I think I've read in posts in this thread that some trans people are considering moving to live in other, presumably European, countries.
Obviously I sincerely hope that doesn't become necessary. But, which European countries are considered safe and welcoming for trans people - and how is it that their political and legal frameworks make them tolerant. How much of an outlier has the UK become, compared to mainland European countries?
It's probably fair to say that those nations where the equivalent of a GRC is based on self-identification (ie: already have the legislation that passed the Scottish Parliament) are going to be safer and more welcoming. In Europe that would be: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland. Cyprus and Sweden have legislation for self-id still working through their parliaments. France and Greece has a system where self-id is confirmed by courts (but without the need for medical diagnosis and assessment).
If I may add further evidence of what it means to ignore human rights on this issue, please look at this letter Warning - link to letter by hate group - L host
My daughter quoted this letter in her recent letter to her MP with the following comment.
Along with Transgender Trend and Genspect they are now seriously arguing that the judgment (and its implementation) will lead to such a poor quality of life for trans people – whether passable or not – that from now on no teenager should be allowed any form of medical transition. Young people must simply be “persuaded” to give up their identities and accept they will live in a cage of gender dysphoria for life. Which is of course a form of conversion therapy. By the same argument, they will presumably soon be pushing for bans on adult health care too.
This is openly eliminationist campaigning against a minority group, entirely akin to arguments from my childhood that because society is so prejudiced against gay people (and legally homophobic), children must be prevented from turning gay for their own good. Or in earlier, even darker eras, arguments that Jewish children should be removed from their parents and brought up as Christians to save them from antisemitic persecution. Or that Catholic children should be raised as Protestant, because society is so prejudiced against Catholics.
In a quick skim read of the ECHR linked above I only saw the issue of trans people mentioned in Article 12. And that didn't seem to cover the issue of 'self-id' which issue seems to me to be a cause of a significant amount of current controversy.
[Expletive], that is a nasty letter (the one linked to, not your daughter's one)!!!
It's astonishingly cruel.
There's a response to the letter from the Trans Advocacy and Complaint Collective UK (which includes an image of the letter itself, which means you can read it without having to visit one of the originating groups' websites). Some extracts:
On 28 April 2025, several [groups] sent a joint letter to Sir James Mackey, CEO of NHS England, demanding the cancellation of the upcoming puberty blocker trial. Disguised as a concern for ethics and legality, the letter is in fact a calculated attempt to obstruct medically necessary care for transgender youth.
The letter grossly misrepresents the recent Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers. While the Court stated that, in some legal contexts, the term “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, it did not mandate the exclusion of transgender people from single-sex services. Despite this, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issued interim guidance that encourages a [sic] requires the exclusion of transgender individuals from such spaces, an approach which significantly oversteps the legal ruling and is not backed by any statutory change to the Equality Act.
...
The letter then asserts that gender-affirming care for trans youth, specifically puberty blockers, is now “untenable,” claiming that if trans individuals cannot access single-sex spaces, then there is no justification for medical intervention. This is both legally and ethically flawed. Puberty blockers are not administered to guarantee social access but to mitigate clinically significant distress caused by gender dysphoria. Their purpose is to provide young people with time and space to understand their identity without the irreversible physical changes of puberty.
...
What is most concerning is that these organisations are not neutral observers of medical ethics. They are lobbying groups with openly hostile positions towards trans rights...
In a quick skim read of the ECHR linked above I only saw the issue of trans people mentioned in Article 12. And that didn't seem to cover the issue of 'self-id' which issue seems to me to be a cause of a significant amount of current controversy.
Sorry to be picky but I think you'll agree with me.
Self-identification is not the cause of the current controversy. It is the chosen point of friction of those that want to wage this war.
If I may add further evidence of what it means to ignore human rights on this issue, please look at this letter Warning - link to letter by hate group - L host
My daughter quoted this letter in her recent letter to her MP with the following comment.
Along with Transgender Trend and Genspect they are now seriously arguing that the judgment (and its implementation) will lead to such a poor quality of life for trans people – whether passable or not – that from now on no teenager should be allowed any form of medical transition. Young people must simply be “persuaded” to give up their identities and accept they will live in a cage of gender dysphoria for life. Which is of course a form of conversion therapy. By the same argument, they will presumably soon be pushing for bans on adult health care too.
