World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Files

She is a nurse - biology matters, especially in her vocation. And therefore she of course referred to the individual by the correct sex. You don't have time for ideology when you're a busy healthcare professional.

So I'm not sure what your conclusion is then: is it acceptable to suspend her if her use of masculine pronouns was principally on religious grounds rather than medical ones?

Because AFAIK, health staff are entitled to freedom of conscience.

Moreover, muslim nurses may request not to treat patients of the opposite sex: so did this christian nurse get into trouble for agreeing to treat a patient that a muslim nurse would just outright refuse to help in the first place?

That seems unreasonable, surely?

All hospitals have to ensure that male nurses treat men and female nurses treat women. This is obligatory, just as it is obligatory for male doctors to treat men and female doctors to treat women, except in cases of extreme necessity. If the treatment for an illness is only known by a man it is OK for him to treat a woman, because this is a case of necessity. Similarly, if the treatment for a man's illness is only known by a woman, it is OK for her to treat him. Otherwise, male doctors must treat men and female doctors must treat women. This is obligatory.  https://islamqa.info/en/answers/12987/female-nurses-working-with-male-patients

Well I'm wondering why you keep insisting on this "religion" aspect then? If you think that she shouldn't have been suspended, what does it matter what explanation she gave?

And since she has been, does that indicate that there is a pattern here that needs to be dealt with in the NHS (thinking of the Darlington nurses and others who have been sanctioned for wanting their beliefs about sex to be respected, or of women who have been sexually assaulted in supposedly female wards by allegedly trans patients*) and if so, what should be done?

• I say "allegedly" because I've no idea how one would tell who was a genuine trans woman and who was just a male looking to abuse vulnerable women.

If there really are so few trans women in sporting events as people claim, the odds of an event like this happening must be astronomical. What are the chances that 2 of the miniscule and "irrelevant" amount of transwomen end up in the final of this event if they dont have an advantage? That's why proponents of males competing against females ignore situations like this. It just proves the point that women are being pushed out of their own sports, even non athletic ones like pool and darts. A bigger reach would certainly be an advantage, as well as the increased opportunities to take part in such sports afforded to those who have grown up male.

Well we were informed by some user or other earlier in the threads (think it was this one, I could look) - and I was surprised no one replied to it at the time - that the reason for much of this (paraphrasing from memory here) is that Men have specifically designed the sports and the rules of the sports to maintain the superiority that they themselves believe (falsely, I assume the user meant?) they have.

If this claim were true (and of course there user simply asserted it without any evidence or examples of the truth of it) then the reason this "astronomical" thing happens is not that males have an advantage over females but in fact - try not to laugh now - that the sports and the rules of the sports are specifically designed to favor any male who plays them.

You can't make this stuff up. Or at least I can't. The other user seemingly did. But I was wondering at the time should I have asked for examples of which sports, and which rules, were A) Specifically being referred to and B) can be shown they were specifically set up with this weird agenda in play. But I never did get around to it.

Yes The World Snooker final is a unisex event. I think it was earlier in this thread I cited some quotes from Steve Davis and others about this. Most people do not know this because women simply do not progress far enough it seems. So you never see any women there by the time the televised portion of the competition happens.

Much like chess (which someone mentioned above) many people are confused why this might be. Generally they are people who have never played snooker or chess though. It seems like such a relaxed way to spend a day - with barely any physical effort - so why would men have an advantage at all?

Having played those games you realize they take not just physical things you might not have thought of (someone mentioned reach as an advantage in snooker for example and cuing power too) but also things like simply pure endurance. At the top tiers of snooker and chess some matches last hours. Sometimes hours over several consecutive days. It's physically and mentally draining - to maintain the top level of unbroken focus and concentration involved on every move and every shot. And it would seem from things like chess and top level snooker that this is another area people are just going to have to outright deny men have an advantage over women in.

They have some good players though. Mink Nutcharut, Reanne Evans, and Ng On-yee. If they ever qualify for the higher levels then my love of the underdog would kick in and I would be cheering for them to win it.

Yes, he's excellent. He's a psychiatrist AND a psychotherapist.

I'm ignorant enough on these issues, as in I know what they but have no real experience dealing with them beyond meeting a few individuals. But to be perfectly honest, I would of the opinion that…

I don't hate trans people. I don't wish them ill-will. I would like them to be happy in themselves and live a happy life.

I do think trans people are very real, I do think some people are born in the wrong body. And I can't, and won't ever be able, fathom how difficult that must be for someone. I simply can't know.

