53 Comments
Jul 17Liked by Rebecca Says No

Unfortunately I can totally believe this. Once you frame the gender ideologues as being part of a religious cult, you realise anything goes and rational discourse becomes almost impossible. I have experienced this myself in my own attempts at talking about the issue with otherwise sane and intelligent people. Not even increasing evidence that this is the biggest medical scandal of our age seems to shift them.

I am hoping Wes Streeting has the strength to stick to his guns over puberty blockers, but I think he will have a fight on his hands if he does. The remaining adults in the room need to keep making their voices heard.

Expand full comment

Same here, I’ve been cut off by old friends for suggesting that we should all be fighting against a social contagion/ belief system which is harming thousands of children. That’s hateful vitriol apparently.

Expand full comment

Me too, friends and family, who really should know better!

Expand full comment

Omg. I can’t believe what I’ve just read. That doctors of all people, should dismiss a four year, evidence based report in favour of an ideological belief system, a delusion. And that harm will be caused to innocent children and young people by putting them on the path to lifelong medical problems, if those so called doctors get their way. Isn’t it time that someone started to investigate whether some kind of alien mind virus has infected vast swathes of the population. I just can’t see any other reason for the mass insanity that’s going on.

Expand full comment
Jul 17Liked by Rebecca Says No

I admit that I can't work out what's going on. You would think that people with a scientific background, like doctors, who can understand the data better than most would realise that gender id theory is based on absolutely nothing at all. It has no basis in reality. I think we're actually living in the story of the Emperor's New Clothes. We're all jumping up and down and shouting 'there's nothing there' and the Emperor just carries on regardless.

Expand full comment
Jul 17Liked by Rebecca Says No

Medical training and practise is rife with totally unevidenced opinion. I was quite shocked when I started teaching in medical schools just how little basic academic rigour there is. Even if a little manages to penetrate the students, by the time they've been exposed to the know-it-all (but really know nothing) senior doctors on ward placements, it is gone. The medical profession has been so easily captured in part because so few doctors have the humility to say "I don't know about this" - they just follow the most easily digestible "guidance" from the BMA, which has been wrong on several points of medical law and ethics over the last few years (at least). That's why it was targeted by trans ideologues - too many doctors take the BMA's advice as more authoritative than that of the GMC.

Expand full comment

That is horrifying, but, on reflection, not surprising. Medicine does seem to be subject to fad treatments which either don't work and are ineffective, or treatments that work but are dangerous, or treatments that don't work and are downright dangerous. An example is lobotomy - a supposed cure all for many ills, earned its creator a Nobel Prize and left damaged and dead people in its wake. Rather like gender 'medicine' when you think about it.

Expand full comment

Not at all surprising. Sigh. Your mention of lobotomy brought to mind neighbours of many decades ago who had their son lobotomized (if that's the word) because his cerebral palsy made him twitch, which I was told embarassed his father. Not so different from the parent who prefers to "correct" the body of a son who's likely to grow up to be gay. I heard the story from my horrified late mother.

Expand full comment

Much of it in down to the legal profession which refuses to hold the medical profession to the same standards it would apply to any other field of endeavour. The case of Bolam v Friern Hospital (a case getting on for 60 years old) still guides legal and medical practise too much. It says that, as long as a doctor can find a "reasonable body of medical opinion" (note *opinion*), then whatever was done is acceptable. "reasonable body" can be as few as two other doctors - who will usually have been trained by the accused, but it's irrelevant, because doctors will cover each other beyond anything you can usually imagine. There have been small attempts to change this (the case of Bolitho introduced a sort of sanity check, but it doesn't seem to have had significant effect), and the biggest potential change in favour of patients was Montgomery in 2017, which effectively said that GMC regulations have the force of law. It was a great day for medical ethicists and lawyers... but organisations like the BMA immediately deprecated it, the courts found ways to limit it, and most doctors seem never to have heard of it. It is profoundly depressing from a ethico-legal point of view, and very frightening from a practical one.

