The anti-trans mob never had “reasonable concerns”; they’re a hate movement. And they’re now so emboldened that they’re not trying to hide that any more. Speaking at yesterday’s Conservative party conference, both Sex Matters and the LGB Alliance made it very clear what they believed, with the latter’s CEO saying that supporting any form of transition is “evil” and that the goal must be “to strip out the poisonous homophobia of gender identity ideology from public life wherever we can.” The only way to eradicate “gender identity ideology” from public life is to eradicate trans and non-binary people.
Category: Bullshit
Pernicious nonsense and other irritants
-
The Cass Review: still a scandal
A new peer-reviewed study of the Cass Review, the UK project that was used to stop trans teens’ healthcare, has been published. And like all the other peer-reviewed studies of the Cass Review, it’s absolutely damning. It once again demonstrates that the review was skewed to deliver a pre-determined outcome that flies in the face of the evidence.
The study describes the review’s “disregard of international expert consensus, methodological problems and conceptual errors” and says that its internal contradictions are striking:
It acknowledged that some trans young people benefit from puberty suppression, but its recommendations have made this currently inaccessible to all.
It found no evidence that psychological treatments improve gender dysphoria, yet recommended expanding their provision.
It found that NHS provision of GAMT [Gender Affirming Medical Treatment] (GnRHa, oestrogen or testosterone) was already very restricted, and that young people were distressed by lack of access to treatment, yet it recommended increased barriers to oestrogen and testosterone for any trans adolescents aged under 18 years.
It dismissed the evidence of benefit from GAMT as “weak”, but emphasised speculative harms based on weaker evidence.
The harms of withholding GAMT were not evaluated.
The Review disregarded studies observing that adolescents who requested but were unable to access GAMT had poorer mental health compared with those who could access GAMT.
Despite finding that detransition and regret appear uncommon, the Review’s recommendations appear to have the goal of preventing regret at any cost.
The Review, and the UK Government, have taken the position that GAMT, an established treatment with observational evidence of early and medium term benefits and acceptable safety, should be actively withheld from trans adolescents due to lack of high certainty evidence of very long term efficacy and safety. Few treatments for any condition meet this criterion, and it is difficult to name another field in which regulators impose such a benchmark.
…The Cass Review, lacking expertise and compromised by implicit stigma and misinformation, does not give credible evidence-based guidance. We are gravely concerned about its impact on the wellbeing of trans and gender-diverse people.
-
It’s never enough
The Scottish Government has published new guidance about segregating school toilets, which means trans kids will be prevented from using the toilets appropriate to their gender. Is that enough for the transphobes? Of course it isn’t. The Scotsman quotes Maya Forstater of anti-trans hate group Sex Matters, for whom segregating trans children doesn’t go far enough.
The policy “still suggests that a pupil might be able to go through their school career pretending to be the opposite sex without ever being ‘outed’ – that is, recognised as the sex they actually are.” Allowing trans kids to use other toilets, or at different times from other children, “will only worsen the child’s dissociation from the unchangeable physical reality of their sex.”
They’re not even trying to hide it any more: it was never about protecting women and girls. They want trans people eliminated from society, and intend to do so by making trans people’s lives unliveable.
-
Doing their sacred duty
Yesterday, three UK newspapers said that the killer of hatemonger Charlie Kirk was pro-trans on their front pages. The Daily Telegraph had the headline “Charlie Kirk suspect ‘left gun with trans message’”. The Sun front page said that “Ammo ‘carried pro-trans message’”. The Times front page headline was “Trump ally’s killer left ‘transgender ammunition’”. Other papers carried the same story inside their print versions and online.
None of those reports were true.
There was no trans message, pro- or otherwise.
And crucially, all of the newspapers knew that, because long before they had gone to print the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the wrong information, had started walking it back.
The messages on the ammunition were memes from far-right internet culture and shitposting; the one supposedly relating to trans people was the code to call in a bomb in the video game Helldivers 2, which is a popular meme in the alleged killer’s online world.
We know that many people don’t read beyond headlines, and on the rare occasions that newspapers retract stories they do so in very small boxes buried deep inside the papers. So three of the UK’s biggest papers told everyone passing newsstands yesterday that trans people were connected to a brutal murder. And that lie will now be repeated endlessly as yet another reason to fear and hate trans people.
Trans people have no comeback for this, because the code of practice newspapers pretend to follow doesn’t allow groups of people to complain: you can only make an actionable complaint about hate if it names a specific person. So if The Times says that Trans Person X did a thing, and that isn’t true, Trans Person X can complain. But if The Times says trans *people* did a thing, and that’s a lie, there’s no comeback. And of course there’s no legal redress either.
The Onion has a famous headline: It is journalism’s sacred duty to endanger the lives of as many trans people as possible. And that’s exactly what the press is doing here.
-
Whose voices matter
You may have seen coverage of the Polari Prize protest, in which almost all of the first book prize nominees and many of the main prize nominees have withdrawn in protest at the inclusion of the anti-trans writer John Boyne.
Boyne, a self-proclaimed “TERF” who just happened to sanitise his social media a few days before his inclusion was announced, is well known for being anti-trans (and anti-other parts of the LGBTQ+ community and their supporters). Just days ago in a newspaper interview he compared women supportive of trans rights to the character from The Handmaid’s Tale who is “ready to pin a handmaiden down as her husband rapes her.”
