internal logical inconsistency.
Euuurgh who writes their website? Emanates? Emanates? Other people produce or publish, no, not good enough for them, they are special so they emanate. Sounds all big and clever. Grrr.
So that's what they are and the land grab they've masterminded. There is a long history of how to get people to not do stupid things. The design of things or environments. How a simple poster saying 'STOP' might get ignored. How plastering a wall with posters and signs means someone may ignore it. May need reminding or training in another way. Not allowed in that space at all maybe. How we're all fallible.
A red road sign, or big green button for go or an even bigger red button for instantly stopping machinery. Or a keyholder to use that button. Not waving lasers or knives near internal organs unless you really do know what you're doing. And this medicalish bunch in Tavistock Square are enjoying the catering there, sitting on committees and writing this. Represent! Power to the people!
I know it's one word but it reveals a lot.
It's nice being lauded for being super, but I've sat in enough meetings to ask, do we need to talk in this pompous, arcane, gibberish way, and do the public know what we are asking of them? We can all sagely nod as we know what that silly acronym or terminology means, but does anyone else?
I initially wrote red/green because of colour interpretation differences (colour blindness). This is tricky :-)
How gender theory has leaked out in all of our lives enrages me. I wonder if anyone has spoken with pink and blue road crossing muppets about why someone randomly came up with a high contrast road material and design in the first place. Not plucked out of thin air.
Ominous but to be fair, they don't need to be signed up to 'gender ideology' to need medical guidance on how to best treat 'trans' 'men' whose female bodies have been damaged - remembering this also applies to detransers who need the best medical care they can give em imho.
Yes, and they desperately need guidance on how to wade through this with confidence so they aren't scared of delivering that care. Up until now asking questions has been deemed 'transphobic' so appropriate or urgent medical care couldn't be given.
This is the deliberatively ignorant aspect of the new trans ideology that I can't understand - they are ensuring people are harmed, then hidden in stats and not helped. Losing all access to the healthcare of your birth sex, then gaining complications and health vulnerabilities that cannot be addressed. If we don't know it's an issue and your medical record is altered, we can't help or support you making the best decisions for your own health (and intrinsic to that your mental health).
(1) Moody: Yes, detransitioning young women and (still deluded) trans-identifying women who give birth like "Freddy" McConnell need the same physical care through pregnancy and post-partum, like any woman, with additional psychiatric care for their identity problem.
I would say, as an aside, that they have plainly lied to their GID psychiatrist or else they would not be getting and staying pregnant in the first place?! But we cannot punish their babies by removing them.. or should we? I would not like to be the Health Visitor giving care at the new mother's home in the first 6 weeks: what vocabulary could the HV use? And it is extremely likely that the babies will have insecure identities - see the case of the 2yr old boy who became a "transkid" and is now a 10yo "girl" model?! His two female parents are both "transmen". What hope did that toddler ever have? He looks miserable and is screwed up for life like "Jazz" Jenning.
I just keep coming back to the unnecessary pain, life-long physical harms and the terrifying mental anguish which these unfortunate "gender-confused" people expose themselves to. And we MUST stop the professional bodies from adding any more of them to the NHS. All the medical Royal Colleges including RCOG and the Medical Schools must push back. Just PUSH BACK. Warn them about the impending condemnation of the Tavistock for disastrous medical negligence! That must scare them. It must.
It seems that non-members of RCOG can comment?? I am strongly tempted to "provide feedback" as a two-time mother and Transwidow. I can tell them about "cultural sensitivities" (opening paragraph) versus sound biological information in pregnancy and childbirth. I will have to read the 36 pages. On reflection, why not do it?
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists should withdraw and not publish any form of the proposed Green Top guidance "Care of Trans and Gender Diverse Adults". It panders to mental illness.
No one is "trans" except as a legal fiction created by the 2004 "Gender" "Recognition" Act. No one is "Gender Diverse" in law or in reality.