This is openly eliminationist campaigning against a minority group, entirely akin to arguments from my childhood that because society is so prejudiced against gay people (and legally homophobic), children must be prevented from turning gay for their own good. Or in earlier, even darker eras, arguments that Jewish children should be removed from their parents and brought up as Christians to save them from antisemitic persecution. Or that Catholic children should be raised as Protestant, because society is so prejudiced against Catholics.
She has given me permission to quote her.
What an obscene letter. And an obscene strategy. First we will deny puberty blockers because 'there is insufficient evidence' then we'll block any scientific work to develop the evidence.
Clearly some people believe they can make Trans people disappear. It would be incredibly funny if it were not so evil.
AFZ is right, Merry Vole. And my apologies to Hosts and all for not warning about the contents of that particularly cruel letter. I was shocked to the core when I read it. It shows up the associated organisations for what they are.
In a quick skim read of the ECHR linked above I only saw the issue of trans people mentioned in Article 12. And that didn't seem to cover the issue of 'self-id' which issue seems to me to be a cause of a significant amount of current controversy.
Self-ID is not the issue. In many ways GRCs in general are not the issue, this judgement impacts those who have had the funds and skills to navigate the GRC hoops and those who haven't alike. Transphobes, like those driving this case, will not accept trans people under any circumstances.
My daughter quoted this letter in her recent letter to her MP with the following comment:
“... This is openly eliminationist campaigning against a minority group, entirely akin to arguments from my childhood that because society is so prejudiced against gay people (and legally homophobic), children must be prevented from turning gay for their own good. Or in earlier, even darker eras, arguments that Jewish children should be removed from their parents and brought up as Christians to save them from antisemitic persecution. Or that Catholic children should be raised as Protestant, because society is so prejudiced against Catholics.”
What particularly struck me about your daughter's letter was that this campaign is eliminationist - the elimination of people from public spaces, the elimination of people from public life, the elimination of people's identities. It's not a big leap to the elimination of people themselves. And the twisted justification that children can be harmed in order to rescue them from harm has indeed been around a long time.
I suggest that what underlies campaigns to eliminate people is the desire to eliminate fear.
In this regard, what's appalling is that we continue to live in societies where our fears of the real and the conceptual can be transformed, bundled up and packaged into a chimeric combination of conscious and unconscious threats. And that this phantasm can be displaced to other people, so that one's own fear of harm can be translated to another, directed at a harmless group of people, that they themselves become the object of that fear and that removing them, even harming them, becomes justified as being necessary for the elimination of those fears. (This seems to be a pretty significant part of what scapegoating is all about.)
I'm not saying that this shouldn't be protested and opposed, through the courts and every other legal means. But legal definitions and mechanisms are not intended to provide an effective forum for arriving at mutual understanding. Stopping and preventing actual harm is the obviously essential first step in a process, not an endpoint.
My daughter quoted this letter in her recent letter to her MP with the following comment:
“... This is openly eliminationist campaigning against a minority group, entirely akin to arguments from my childhood that because society is so prejudiced against gay people (and legally homophobic), children must be prevented from turning gay for their own good. Or in earlier, even darker eras, arguments that Jewish children should be removed from their parents and brought up as Christians to save them from antisemitic persecution. Or that Catholic children should be raised as Protestant, because society is so prejudiced against Catholics.”
What particularly struck me about your daughter's letter was that this campaign is eliminationist - the elimination of people from public spaces, the elimination of people from public life, the elimination of people's identities. It's not a big leap to the elimination of people themselves.
To extend @alienfromzog 's point upthread, this is not something that might present itself in the future, it's the actual present demand of the letter, I see no other way of reading sections like the following (trauma warning for what's inside the spoiler):
Children under the care of all gender services, both NHS and private, must now be told that they will never be able to access spaces or services for the opposite sex, no matter what legal or medical steps they take now or in the future.
..
This means that the entire premise of treatment with puberty blockers for gender dysphoria has fallen away.
..
But passing as the opposite sex ceases to be a desirable goal to present to children
Mind boggling. This an outright attack on personal liberty, and interior life. There are so many philosophical outrages here, to do with the nature of the self. It reminds me of Stalin. I guess Starmer will genuflect before it.
It reminds me that Judith Butler described as fascist these attempts to define the self from the outside, and people scoffed at them, but they were right.