This is the same Boyne who had a very public fight with the Auschwitz-Birkenau Holocaust memorial museum, which said that his book The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas “should be avoided by anyone who studies or teaches the history of the Holocaust” because the book is based on “historical inaccuracies and stereotypical portrayals of major characters that help to perpetuate dangerous myths about the Holocaust”. He brought the same rigour to his more recent book about a trans child, a book whose message could best be described as “trans bad. Don’t be trans.” The criticism of that book sent him down the anti-trans rabbit hole he was already leaning into.
Including him in a prize supposedly celebrating the entire LGBTQ+ community is rather like nominating Andrew Tate for a feminist award – and his response to the protest makes that clear. His response uses the tactic favoured by abusers, DARVO – deny, attack, reverse victim and offender – to try and paint himself as an innocent little boy besieged by sinister forces, and he doubles down by saying that if a minority’s human rights are perceived to conflict with those of the majority, the minority’s rights don’t matter. For anyone to say that is incredible. For a gay man to say it is indefensible.
In all the coverage of the protests not one of the authors or judges who withdrew, or the hundreds of writers and publishing workers who have signed a letter protesting Boyne’s inclusion, has been given the opportunity to comment. Instead, Boyne and his beloved JK Rowling are getting all the column inches with lurid claims of what the Telegraph describes as being “cancelled” by “trans zealots”.
The people who are protesting are doing so because they’re principled, and pulling out of the prize means sacrificing a potentially significant boost in sales. They are not bigots or bullies and they are not cancelling anyone. They are the ones whose voices are being silenced.
-
A law that doesn’t exist
The Times reports that the EHRC guidance on trans people, to be published later this year, is going to ignore the 50,000+ consultation responses and will tell organisations not to let trans people use the correct facilities for their gender. It’s not a surprise, but it’s important to understand that what the EHRC is attempting to do here is invent a law that does not exist.
Until now, the Equality Act has said that trans people should only be excluded from facilities if doing so is a proportional means of achieving a legitimate aim. And when the EHRC guidance is published, that will remain the case. What’s changed is how the EHRC is trying to spin it.
The bigots at the EHRC, and their friends at the anti-trans pressure group Sex Matters and in the press, are trying to muddy the waters and make organisations believe that they *must* exclude trans people. But that’s not the law. The law says that yes, they can, if it’s proportionate and absolutely necessary. But they don’t have to, and they are certainly not breaking the law if they choose to offer gender-neutral facilities.
The proposed new guidance is in breach of multiple laws and breaches multiple human rights obligations the UK is signatory to; it also completely disregards the European Court of Human Rights judgements that made the UK grant trans people legal gender recognition in the 2000s. It’s heading once again to the EU courts, where it will be destroyed. But that will take time, and the anti-trans thugs hope to destroy as many human rights as possible before that happens.
-
Hire education
As the genital-obsessed weirdos demand a boycott of M&S for having a trans employee in a shop – I think this is their fourth M&S boycott, or maybe the fifth; it’s hard to keep track – it’s worth revisiting this HR News report from seven years ago, before the anti-trans industry started to demand illegal anti-trans discrimination in the workplace though lawfare and co-ordinated online abuse.
In a survey of 1,000 employers:
- 47% of retailers said they were unlikely to hire a trans person
- 45% of IT businesses said they were unlikely to hire a trans person
- 35% of leisure and hospitality businesses said they were unlikely to hire a trans person
- 34% of manufacturing businesses said they were unlikely to hire a trans person
Not hiring someone because they’re trans was, and is, illegal. Given that, it’s safe to assume that many other respondents wouldn’t hire trans people either but wouldn’t admit it publicly or privately.
The survey suggested that many firms were simply ignorant of the law, and at the time the EHRC was trying to fix that. In recent years, however, it’s set out to misrepresent and mislead instead: instead of educating employers it’s demanding more discrimination, not less.
-
An appalling apology
From the Daily Telegraph: Marks & Spencer has apologised to a mother for causing her teenage daughter “distress” after she was asked if she needed help by an Asian employee in its bra section.
The retailer said it was “truly sorry” after the mother complained that her 14-year-old daughter had felt uncomfortable when they were approached by an Asian shop assistant in the lingerie area of the shop, where they were hoping to have a bra fitting”.
Awful, right?
The original article says “transgender” and “trans” rather than Asian. But that shouldn’t make the story any less horrific, or M&S’s apology any less appalling.
There is no suggestion that the employee said or did anything wrong. The complaint is simply that a trans person has a job. And that complaint is backed by the implicit threat of billionaire-funded legal action that would be very expensive to fight. This is lawfare, and it’s designed to make companies and organisations fearful about employing any trans people in any capacity anywhere.
-
“40 years on, are we really doing this again?”
Clause 72 is an ambiguous mess, purposefully leaving headroom for the removal of LGBTQIA+ books should they include a representation of transgender people, family members, friends, or history. Granting schools and parents enough plausible justification to censor inclusive materials, whilst claiming it is for protection. And in doing so, they declare the acknowledgement of gender diversity as an inherent danger, restricting a minorities representation to age requirements and trigger warnings.
…In stark parallel to Section 28, trans education is framed as a form of “indoctrination” or, as they politely put it, “encouragement.” Just as Thatcher’s government deemed queer identities a threat to ‘functioning’ society, the RSHE guidance implies trans visibility as a suggestive wrong, a political contagion.
-
The best laws money can buy
We’ve been told repeatedly by the Labour government that the Supreme Court judgement that reversed decades of equality law, threatening trans people’s rights and safety, is final and must be respected: any Supreme Court judgement is carved in stone, permanent, impossible to change.
Today, Labour chancellor Rachel Reeves “is considering overruling the Supreme Court over a £44bn car loan commission scandal after lobbying by some of the UK’s biggest lenders,” The Guardian reports.