Sex is well-understood medically and in law including as a well-defined "protected characteristic" in the Equality Act 2010. I will state again, in case anyone has forgotten it, that sex is binary, immutable and real in all the trillions of cells of the human body (Prof Robert Winston - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDmaPIKrC-A&t=75s) "Gender" is not defined in the GRA. "Gender dysphoria" IS defined in S25: it is a "disorder", a mental disorder.
The notion of the present "guidance" is absurd. The RCOG should push back (1) against the cult of "gender identity ideology" which underlies the postulated "transgender" "identities", and (2) against the rampant, divisive influence of Trans Radical Activists such as Stonewall (and others) who wrongly and insistently misrepresent the Equality Act to all who will listen. They are manipulating your agenda.
"Increasingly we see cases arising in the workplace that are symptomatic of a culture where fringe campaign groups, purporting to champion rights, have claimed a moral high ground and have adopted an attitude of intolerance. No doubt right-wingers and left-wingers will disagree on the precise causes of how we got to a place where stating the facts of biology might risk your job. In relation to the Equality Act, the main problem is that businesses and institutions are currently misinterpreting these laws and applying a perceived moral obligation to go beyond the law, when it comes to equality".
See also section 2 of her speech: "Equality, Diversity and Inclusion".
There is only one category of woman: "adult human female". Only women get pregnant, gestate, give birth and breast-feed babies. In the context of "gender" the words "cis" and "trans" are neologisms coined in 1991 by Volkmar Sigusch, a German sexologist, which have no scientifically verifiable meaning. Only those who have studied Organic Chemistry will remember that these words have another precise and verifiable meaning in Stereochemistry: the position of substituent groups on either side of a C=C double bond on the same side (cis) or on opposite sides (trans). And Latin history of the Gallic wars, of course: cis-alpine and trans-alpine.
(1) No one is "assigned" female at birth - sex is observed at birth if not well before by ultrasound
(2) Human anatomy is not based on "spare parts" surgery or on transhumanism - the belief that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology. Quite simply we ARE and are complete in our healthy bodies.
(3) The human mind arises from the body to which it is inextricably linked.
(4) The "gender neutral" paroxysms of the NHS are unwelcome victories for trans lobbyists. "Gender neutral" language is not a response to the needs and preferences of the general public. The public is mystified by the confusion and lack of simple, clear language based on sex.
(5) It is not possible to placate "Trans" Radical Activists. Their agenda is to force their unscientific cult on the rest of the world. For example they want to re-label women as "cis-women", i.e. a sub-category of their own SEX. This is female erasure. This looks very much like a Male Rights Activists' agenda.
Please read the book "Trans: when ideology meets reality" by Helen Joyce (OneWorld, 2021) for a very readable introduction to "gender critical" i.e. normal thinking.
There is a solution to "gender identity" ideology: please reject it as the unscientific nonsense that it really is.
Check out their guide to guides...GC is Guidelines Committee ;-)
Page 8 of 54
2.2 Selection of guideline lead developers
2.2.1 New guideline
The guideline lead developer(s) is either self-nominated via the RCOG Topic Proposal form or proposed by members of the GC. Developers can be experts in their field, those with a particular interest in the area and/or typical users of GTGs, with appropriate methodological expertise in guideline development and credibility with stakeholders within the topic area. A role description for lead developer(s) has been developed to ensure their role and responsibility within the development team is clear (Appendix 4). The appointment of the lead developer(s) must be approved by the GC.
I would be very interested to know which 'stakeholders' are more actively involved than others. If you get a skewed response, it was proposed or prompted by a lobby group, who is leading or on the GC.
I don't really have time to read this, and there are standards of care to refer to for a proper review. Some of the assumptions in this guidance are a bit alarming on an initial skim read:
It refers to TGD as a given.
It also seems to refer to WPATH as some kind of authority.
It refers to assigned at birth.
And that's not getting beyond page 4 of 36. It would be very helpful to get a steer from others here!
Thank you. I used to do consultations and still do stakeholder stuff. If you can afford the time, it's always worth it. Gone are the days of me facing a room of consultation responses when I was a bit hesitant about even opening the boxes or bundles. People did write hundred page submissions in capitals and green ink. I am always a little sad when people realise there are ways of being heard as many of us are used to being ignored or overlooked.