My daughter quoted this letter in her recent letter to her MP with the following comment:
“... This is openly eliminationist campaigning against a minority group, entirely akin to arguments from my childhood that because society is so prejudiced against gay people (and legally homophobic), children must be prevented from turning gay for their own good. Or in earlier, even darker eras, arguments that Jewish children should be removed from their parents and brought up as Christians to save them from antisemitic persecution. Or that Catholic children should be raised as Protestant, because society is so prejudiced against Catholics.”
What particularly struck me about your daughter's letter was that this campaign is eliminationist - the elimination of people from public spaces, the elimination of people from public life, the elimination of people's identities. It's not a big leap to the elimination of people themselves.
To extend @alienfromzog 's point upthread, this is not something that might present itself in the future, it's the actual present demand of the letter, I see no other way of reading sections like the following (trauma warning for what's inside the spoiler):
Children under the care of all gender services, both NHS and private, must now be told that they will never be able to access spaces or services for the opposite sex, no matter what legal or medical steps they take now or in the future.
..
This means that the entire premise of treatment with puberty blockers for gender dysphoria has fallen away.
..
But passing as the opposite sex ceases to be a desirable goal to present to children
It's just horrible isn't it. That "must" is particularly galling. What they are saying is that being Transgender simply does not exist.
Which is true in the same way that homosexuality doesn't exist or being a Tory or an Aston Villa fan. Ok, so I've now descended into facetiousness. I will just clarify here that my comparisons are carefully chosen and the order is deliberate because for me, the echos of past decades, homophobic arguments are so strong. I do not intend to trivialise the Trans experience as I hope my previous posts on this thread show, please don't read me that way. I just grappling with the insistence that gender dysphoria should not be treated because being Trans is not real. Fine, I think today, I will stop believing that being English is not real. All English people should be told to expect to communicate in Latin only in future as the whole idea of 'England' is a ridiculous construct... I return to my point before: it is so beyond ridiculous that it would be extremely funny were it not so damaging and therefore evil.
I have been on a complex personal journey as an outsider. I have come to a firm position that however uncomfortable or otherwise I may feel, I have one simple responsibility: when a (trans) person tells me who they are, I should believe them.
There's a special kind of arrogance on display here. I have seen it in lots of situations and it's always disrespectful and dehumanising. It is simply to tell a person that their lived experience is not real. It takes special arrogance but it is built always on the confidence of ignorance.
What's so dangerous is turning that ignorance into policy, which is what that letter demands.
My way in to all this has been scientific rather than personal: when transphobes speak of 'biology,' to someone like me, it just screams ignorance. I am sure for anyone who is trans or non-binary - or even just knows someone who is not cis- - the ignorance shouts just as loudly.
You may also wish to note that Sex Matters, one of the four co- signatories to the letter, were also allowed as an Intervener in the UK Supreme Court case. As is well known, no trans voices were heard.
One of the reasons why ex Judge Victoria McCloud is taking the Supreme Court ruling to the European Court of Human Rights. The dependent might have some difficulty in justifying hearing the Intervener whilst excluding trans voices. Or so you would think.
For what it’s worth, I’m not very optimistic about that challenge going anywhere. I doubt the ECtHR would interpret Article 6 as applying to the UKSC’s discretion to decide which interveners it hears from in a case like this. A challenge to the new interim guidelines seems like a much more promising approach.
Doesn't the category unreliable witness apply in that UK Supreme Court hearing? There is clear written evidence that Sex Matters has co authored a blatantly transphobic and possibly fascist document.
I'm no lawyer of course. From memory I think the Sex Matters lawyer was commended for his evidence in the judgment. Fruit from a poisoned tree? At any rate I'm sure an ex judge must have something to go on under Article 6. We'll see.
I agree that the case against the interim guidelines is strong.
Just come across this. It seems that Sex Matters are at it again.
A Conservative MP has introduced a data protection amendment to some forthcoming legislation which would require public authorities to record individuals’ sex strictly as male or female at birth.
Sex Matters are of course aggressively lobbying for the amendment to be passed.
Will do a bit more digging. I suspect the amendment has legal difficulties because of privacy rights.
Cruelty is the whole, entire point of the existence of that entire tendency, led (of course) by Farage. They seek all available forms of power because it gives them the right to be cruel.
