The UK”s National Health Service (NHS) has come to its senses:
The NHS is to crack down on transgender ideology in hospitals, with terms like “chestfeeding” set to be banned. . .
Referring to “people who have ovaries” rather than “women” will also be prohibited under plans to ensure hospitals use clear language based on biological sex.
The new constitution will ban transgender women from being treated on single-sex female hospital wards to ensure women and girls receive “privacy and protection” in hospitals.
Patients will also be given the right to request that intimate care is carried out by someone of the same biological sex.
It follows concerns from patients about biological men being allowed in women’s hospital wards. NHS guidance has previously stated that trans patients could be placed in single-sex wards on the basis of the gender with which they identified.
Kemi Badenoch, the women and equalities minister, has backed calls for a public inquiry into the “pervasive influence” of transgender ideology in the NHS. . .
A government source said: “The Government has been clear that biological sex matters, and women and girls are entitled to receive the protection and privacy they need in all healthcare settings. . . .
Of course biological sex matters. How on earth did trans ideology prevail anywhere, let alone in hospitals where science and biology are critical?
How have the radical trans activists been able to force the acceptance of their assertion that trans men are women, have access to females spaces and participate in female sports categories?
And how have they been able to infect the health system to the extent of enabling disturbed children – many of them gay and/or autistic – to undergo medical and surgical procedures without the strict ethical approval and rigorous need for proof of efficacy that usually is required for life changing treatment?
Perhaps Damien Grant has part of the answer:
The debate over gender identity has gained in prominence in recent years and, to what will be my enduring shame, I chose not to confront it.
When you distil the serious complaint by those against the current gender-fluidity of modern culture, it is that the medicalisation of children’s gender dysphoria is wrong.
That puberty blockers, hormone treatments and gender-affirming surgery are a mistake. That we are damaging and potentially sterilising children because of an ideology. . .
This sounds like something that happened in Nazi Germany last century, it should not be happening anywhere now.
Puberty is an essential aspect of human development. At the time the local Ministry of Health addressed puberty blockers and confidently asserted they were safe, reversible, and gave young people time to consider their identity. I see that advice has changed.
Why did I place faith in the pronouncements of the Ministry of Health? Given my inherent distrust of the state I am left with the uncomfortable conclusion that it was cowardice.
Seeing how others who waded into this topic had their careers and reputations damaged, it was preferable to hide behind an official declaration that the experts knew what they were doing than look closer and risk having to speak up.
The Cass Report has ended the ability to seek refuge in this sophistry. . .
According to Cass, “the long term health impacts of hormone interventions is limited and needs to be better understood”. “Young people become particularly vulnerable at the point of transfer to adult services.”
She acknowledges hormone treatment for adults is “not without costs…” but is “…dramatically outweighed by the long-term benefits.”
Adults can give properly informed consent. Children can not.
The story for those under 18, and especially under 16, is different. Children on blockers will cease development while their friends continue and “…there are no good studies on the psychological, psychosexual and developmental impact of this period of divergence from peers”. . .
Her report states: “Clinicians are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity.” . . .
She writes: “This is an area of remarkably weak evidence, and yet results of studies are exaggerated or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint. The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender related distress.”
However, “Some clinicians feel under pressure to support a medical pathway based on widespread reporting that gender-affirming treatment reduces suicide risk. This conclusion was not supported by the above systematic review”. . .
There will be other critiques but this report has reversed the burden of proof. If these treatments are safe and effective then the evidence needs to be presented and peer reviewed.
Such evidence and peer reviews would be required for any other treatments and procedures.
Until they are maybe we should not treating people below the age of consent with powerful and unproven treatments.
Mostly the report has been received well and in the wake of its publication England and Scotland have joined the four Nordic nations in banning puberty blockers being prescribed to minors, although some hormone therapies are available for those over 16.
In New Zealand the Ministry of Health’s report on puberty blockers has been delayed in the wake of the Cass report.
Given the Ministry initially claimed that puberty blockers gave children an opportunity to consider their future, the following quote from the Cass report may prove disturbing: “Moreover, given that the vast majority of young people started on puberty blockers proceed from puberty blockers to masculinising/feminising hormones, there is no evidence that puberty blockers buy time to think, and some concern that they may change the trajectory of psychosexual and gender identity development.”
It is possible that we are looking at a major medical misadventure with a cohort of children having their lives compromised.
And too many of us, those with the opportunity and a platform, stood by and said nothing. Because we were afraid of the consequences, because if we did we’d feel compelled to say something, and to say something would come at a cost.
So we said nothing. Shame on us. Shame on me.
Radical trans activists and their followers have been very successful in silencing people.
One of their tactics is to label anyone who states biological facts, stands up for the safety and dignity of women, and/or their right to fair competition in sport as transphobic.
A few might be but most don’t have a problem with what adults do until they trample on other people’s rights, including those of women and children.
Adults can be who they choose to be and dress as they wish but they should not be influencing children and advocating for them to receive irreversible treatment.
Children with gender dysphoria need mental health support not medicine and surgery.
The MoH must accept the findings of the Cass report and follow the NHS which has stopped the routine prescribing of puberty blockers and cracked down on trans ideology in hospitals and it must also accept that biological sex matters.
And we must be prepared to speak out to ensure they do.
Homepaddock 