They may not read it, but they may. As long as you clearly state in what capacity you are responding in, keep it as succint as you can, polite and are willing to be contacted if they require any further information, then you're covered! No one likes their typos pointed out - when 30 (or hundreds of) people have given you a grammar lecture it's not useful. Noted, then swiftly move on and can be tided up later.
Note 'The RCOG consults a wide range of stakeholders on draft versions of our guidance, including health care professionals, users of O&G services, other Royal Colleges and charities'. That's you Una-Jane! You are that stakeholder.
*I've since read their updated reviewers guidance - I like the 'Green-top guides' as a way to do this.
Spot on. Even people who hate Trump will vote for Trump if it means protecting their kids. Any politician who backs gender ideology is handing their opponents an open goal.
Bloody hell between GLAAD and Jolyon Maugham this fight is really full of annoyingly spelled people and orgs.
I was expecting and half-hoping Mz Destiny Seahorse would appear. That would make more sense.
Why are medical schools getting involved with overtly political organisations that are making highly specific demands on the way treatments are delivered despite having no medical expertise? Do the people in charge lack the cojones to say "no"?
Well some people will have no cojones if they go ahead with this type of surgery.
If I’m honest it appears to be the other way around - pro gender identity doctors who call themselves ‘queer medical activists’ are getting themselves into high up positions (such as on the EDI board of the national Medical Schools Council) and then making those organisations do overtly political things such as this, which run contrary to the law. The fact that so many medical schools are going along with it is mind-boggling.
Medical schools are doing what they are told. I don't know your hierarchical structure in the U.K., but here in the U.S. the National Institutes of Health -- under Fauci's control though he heads the National Institutes of Allergic and Infectious Diseases (children's allergies have skyrocketed during his tenure) -- the CDC, and the FDA, all controlled by Fauci, push whatever agenda they are told to by the pharmaceutical and other health industry corporations.
This is hysteria and slander against Fauci. I suppose you are another anti-vaxer.
Read The Real Anthony Fauci and then I will discuss him with you.
Anti-vaxxer is a cheap slur used by people who don't want to think. Always easier to use cheap slurs than to think, read, and discuss. Fauci used foster children in the U.S. and women and children in Africa to test his toxic vaccines -- not talking about covid here -- and seemingly had no concern about the harm and even deaths of many.
Chris, if you're going to make that claim you really need to back it up with counter-argument not ad hominem otherwise you just make yourself look like an abject charlatan and validate your opponent's argument.
It's sort of weird. Chris has a Substack and has written nothing on it.
I think it's time we stop asking redundant questions and start focussing on the acute criminal and malpractice liability of professionals who fold to the hate of LGBTQ.
LGBTQ is a paedophile front. In Britain, its willingness to be fronted by the historic paedophile advocate Peter Tatchell should be 'case closed' by itself.
Until we're willing to call out LGBTQ as a paedophile front and Peter Tatchell for advancing his paedophile agenda by stealth, LGBTQ will keep slithering to its finish line of abolition of the age of consent.
It's almost there.
What a shameful business. How can they face their families? How can they look at young people and think along these lines?
What we see here are Medical schools endorsing the denial of biology. This is student-led madness and the faculties are too chicken to resist. About time there was some serious pushback by the Professors.
The professors who teach how to maximize one's profit as a doctor?
Any doctor using pronouns is one I would avoid on principle. I would never want to be treated by someone who puts gender belief over sex reality and I assume the majority feel the same. If maximizing profits is the goal, doctors really ought to swerve this indoctrination.
But do children who are being mutilated and medicalized know enough to avoid such doctors? Our entire medical system in the U.S. is all about profits, patient care be damned.
And if they are all wearing pronoun badges, what then? This is what is coming, because some UK doctors and medical students live in a total middle to upper class bubble and are pushing all of this on to their colleagues.