Expand full comment

So, basically doctors are a law unto themselves.

Expand full comment

Yes, and always have been.

Expand full comment

It’s actually quite terrifying.

Expand full comment

This runs through many aspects of the state and how 'we' run things. Don't whatever you do let anyone know how it's done as all hell will break loose. When you've served your time in any profession or a few you see how they are run - on shoestrings for those who hold the front line and the odd, silly, bizarre way things happen. Often very dangerous and skirting laws. Yet some get fat on the back of it. Then the old guard, supported by the new guard who do their best to carry on just how they always have done, stuff those they supposedly represent or work on behalf of. I'm trying to be less cynical and more pragmatic yet hopeful, but you do have to take a break away from time to time and take a few deep breaths to face a lot of this. The more that changes, the more that stays the same - it suits enough people. So we have to keep trying from within and outside, and the public have to care and also keep trying to hold them to account.

I was talking today about how local communities tend to know which hospital and community doctors have a good or bad rep. As their medical secretaries, juniors, porters, catering and reception staff all go back home to those local areas and talk to their families. So we all know. There was one I knew who was roundly hated and a very unpleasant man. He would be avoided so the other lists were longer. It took years to get him removed, he fought and fought it for maybe 20 years. He had a spectacular series of benefits he refused to give up and was an ego. Eventually they paid him off. They have glowing professional reps until enough reports come in and they repeatedly do appalling things. Then it was spun as a tragedy for the profession. His daughter bemoaned it and she is now following in his footsteps, with all the privilege continuing to drift down the generations. He had a mate or three high up in some professional body - they usually do and were at University, studied or were taught by each other. All pals together. That is the more powerful network and very hard to figure out unless you're in it. Let alone challenge. The viciousness and cunning to squeeze people out or deplatform whistleblowers is always breathtaking. Caring professions my foot.

Expand full comment

Totally with you. They should surely be struck off. Imagine if they administered any other drug with no evidence of its efficacy. Or if they behaved like this in any other area of medicine. They'd be struck off. How have these minds been so infected. It beggars belief. These are doctors! Scientists! I want to weep.

Expand full comment
Jul 18Liked by Rebecca Says No

Maybe one explanation is that people are being motivated by feelings which they can't acknowledge, even to themselves? I've thought for a while that a contributing factor here is liberal/progressive types who are uncomfortable with homosexuality, and gender noncomformity in general; embracing "trans" allows them to maintain, and even act on, these contradictory feelings without having to face their own hypocrisy. Indeed, they can now pat themselves on the back for them (horrifyingly enough).

Expand full comment
Jul 25Liked by Rebecca Says No

That's an astute observation of the defence mechanism known to psychologists as "reaction formation."

Expand full comment

It is reminiscent of the witch-hunting craze that swept through Europe. (There have been suggestions that it was linked to a fungus in rye, which was a dietary staple in many countries.)

Expand full comment

Ergot. The Psychiatric profession are still obsessed with it. Not aware enough to be linking it to our diet, gut and total health though - that would be actual healing and healthcare.

Expand full comment

The abandonment of rational, evidence-based hypotheses that can be tested has occurred before, when it was claimed that ethnic minorities suffered more from SARS-Cov2 infection due to "discrimination". In the event, it turned out that darker skin colour reduced the levels of Vitamin D available to people with darker skin pigment, in turn making them more susceptible to infection.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8509048/

Expand full comment

Yes. It's happening all the time and as I write. We knew that before, we'd known it for years. It was leaped upon as the secret truth being uncovered. Doctors are still now suggesting Vitamin D sprays - when we're hopefully already taking them. It's a very simple and cheap public health measure that was captured and twisted by the permanently creating and offended for others brigade. Same as taking oximeter readings. It's not that the tech took a personal dislike and are all bigots. But maybe the lack of awareness does point to oversights.