A Conservative MP has introduced a data protection amendment to some forthcoming legislation which would require public authorities to record individuals’ sex strictly as male or female at birth.
Amendment NC21 is a proposed addition to the Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL], tabled by Conservative MPs including Dr Ben Spencer. It would legally require public authorities to:
Record "sex" only as male or female based on sex at birth (“biological sex”).
Only allow public records to include a trans person’s acquired gender if they hold a Gender Recognition Certificate and even then, it must be recorded alongside, not instead of, their sex at birth.
Audit and “correct” public records to reflect these definitions.
Restrict which public authorities can provide sex data to digital identity services — starting with only the General Register Office, which records sex at birth.
While the amendment doesn’t explicitly reverse existing gender markers, it creates a system where any marker not backed by a GRC may be ignored, overwritten, or excluded from verified identity records. This would affect the new Digital Verification Services (DVS), which are part of the government’s effort to enable people to prove key facts about themselves online (e.g., name, age, sex, etc).
I think this is one of a clutch of amendments due to be considered (for inclusion in the Bill) later today.
NB As a doctor, he worked for the NHS, specialising in mental health.
I've decided to be more active in the local Labour Party rather than just being annoyed with them. My heart is with the Greens but they are insignificant in my neck of the woods. Also joined LGBT+ Labour as an ally. They are, not surprisingly, also concerned at recent developments and the Government's uncritical acceptance of Cass and the EHR*C.
*Equality and Human Rights only apply to approved subsets of humans.
I've decided to be more active in the local Labour Party rather than just being annoyed with them. My heart is with the Greens but they are insignificant in my neck of the woods. Also joined LGBT+ Labour as an ally. They are, not surprisingly, also concerned at recent developments and the Government's uncritical acceptance of Cass and the EHR*C.
*Equality and Human Rights only apply to approved subsets of humans.
The upcoming UK Local Medical Committees (LMC) Conference on 8 May 2025 is poised to vote on a motion that would force GPs to add a mandatory “biological sex” field to our records in the NHS.
I don’t know who proposed the motion and I guess it must be advisory to the BMA. Digging a bit more. What is going on?
Meanwhile I think the vote on NC21 threw out the proposed new clause.
Amendment NC21 was comprehensively rejected - 363 (noes) to 97 (ayes). Voting was along party lines - Conservative, Reform, Unionists and an Independent voting for the amendment, the other parties voting against.
Amendment NC21 was comprehensively rejected - 363 (noes) to 97 (ayes). Voting was along party lines - Conservative, Reform, Unionists and an Independent voting for the amendment, the other parties voting against.
The upcoming UK Local Medical Committees (LMC) Conference on 8 May 2025 is poised to vote on a motion that would force GPs to add a mandatory “biological sex” field to our records in the NHS.
Two things.
1. Notwithstanding all that's been said on this thread, this is the one place where such a recording of status makes sense. It does make a difference to how a doctor cares for an individual.* (Now I am assuming it is only for this reason...)
2. As I understand, such a vote would have no effect in itself.
*For example a Trans woman can get prostate cancer...
The upcoming UK Local Medical Committees (LMC) Conference on 8 May 2025 is poised to vote on a motion that would force GPs to add a mandatory “biological sex” field to our records in the NHS.
Two things.
1. Notwithstanding all that's been said on this thread, this is the one place where such a recording of status makes sense. It does make a difference to how a doctor cares for an individual.* (Now I am assuming it is only for this reason...)
2. As I understand, such a vote would have no effect in itself.
*For example a Trans woman can get prostate cancer...
It might make sense to record what is known about internal/external genitalia (no point trying to diagnose ovarian cancer in someone with no ovaries) but "biological sex" is too vague to be useful.
Medical records would presumably include treatments received, so that a GP or another medical practitioner who has good reason to be able to access medical records will be able to see that the woman sitting in front of them has had surgery and hormone treatment to change primary and secondary external sexual characteristics. "Biological sex" at birth is implicit in the records, and much less important than medical history since then.
The upcoming UK Local Medical Committees (LMC) Conference on 8 May 2025 is poised to vote on a motion that would force GPs to add a mandatory “biological sex” field to our records in the NHS.
Two things.