What have we learned in the last few years? That we can trust next to no one. Not 'scientists', not 'medical doctors', not 'journalists', not 'academics', not 'therapists', not teachers, not NGO's, not 'experts'. Society now has a dire trust issue. Yes, trust has been betrayed before (churches, politicians etc.), but such an extensive destruction of trust is just one more bloody fallout of the bloody 'queering' of culture. Let's hear it for rock solid boundaries. Rock solid safeguarding. Rock solid regulation. Boundaries, safeguarding, and regulation that flow from informed good intention.
Mass madness. Unsafe?? Yes we all bloody well are. Especially our children. The ones who bleat about feeling unsafe are the ones bludgeoning through all the safeguards. Elaine Miller gets spat on in Edinburgh and shunned by colleagues and THEY are the ones feeling unsafe because of a talk based around evidence-based female health and healthcare?
Ffs, just when you think we're turning a corner.
The gender ideology is like knotweed obviously
Whack-a-mole too.
But there are a lot of corners to turn because this ideology has travelled in so many directions, it has multiple centres. The knotweed and whack-a-mole analogies are appropriate, that's what it's like. This didn't happen all at once, it's a gradual process and the same probably applies to change, and there is a stronger basis for it than there was. The closure of the GID's clinic at the Tavistock, and the details that will eventually emerge will be a huge part of that.
Here's a bit of light-hearted fun that also makes a serious point: Mr Menno singing "Y Chromosome" to the tune of "YMCA". Gotta laugh to get the message across: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDmaPIKrC-A&t=75s
Very funny. He's always good.
This will be a long-term problem both for the universities (the medical schools) and the NHS and private health firms who take out their students; they will be an acute source of financial woe as the civil cases fly-in over the next few decades. Indeed it is unlikely that medical indemnity insurance will pay-out for say an NHS Trust if it took on newly-qualified doctors from a teaching hospital signed-up to this American initiative, and was then subsequently sued for its poor care.
And practising an American form of institutionalised child abuse is not a good look for a UK medical school. Signing-up perhaps five years ago might have wriggled-through, but because of The Tavistock, there's no 'ignorance-as-a-defence' get-out to save such institutions from being writ-bait.
Each institution that has signed is now at risk in-the-future. The institutions that haven't signed might be the future survivors of what will likely be a self-inflicted cull of UK medical schools.
Christ.
Am I the only one who finds it hard to believe that someone who doesn't yet know their last name can know that they're transgender or WTF transgender is?
Well, if anyone was thinking that the closure of GIDS was a sign we had won, this should sober them up pretty sharpish.
Collective insanity on an almost inconceivable scale. What hope is there for the future of Western civilization in the face of this? How can anyone ever trust a medical professional again?
Try even getting a GP appointment in this country at the moment. And yet untold millions of pounds will be wasted on the entirely unnecessary medicalisation and mutilation of our youth.
A very clever moment to choose to do this, just at a time when a vast proportion of the population will be facing financial hardships such on a scale that most will be distracted from even looking at this issue, let alone doing anything about it.
I've never been so relieved I don't have children.
Where are all the grownups??
Where are all the grown ups?
Bringing up children 😄
As the song never said:
'Sometimes I feel like a childless father'.
An ironic twist on a negro spiritual Van the Man covered, but also a very serious point.
As a childless man the nation's children are my children, and my duty - our duty - as childless adults to protect them is perhaps greater.
We don't have the fear hanging over our heads that maybe our children will be taken from us for a contrived charge of 'bigotry' if we speak out against genderqueer evil.
Parents are in an incredibly difficult position.
Fearing what might happen to their children if they don't speak out against LGBTQ grooming.
Fearing what might happen to their children if they do.
Total shame on medical schools that sign up to this unscientific and deeply damaging nonsense !! Biology is real whether applied to humans or animals and if doctors don't learn the facts about human biology , especially the huge differences between males and females , then the damage will be profound. Has the medical profession not overseen , and ignored , enough medical scandals in recent years ? This is crass stupidity at the very least ,and downright evil at worst..Children really have no chance in this abhorrent culture. They'll either be victims of paedophiles or castrated and sterilised with mutilating surgeries and lifelong harmful drug " treatments ". Parents who love their children will have to be more vigilant now than ever before ,even against the medics we used to trust !! Such a tragedy for humanity and all the more reason to fight it tooth and nail.💪💔 Thanks , Graham.x
Is this the same old problem of the administration having more power than the academics - or medics in this case? Hope there are lots of experienced and reputable medics and profs who will feel able to speak out ... albeit at the risk of their jobs. Are the doctors' and dentists' associations [ie posh unions] also captured? EDIT - omg no! Just saw ASME and BMA ffs!