It's so sad because by obscuring the truth in layers of accusatory fake unevidenced outrage things like black mothers actually having worse treatment was totally lost in the wider misattribution outrage. And look at where people live and the types of jobs they do - that was more linked to exposure levels. No mystery.

Expand full comment
Jul 17·edited Jul 17Liked by Rebecca Says No

Block's article explains why some think gender "care" helps. Its not based evidence. Instead its based on wild claims of quack drs who are getting rich harming vulnerable ppl. These quacks claim they've seen improvement of affected people with their own eyes and we should take their word gender "care" helps. the problem is none of their claims can be verified via standard practice that meets medical definition of "evidence".

WPATH acknowledges its guidelines are partly based on "consensus-based expert opinion". Their guidelines are also based on non transparent criteria that misrepresent data.

From Block:

"The Endocrine Society acknowledges in its recommendations on early puberty suppression that it is placing “a high value on avoiding an unsatisfactory physical outcome when secondary sex characteristics have become manifest and irreversible" IOW, the Endocrine Society acknowledges that lying to kids, telling them that social transition is a harmless endeavor actually tricks kids into experiencing a predicable crisis that occurs during biological puberty when puberty doesnt match the narrative groomer adults have been spinning (that social transition is harmless). IOW, Endocrine Society recommendations are designed to protect groomers from accusations of fraud when natural puberty occurs.

Instead of sterilizing kids and gays to address normal issues most grow out of, we should be telling kids theres nothing wrong with their biological body. If kids are GNC or gay or even have psych issues, thats OK. the worst thing anyone can do to these kids is lie to them with religious BS and set them on a path of lifelong medicalization

Expand full comment

We are utterly fucked. Scientists who no longer believe in science. Doctors who prioritise unicorn thinking. They all need to be sectioned just like I would be if I based all my decisions on a particular topic on a unicorn I'd spotted in the back on my garden.

Expand full comment

https://www.attitude.co.uk/life/dr-jo-hartland-the-inclusion-of-trans-and-genderqueer-people-is-my-passion-437320/

So the nefarious transgender mafia ooze back into sight with construct “Dr Jo Hartland” presenting as prime drug and mutilation pusher via the customary propaganda devices. First, the glossy rebel posturing:

“I’ve made a career of being a troublemaking gay! ....The inclusion of trans and genderqueer people is my passion....Especially as a genderqueer person. It remains a very difficult thing to tackle. The medical community is relatively conservative in its approach to these issues.....I realised my gender identity wasn’t sitting comfortably with the hyper-masculine end of the spectrum. ...I began to explore. It’s important to me, having the freedom to change the way I present, to use they/them pronouns, to be a role model for queer students.”

Then the bogus euphoria spiel:

“Queer people are consistently framed as traumatised. Very few examples within health education focus on the joy, success and love we see in our community. When we are present, we are a burden or a disease. What I want to see is our community’s joy and love represented.”

This breathless outpouring is punctuated by “they say” which is disorientating until you realise it’s the customary use of the schizophrenic “they” to mean “he”.

The rest follows the depressingly familiar pattern of misapplying the old civil rights rhetoric to this utterly contrived new demographic constantly pushed with maximum glutinous saccharine phony concern.

Expand full comment
Jul 18·edited Jul 18Liked by Rebecca Says No

"Genderqueer person." LOL

Signed,

Ollie, a gay man.

We have wankers like him/her/them to thank for the fact that the electronic form my doctor uses to collect my personal information asks for my "sex assigned at birth."

Expand full comment
author

This is actually completely accurate, because Dr Emma Runswick (Deputy Chair of the BMA) has said that she was involved in making the switch happen on those forms, so that they now first ask ‘gender’ and then whether it is the ‘same as assignment at birth’.

https://x.com/Rebeccasaysno/status/1813654415368487149

Expand full comment
Jul 21·edited Jul 26Liked by Rebecca Says No

These ghoulish abusers are so proud of the massive con they've pulled they are always bloody telling us what they are doing. The evidence is all there. Not that they seem to understand that basic clinical concept. So I keep using the 'other' box to write back in 'sex - female' and 'stop this waste of time nonsense'.