1. Notwithstanding all that's been said on this thread, this is the one place where such a recording of status makes sense. It does make a difference to how a doctor cares for an individual.* (Now I am assuming it is only for this reason...)
2. As I understand, such a vote would have no effect in itself.
*For example a Trans woman can get prostate cancer...
It might make sense to record what is known about internal/external genitalia (no point trying to diagnose ovarian cancer in someone with no ovaries) but "biological sex" is too vague to be useful.
In the area of DSD, with which I have some experience, a description term is used such as: XY with CAIS. Assigned gender: female. I don't know what the equivalent terminology is for transgender. From a medical perspective, I don't think 'biological sex' would cause any confusion to the physicians. The problem here, for me, is that it is definitely used as a pejorative.
Some sort of recording here makes sense. My confusion is that I've answered medical questionnaires that asked "is your sex different from that with which you were assigned at birth?" So this info is already recorded. Hence it begs the question, what is the point of this motion?
The problem here, for me, is that it is definitely used as a pejorative
Indeed, it's used to misgender and to legitimise ugly misgendering while pretending to be 'concerned'. The kind of description you give sounds more useful and not designed to do that.
I’m genuinely not sure what the provisions of the Data Protection Act say about recording such data on medical records.
Generally under GDPR you need a legal basis to hold the data, and you need to ensure it is accurate. Provision of healthcare is, if memory serves (we mostly rely on task carried out in the public interest) a legal basis in itself, but you'd still need to demonstrate that the particular data is needed.
The upcoming UK Local Medical Committees (LMC) Conference on 8 May 2025 is poised to vote on a motion that would force GPs to add a mandatory “biological sex” field to our records in the NHS.
I fear that being used as the thin end of a wedge - "It's ok to use it there, why can't we record it for x purpose as well?
I also instinctively fear it because the term has been used so often to 'other' us and to say that trans people are not who we know we are.
I’m genuinely not sure what the provisions of the Data Protection Act say about recording such data on medical records.
Generally under GDPR you need a legal basis to hold the data, and you need to ensure it is accurate. Provision of healthcare is, if memory serves (we mostly rely on task carried out in the public interest) a legal basis in itself, but you'd still need to demonstrate that the particular data is needed.
Much appreciated. I guess there may be a difference between someone in transition and someone post transition. Post transition I’m not sure there is much difference between the medication often prescribed for post menopausal cis women and trans women, particularly after surgery. Same for tests.
I think we have a right to see our surgical records and discuss their accuracy and necessity. Personally I would have thought that should be enough and I’m sure agreement can be reached in most cases.
How confidential are NHS records? Can they be accessed and used by other government departments? I confess to being out of date on such matters.
And I absolutely understand Bene Gesserit’s concerns.
GDPR is a potential minefield. But, the simplest overview is that personal data must only be held for one or more clearly defined purposes, and only those people who need that data for those purposes should have access to it. So, for medical records the data is held fundamentally to help provide the best possible medical care for the person, and therefore it's reasonable for anyone who is providing medical care to have access to that data for the purpose of providing medical care. It would be an offence for someone with legitimate access to that data to use it for another purpose (eg: if someone were to ask GPs to identify any trans patients they have then accessing that data for that purpose would be illegal).
My understanding is that portions of medical records can be released for medical research, where that research may lead to improved medical treatments and/or diagnostic tools etc (ie: still benefiting patients), where possible this data would be anonymised - there may be occasions where anonymity couldn't be maintained (eg: to contact patients with particular conditions to invite them to participate in a medical trial).
Other government departments may have legitimate need to access anonymised medical data. Information on the number of patients with disabilities in an area may be useful to determine if provision of facilities for disabled people in the area is adequate (similar data is probably available from the census, but especially closer to the end of the 10 year cycle GP data may be more contemporary and accurate). There has been a lot of stink about whether the benefits agency should have access to primary medical data to help access claims for disability benefits, because apparently a letter from a GP or other medical practitioner treating someone to confirm that they have a disability is no longer considered sufficient. I hope that that never happens, ideally that doctors letter should be sufficient, and certainly irrelevant information (eg: sex and gender) should never be released to other agencies.
Comments
Obviously I sincerely hope that doesn't become necessary. But, which European countries are considered safe and welcoming for trans people - and how is it that their political and legal frameworks make them tolerant. How much of an outlier has the UK become, compared to mainland European countries?