Honestly, the more you look into it the worse it gets.
Look at this link for the EDI board of the Medical Schools Council, which includes two of the authors of the GLADD charter:
https://www.medschools.ac.uk/our-work/equality-diversity-inclusion/msc-edi-alliance
Then scroll down and look at the orgs that have ‘oversight’ presence on that board. The BMA, the GMC, Dental Schools Council, Medical Schools Council, Health Education England (HEE are directly funded by the government). Many other big ones.
Ps ASME are some of the worst, I have a thread in my pinned tweet on Twitter about that org re this stuff.
Lord Prof Robert Winston must even be even more livid than we are! Maybe we could write an open letter he could read out in the House of Lords or sthing?
He has done a few times. There have been many slowly plugging away behind the scenes and the older members in both Houses who've seen waves of fashions before. I've seen the exasperation when some Profs or those in STEM are trying to explain or talk and it is excruciating. The calmness you have to have when you are talking to someone who seems to be grappling with thoughts like a butterfly. Internal logical inconsistency.
yes I know he has been great .... did you see him exasperated on Question Time!
I did :-). I used to see him out and about and wonder if people talk about this much to him in real life. He's become a meme it was so good!
Euuurgh who writes their website? Emanates? Emanates? Other people produce or publish, no, not good enough for them, they are special so they emanate. Sounds all big and clever. Grrr.
Gender Emirates!
So that's what they are and the land grab they've masterminded. There is a long history of how to get people to not do stupid things. The design of things or environments. How a simple poster saying 'STOP' might get ignored. How plastering a wall with posters and signs means someone may ignore it. May need reminding or training in another way. Not allowed in that space at all maybe. How we're all fallible.
A red road sign, or big green button for go or an even bigger red button for instantly stopping machinery. Or a keyholder to use that button. Not waving lasers or knives near internal organs unless you really do know what you're doing. And this medicalish bunch in Tavistock Square are enjoying the catering there, sitting on committees and writing this. Represent! Power to the people!
I know it's one word but it reveals a lot.
It's nice being lauded for being super, but I've sat in enough meetings to ask, do we need to talk in this pompous, arcane, gibberish way, and do the public know what we are asking of them? We can all sagely nod as we know what that silly acronym or terminology means, but does anyone else?
I initially wrote red/green because of colour interpretation differences (colour blindness). This is tricky :-)
How gender theory has leaked out in all of our lives enrages me. I wonder if anyone has spoken with pink and blue road crossing muppets about why someone randomly came up with a high contrast road material and design in the first place. Not plucked out of thin air.
Careful now. Someone may take offence (not sure if I'm serious or not now as it might be a possibility).
I find all emirates offensive .... anti-monarchist here!
Some are. The Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology is busy circulating a guidance for its members about treating "trans men". Seriously!
Ominous but to be fair, they don't need to be signed up to 'gender ideology' to need medical guidance on how to best treat 'trans' 'men' whose female bodies have been damaged - remembering this also applies to detransers who need the best medical care they can give em imho.
Yes, and they desperately need guidance on how to wade through this with confidence so they aren't scared of delivering that care. Up until now asking questions has been deemed 'transphobic' so appropriate or urgent medical care couldn't be given.
This is the deliberatively ignorant aspect of the new trans ideology that I can't understand - they are ensuring people are harmed, then hidden in stats and not helped. Losing all access to the healthcare of your birth sex, then gaining complications and health vulnerabilities that cannot be addressed. If we don't know it's an issue and your medical record is altered, we can't help or support you making the best decisions for your own health (and intrinsic to that your mental health).
Difficult to know which task to tackle first.