Expand full comment

"Jo has themselves had bad experiences as a hematology patient" -- perhaps a reasonable complaint that, instead of recording his symptoms as they related to possible HIV infection, the reason for his needing a test for HIV was recorded as being "gay".

But does this really lead to his having more than one self to play with? As in "Jo has themselves had bad experiences..." And to the need to Queer the rules of grammar to proclaim his fashionable "genderqueerness"? -- Not being satisfied by being merely gay, and not "hypermasculine", whatever that means.

And so being "gender non-conforming" is not enough either? A case of having to be SOMETHING rather than "not-something": that requires new language / new slogans for it: to express the "joy, love" etc of his LGBTQIA+ "community"?

What a useful portmanteau term "gender" is: it can mean ANYTHING YOU WANT IT TO. Or nothing -- depending on one's point of view.

I get so fed up with seeing LGB people lumped together / lump themselves together with the Ts for political advantage, for all that it started with Stonewall's need in 2015 for new objectives and new funding, having achieved same-sex marriage: and heeding advice from leading international lawyers Dentons to exploit, if possible, sone existing cause.

Especially idiotic are statements about "conversion therapy" such as "it is not possible to change anyone's sexual orientation or gender". Not possible to change sexual orientation. But imminently possible to change "gender". Or what the hell does "transgender" mean?

Especially idiotic -- and damaging -- are discussions of "conversion therapy" that fail to recognise that "gender-affirming care" IS ITSELF in most cases "conversion therapy": as the abuse of distressed autistic and/or gay and/or abused children (by medical professionals & others who ought to know better) by suggesting that such children are "born in the wrong body". Or other such destructive cult dogma used in the indoctrination process.

It's worth remembering that the BMA is basically a medical trade union. And is capable (as here) of being driven by herd instinct and cult influence: to appear "woke" and "progressive" to peers and patients, not least.

Whereas the British Medical Journal is a respected publisher of reputably peer-reviewed research, that very seldom gets things wrong. On rare occasions it does get something wrong: like publishing MMR vaccine research by the British gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield, later found to be fraudulent. Wakefield was struck off the medical register -- and emigrated, to spread his fraudulent research for the benefit of US anti-vaxxers.

The BMJ was later bitterly regretful of this publishing mistake: and its editor was very angry at having been so misled.

So the BMJ seems unlikely to be retracting, any time soon, its endorsement of the four-year Cass Review, based on systematic review by York University as the most experienenced such team of researchers in the UK.

Or to be withdrawing the BMJ's corresponding criticism of medically abusive views expressed by some members of the BMA: even by a majority of deluded BMA members who dispute the findings of the Cass Review..

Expand full comment

Gibberish follows a law of acceleration. Once it starts it can’t stop. The fundamental contradiction is that, after boldly asserting something called “non-binary”, the trans claptrap has nowhere to go but back to binary hence “transwoman” and “transman”. And of course the whole concept of transitioning implies movement from one side of a binary to the other.

Meanwhile the word “gender”, sundered from sex, can mean anything you want and this openness results in increasingly vacuous banalities.

Hence the ridiculous exchanges I’ve had with TRAs. What is most notable about them is not that they have nothing to say but that they fail to realise they have nothing to say.

Expand full comment

I'm for LGB without the TQ2SIA+ etc. etc.

Expand full comment

Medicine returns to superstition and witch doctors. Thank goodness this era had not yet arrived when Graham was diagnosed with cancer or he's have been given a couple of ground up beetles to swallow and had dust spat in his face! This is outrageous...

Expand full comment
Jul 18Liked by Rebecca Says No

I'm not going to take a doctor who puts "they/them" after his name seriously.