And of course EU law enshrines this.
The European Convention on Human Rights
If I may add further evidence of what it means to ignore human rights on this issue, please look at this letter
Warning - link to letter by hate group - L host
this letter.
My daughter quoted this letter in her recent letter to her MP with the following comment.
She has given me permission to quote her.
There's a response to the letter from the Trans Advocacy and Complaint Collective UK (which includes an image of the letter itself, which means you can read it without having to visit one of the originating groups' websites). Some extracts:
Sorry to be picky but I think you'll agree with me.
Self-identification is not the cause of the current controversy. It is the chosen point of friction of those that want to wage this war.
What an obscene letter. And an obscene strategy. First we will deny puberty blockers because 'there is insufficient evidence' then we'll block any scientific work to develop the evidence.
Clearly some people believe they can make Trans people disappear. It would be incredibly funny if it were not so evil.
AFZ
Self-ID is not the issue. In many ways GRCs in general are not the issue, this judgement impacts those who have had the funds and skills to navigate the GRC hoops and those who haven't alike. Transphobes, like those driving this case, will not accept trans people under any circumstances.
I suggest that what underlies campaigns to eliminate people is the desire to eliminate fear.
In this regard, what's appalling is that we continue to live in societies where our fears of the real and the conceptual can be transformed, bundled up and packaged into a chimeric combination of conscious and unconscious threats. And that this phantasm can be displaced to other people, so that one's own fear of harm can be translated to another, directed at a harmless group of people, that they themselves become the object of that fear and that removing them, even harming them, becomes justified as being necessary for the elimination of those fears. (This seems to be a pretty significant part of what scapegoating is all about.)
I'm not saying that this shouldn't be protested and opposed, through the courts and every other legal means. But legal definitions and mechanisms are not intended to provide an effective forum for arriving at mutual understanding. Stopping and preventing actual harm is the obviously essential first step in a process, not an endpoint.
That might be worth a separate thread. It’s an excellent point.
To extend @alienfromzog 's point upthread, this is not something that might present itself in the future, it's the actual present demand of the letter, I see no other way of reading sections like the following (trauma warning for what's inside the spoiler):
..
This means that the entire premise of treatment with puberty blockers for gender dysphoria has fallen away.
..
But passing as the opposite sex ceases to be a desirable goal to present to children
It's just horrible isn't it. That "must" is particularly galling. What they are saying is that being Transgender simply does not exist.
Which is true in the same way that homosexuality doesn't exist or being a Tory or an Aston Villa fan. Ok, so I've now descended into facetiousness. I will just clarify here that my comparisons are carefully chosen and the order is deliberate because for me, the echos of past decades, homophobic arguments are so strong. I do not intend to trivialise the Trans experience as I hope my previous posts on this thread show, please don't read me that way. I just grappling with the insistence that gender dysphoria should not be treated because being Trans is not real. Fine, I think today, I will stop believing that being English is not real. All English people should be told to expect to communicate in Latin only in future as the whole idea of 'England' is a ridiculous construct... I return to my point before: it is so beyond ridiculous that it would be extremely funny were it not so damaging and therefore evil.
I have been on a complex personal journey as an outsider. I have come to a firm position that however uncomfortable or otherwise I may feel, I have one simple responsibility: when a (trans) person tells me who they are, I should believe them.
There's a special kind of arrogance on display here. I have seen it in lots of situations and it's always disrespectful and dehumanising. It is simply to tell a person that their lived experience is not real. It takes special arrogance but it is built always on the confidence of ignorance.
What's so dangerous is turning that ignorance into policy, which is what that letter demands.
My way in to all this has been scientific rather than personal: when transphobes speak of 'biology,' to someone like me, it just screams ignorance. I am sure for anyone who is trans or non-binary - or even just knows someone who is not cis- - the ignorance shouts just as loudly.
We must not let ignorance become policy.
AFZ
OK.
You may also wish to note that Sex Matters, one of the four co- signatories to the letter, were also allowed as an Intervener in the UK Supreme Court case. As is well known, no trans voices were heard.
One of the reasons why ex Judge Victoria McCloud is taking the Supreme Court ruling to the European Court of Human Rights. The dependent might have some difficulty in justifying hearing the Intervener whilst excluding trans voices. Or so you would think.