(1) Moody: Yes, detransitioning young women and (still deluded) trans-identifying women who give birth like "Freddy" McConnell need the same physical care through pregnancy and post-partum, like any woman, with additional psychiatric care for their identity problem.
I would say, as an aside, that they have plainly lied to their GID psychiatrist or else they would not be getting and staying pregnant in the first place?! But we cannot punish their babies by removing them.. or should we? I would not like to be the Health Visitor giving care at the new mother's home in the first 6 weeks: what vocabulary could the HV use? And it is extremely likely that the babies will have insecure identities - see the case of the 2yr old boy who became a "transkid" and is now a 10yo "girl" model?! His two female parents are both "transmen". What hope did that toddler ever have? He looks miserable and is screwed up for life like "Jazz" Jenning.
I just keep coming back to the unnecessary pain, life-long physical harms and the terrifying mental anguish which these unfortunate "gender-confused" people expose themselves to. And we MUST stop the professional bodies from adding any more of them to the NHS. All the medical Royal Colleges including RCOG and the Medical Schools must push back. Just PUSH BACK. Warn them about the impending condemnation of the Tavistock for disastrous medical negligence! That must scare them. It must.
Thanks Una-Jane. I will check, but do you know if that's external, or what layers of 'external' that's at yet?
It's a draft guideline out for consultation: https://www.rcog.org.uk/guidance/guidance-consultation-documents/. Click on the green button to get https://www.rcog.org.uk/media/fdqfteon/care-of-trans-and-gender-diverse-adults-peer-review-draft.pdf.
It seems that non-members of RCOG can comment?? I am strongly tempted to "provide feedback" as a two-time mother and Transwidow. I can tell them about "cultural sensitivities" (opening paragraph) versus sound biological information in pregnancy and childbirth. I will have to read the 36 pages. On reflection, why not do it?
I have submitted as "Transwidows":
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists should withdraw and not publish any form of the proposed Green Top guidance "Care of Trans and Gender Diverse Adults". It panders to mental illness.
No one is "trans" except as a legal fiction created by the 2004 "Gender" "Recognition" Act. No one is "Gender Diverse" in law or in reality.
Sex is well-understood medically and in law including as a well-defined "protected characteristic" in the Equality Act 2010. I will state again, in case anyone has forgotten it, that sex is binary, immutable and real in all the trillions of cells of the human body (Prof Robert Winston - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDmaPIKrC-A&t=75s) "Gender" is not defined in the GRA. "Gender dysphoria" IS defined in S25: it is a "disorder", a mental disorder.
The notion of the present "guidance" is absurd. The RCOG should push back (1) against the cult of "gender identity ideology" which underlies the postulated "transgender" "identities", and (2) against the rampant, divisive influence of Trans Radical Activists such as Stonewall (and others) who wrongly and insistently misrepresent the Equality Act to all who will listen. They are manipulating your agenda.
The Government is well aware of the explosion of the "Equality, Diversity and Inclusion" "Industry". Please read the speech by the Rt Hon Suella Braverman QC to the Policy Exchange on 10th August entitled "Equalities and rights: Conflict and the need for clarity" - https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/equalities-and-rights-conflict-and-the-need-for-clarity (or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBjiLVs5haA).
She said:
"Increasingly we see cases arising in the workplace that are symptomatic of a culture where fringe campaign groups, purporting to champion rights, have claimed a moral high ground and have adopted an attitude of intolerance. No doubt right-wingers and left-wingers will disagree on the precise causes of how we got to a place where stating the facts of biology might risk your job. In relation to the Equality Act, the main problem is that businesses and institutions are currently misinterpreting these laws and applying a perceived moral obligation to go beyond the law, when it comes to equality".
See also section 2 of her speech: "Equality, Diversity and Inclusion".
There is only one category of woman: "adult human female". Only women get pregnant, gestate, give birth and breast-feed babies. In the context of "gender" the words "cis" and "trans" are neologisms coined in 1991 by Volkmar Sigusch, a German sexologist, which have no scientifically verifiable meaning. Only those who have studied Organic Chemistry will remember that these words have another precise and verifiable meaning in Stereochemistry: the position of substituent groups on either side of a C=C double bond on the same side (cis) or on opposite sides (trans). And Latin history of the Gallic wars, of course: cis-alpine and trans-alpine.