Expand full comment

I'd refuse to be "their" patient.

Expand full comment

I don't take any professional who has that on their email signatures or profile at all seriously.

Privilege more/please.

Expand full comment

As for the GLAAD letter,

“High Court ruling on puberty blockers will worsen trans healthcare”

The commandeering of the English language which automatically regurgitates gibberish like “trans health care” will always triumph until the ones protesting stop shooting themselves in the foot by going along with this rigged game.

Expand full comment

It's like they made a statement that chocolate biscuits must be provided at every meeting. This means nothing, more empty nothing waffle. And they get paid to do this and train the next cohort of their professions.

Expand full comment

I'm not sure the High Court feel too worried about this bunch of muppets - it's like watching toddlers smearing their own shit on each other's faces. We have to tolerate them until they can be put back in their box. I want this fever to burn itself out soon before it causes more damage.

Expand full comment

They want to negotiate a pay rise which will be met by government coffers and yet try to get a vote against science based medicine. Potential massive own goal.

Doctors in my family not impressed with the BMA - massive hikes in union fees but no successful pay claim. In day to day practice most do not want to come outside their own specialty and involve themselves in paediatric gender dysphoria unless they are among the tiny number who genuinely specialise.

Expand full comment
Jul 18Liked by Rebecca Says No

Not surprised that Dr Jo Hartland disagrees. Jo ran a training session for RCPsych back in 2022 and some of the slides made their way on to Twitter. This was one of Jo’s slides https://x.com/loonyquine/status/1596057459465932800?s=12

Expand full comment
author

Yes I describe what happened in that incident with Dr Joseph Hartland and the Royal College of Psychiatrists in my article here https://rebeccastwitter.substack.com/p/stonewall-and-the-royal-college-of

Expand full comment

Well I have never let a male doctor touch me since being told by a psychotic sadist at the contraception clinic that there was NOTHING UP THERE as he gave me incredible pain. You can do anything UP THERE and its doesn't matter as youa re working class and nothing. And female doctors and professionals and social workers supported this. SO NOT SURPRISED!! WE ARE A HOLE A DOCTOT SAYS THAT WOMEN ARE JUST "HOLES" THAR YA GO!! and all you males are just so completely naive. OUCH!! It does bloody hurt Doctor I DONT CARE!! Thar ya goes. Starts with the male idea of genitalia Its ALL or NOTHING

I am a bit pissed off that trans surgery guarantees male to female a female orgasm as most women dont have organs and your mother grandmother sister aunts didn't have one, dont see that trans have to

Oooh yeah, its a male thinking need. GEEZ fancy men thinking of sex without enjoyment or orgasm.

Expand full comment

I have long ago listened to my trust in the medical fraternity. So this surprises me not.

Expand full comment

Opposing a ban on blockers on the basis that medical decisions should be between patients and their clinicians is undermined by their contradictory support for a ban on ‘conversion therapy’, which means counseling gender confused children about not being in the wrong body is not kept between a patient and doctor? This trans ideology seems more and more like conversion therapy for gay and bisexual children. Has gay conversion therapy been banned in the UK?

Expand full comment

Not yet, it’s a Labour intention though.

Expand full comment

Sue them?

Expand full comment

It’s hard to realize that trans started with and is propagated by medicine - psychiatry - not postmodernism, not trans, not gays or feminists, not schools or woke or the left.

Trans is the single psychiatric condition requiring surgical removal or chemical extirpation of healthy tissue for “treatment” of a mental condition, and the only psychiatric condition requiring the rest of world to conform to a patient’s delusion as follow-on.

It’s not medical science - heart transplants and insulin, antibiotics and polio vaccine, it’s atrocity resemble trepanning for demonic possession.

Doctors - psychiatrists - will fight tooth and nail to protect their profession because this is a foundational crisis. All psychiatric debate about sex is hopelessly corrupt.

Legislation is the only solution.

Expand full comment