I'm no lawyer of course. From memory I think the Sex Matters lawyer was commended for his evidence in the judgment. Fruit from a poisoned tree? At any rate I'm sure an ex judge must have something to go on under Article 6. We'll see.
I agree that the case against the interim guidelines is strong.
A Conservative MP has introduced a data protection amendment to some forthcoming legislation which would require public authorities to record individuals’ sex strictly as male or female at birth.
Sex Matters are of course aggressively lobbying for the amendment to be passed.
Will do a bit more digging. I suspect the amendment has legal difficulties because of privacy rights.
I wonder whether Labour MPs will get whipped (one way or another?
NB As a doctor, he worked for the NHS, specialising in mental health.
*Equality and Human Rights only apply to approved subsets of humans.
Well done.
Definitely good news. If this is accurate, this evil ammendment is dead.
TFFT !
The upcoming UK Local Medical Committees (LMC) Conference on 8 May 2025 is poised to vote on a motion that would force GPs to add a mandatory “biological sex” field to our records in the NHS.
I don’t know who proposed the motion and I guess it must be advisory to the BMA. Digging a bit more. What is going on?
Meanwhile I think the vote on NC21 threw out the proposed new clause.
PTL.
Two things.
1. Notwithstanding all that's been said on this thread, this is the one place where such a recording of status makes sense. It does make a difference to how a doctor cares for an individual.* (Now I am assuming it is only for this reason...)
2. As I understand, such a vote would have no effect in itself.
*For example a Trans woman can get prostate cancer...
It might make sense to record what is known about internal/external genitalia (no point trying to diagnose ovarian cancer in someone with no ovaries) but "biological sex" is too vague to be useful.
In the area of DSD, with which I have some experience, a description term is used such as:
XY with CAIS. Assigned gender: female. I don't know what the equivalent terminology is for transgender. From a medical perspective, I don't think 'biological sex' would cause any confusion to the physicians. The problem here, for me, is that it is definitely used as a pejorative.
Some sort of recording here makes sense. My confusion is that I've answered medical questionnaires that asked "is your sex different from that with which you were assigned at birth?" So this info is already recorded. Hence it begs the question, what is the point of this motion?
AFZ
Indeed, it's used to misgender and to legitimise ugly misgendering while pretending to be 'concerned'. The kind of description you give sounds more useful and not designed to do that.
Generally under GDPR you need a legal basis to hold the data, and you need to ensure it is accurate. Provision of healthcare is, if memory serves (we mostly rely on task carried out in the public interest) a legal basis in itself, but you'd still need to demonstrate that the particular data is needed.
I fear that being used as the thin end of a wedge - "It's ok to use it there, why can't we record it for x purpose as well?
I also instinctively fear it because the term has been used so often to 'other' us and to say that trans people are not who we know we are.
The problem in a nutshell. Well said!
Much appreciated. I guess there may be a difference between someone in transition and someone post transition. Post transition I’m not sure there is much difference between the medication often prescribed for post menopausal cis women and trans women, particularly after surgery. Same for tests.
I think we have a right to see our surgical records and discuss their accuracy and necessity. Personally I would have thought that should be enough and I’m sure agreement can be reached in most cases.
How confidential are NHS records? Can they be accessed and used by other government departments? I confess to being out of date on such matters.
And I absolutely understand Bene Gesserit’s concerns.
My understanding is that portions of medical records can be released for medical research, where that research may lead to improved medical treatments and/or diagnostic tools etc (ie: still benefiting patients), where possible this data would be anonymised - there may be occasions where anonymity couldn't be maintained (eg: to contact patients with particular conditions to invite them to participate in a medical trial).
Other government departments may have legitimate need to access anonymised medical data. Information on the number of patients with disabilities in an area may be useful to determine if provision of facilities for disabled people in the area is adequate (similar data is probably available from the census, but especially closer to the end of the 10 year cycle GP data may be more contemporary and accurate). There has been a lot of stink about whether the benefits agency should have access to primary medical data to help access claims for disability benefits, because apparently a letter from a GP or other medical practitioner treating someone to confirm that they have a disability is no longer considered sufficient. I hope that that never happens, ideally that doctors letter should be sufficient, and certainly irrelevant information (eg: sex and gender) should never be released to other agencies.