(1) No one is "assigned" female at birth - sex is observed at birth if not well before by ultrasound
(2) Human anatomy is not based on "spare parts" surgery or on transhumanism - the belief that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology. Quite simply we ARE and are complete in our healthy bodies.
(3) The human mind arises from the body to which it is inextricably linked.
(4) The "gender neutral" paroxysms of the NHS are unwelcome victories for trans lobbyists. "Gender neutral" language is not a response to the needs and preferences of the general public. The public is mystified by the confusion and lack of simple, clear language based on sex.
(5) It is not possible to placate "Trans" Radical Activists. Their agenda is to force their unscientific cult on the rest of the world. For example they want to re-label women as "cis-women", i.e. a sub-category of their own SEX. This is female erasure. This looks very much like a Male Rights Activists' agenda.
Please read the book "Trans: when ideology meets reality" by Helen Joyce (OneWorld, 2021) for a very readable introduction to "gender critical" i.e. normal thinking.
There is a solution to "gender identity" ideology: please reject it as the unscientific nonsense that it really is.
Thank you!
I won't keep posting, but have you seen Table 2 of the draft? Page 11 of 36 isn't good.
This looks like a pink and baby blue cutnpaste job from WPATH/Trans Health blah blah blah.
If you worked at the Tavi for two years apparently that's enough evidence of your competence.
Check out their guide to guides...GC is Guidelines Committee ;-)
Page 8 of 54
2.2 Selection of guideline lead developers
2.2.1 New guideline
The guideline lead developer(s) is either self-nominated via the RCOG Topic Proposal form or proposed by members of the GC. Developers can be experts in their field, those with a particular interest in the area and/or typical users of GTGs, with appropriate methodological expertise in guideline development and credibility with stakeholders within the topic area. A role description for lead developer(s) has been developed to ensure their role and responsibility within the development team is clear (Appendix 4). The appointment of the lead developer(s) must be approved by the GC.
I would be very interested to know which 'stakeholders' are more actively involved than others. If you get a skewed response, it was proposed or prompted by a lobby group, who is leading or on the GC.
I don't really have time to read this, and there are standards of care to refer to for a proper review. Some of the assumptions in this guidance are a bit alarming on an initial skim read:
It refers to TGD as a given.
It also seems to refer to WPATH as some kind of authority.
It refers to assigned at birth.
And that's not getting beyond page 4 of 36. It would be very helpful to get a steer from others here!
Thank you. I used to do consultations and still do stakeholder stuff. If you can afford the time, it's always worth it. Gone are the days of me facing a room of consultation responses when I was a bit hesitant about even opening the boxes or bundles. People did write hundred page submissions in capitals and green ink. I am always a little sad when people realise there are ways of being heard as many of us are used to being ignored or overlooked.
They may not read it, but they may. As long as you clearly state in what capacity you are responding in, keep it as succint as you can, polite and are willing to be contacted if they require any further information, then you're covered! No one likes their typos pointed out - when 30 (or hundreds of) people have given you a grammar lecture it's not useful. Noted, then swiftly move on and can be tided up later.
Note 'The RCOG consults a wide range of stakeholders on draft versions of our guidance, including health care professionals, users of O&G services, other Royal Colleges and charities'. That's you Una-Jane! You are that stakeholder.
*I've since read their updated reviewers guidance - I like the 'Green-top guides' as a way to do this.
"American liberals are ignoring these stories because they are more frightened of losing power".
Don't they realise that they'll lose power when the American public wake up to what is happening to kids and then vote in Trump!
Spot on. Even people who hate Trump will vote for Trump if it means protecting their kids. Any politician who backs gender ideology is handing their opponents an open goal.
Debbie/David Hayton has written a column in todays Spectator on Elaine Miller. It’s good.
'Gender War Crimes'
V. Good! I'll use that. Thank you!