That said, I believe than someone born with a womb is a biological woman, and that someone born with a penis is a biological man, whether you're trans or not. It is a perfectly logical position to take based on basic science and biology.

On that, if someone wants to claim they're the opposite sex, I don't care if they do, that's their business, and I'll call you what you want me to call you out of politeness and basic decency, even if I think you're a bit nuts for doing it.

I don't think biological males should be competing in womens sports, for many reasons.

I don't think biological males should be in womens changing rooms/bathrooms etc, and vice versa, as I believe that such things should be based on biological reasons. There's a reason why there's no urinals in womens bathrooms.

I think medical staff should use medical terms when dealing with someone in a medical capacity, regardless of how that person may be upset, as it is the fairest and most professional way of operating.

I don't think things like drag-queen story hour are a good thing, purely because with some drag queens there's an element of sexuality to their persona, but at the same time, I don't feel they are threatening children sexually or their development if it does happen. And I'd take that 1000 times more safe than being in the presence of someone from a religious order, or even just spouting the bible.

I think a lot of the trans issue, particularly in teenagers, is attention-seeking for social media.

I think a lot of the more extreme trans nonsense online can be vile and disturbing, and that there's definitely an element within the trans community that has severe mental problems, an this extreme element can be way over the top..

I do think too that trans people are unfairly targeted and in many put down because people don't understand and rather than learn choose to be ignorant.

I think the trans community is targeted mainly due to religious bigotry.

I also think the trans community demands people conform too much. Just because I think some born with a penis is a man, it doesn't mean I hate you or want you to suffer, or want to see you oppressed or have less rights.

And I don't care about the pride festivals (they look like a bit of fun), or pride month. And the rainbow flag is pleasant and colourful to look at and just a flag.

And I definitely do no think children under the age of 18 should ever receive any type of surgery/medical intervention in order to transition, and that until they are old enough to legally decide for themselves what problems there are should be addressed through mental health professionals. And I view people advocating for children to receive surgery/medical intervention to be a danger to children.

A mixed bag of opinions really.

I called out a bunch of blokes calling her the C word on Threads earlier, told them they were misogynist and then the pile-on began.

Linked to an article about "progressive misogyny". Ended up deleting the app.

Context was, cast list released for upcoming Potter shows. They were commenting on a comment from Nick Frost.

I agree with and disagree with those various points. Like drag queen story hour isn't an issue for me once the same drag queen isn't moonlighting at a fetish club. Lots of drag queens just do comedy though - nothing more sexual than double entendre jokes.

A transwoman post op using the women's toilets wouldn't bother me. Men who cross-dress though, like Eddie Izzard, are simply men. Should not be using women's toilets and do not deserve she/her pronouns.

And nobody is born in the wrong body. People are sometimes very unhappy with the body they have, and that's dysphoria.

With the post above in mind, I'll start by stating I think Donald Trump is morally bankrupt, a liar and someone who disregards science. It's ironic then that his administration has come up with some EOs that are based on truth and science. We've discussed another one on the sports thread, but based on his 28 Jan EO here is a report from HHS.

I haven't read it yet, but here are a few comments from Maryanne Demasi, a researcher that I think is independent and truthful. (Trigger warning: she has also written a few substack posts that are critical of the FDA handling of Covid vaccines).

“In many areas of medicine, treatments are first established as safe and effective in adults before being extended to paediatric populations,” the report explains. “In this case, however, the opposite occurred.”

Despite inconclusive outcomes in adults, these interventions were rolled out for children—without rigorous data, and with little regard for long-term, often irreversible consequences.

These include infertility, sexual dysfunction, impaired bone development, elevated cardiovascular risk, and psychiatric complications.

“The physical consequences are often irreversible,” the report warns.

Puberty blockers, frequently marketed as a reversible ‘pause,’ actually interrupt bone mineralisation at a critical growth stage—raising the risk of stunted skeletal growth and early-onset osteoporosis.

When followed by cross-sex hormones, as is common, the harms multiply. Known risks include metabolic disruption, blood clots, sterility, and permanent loss of sexual function.

Yet many clinics operate under a “child-led care” model, where a minor’s self-declared “embodiment goals” dictate treatment.

The report notes that some leading clinics conduct assessments “in a single session lasting two hours,” often with no robust psychological evaluation.

This raises a critical question: are children capable of consenting to life-altering medical interventions?

According to the HHS, informed consent means more than simple agreement—it requires a deep understanding of risks, alternatives, and long-term impact.

And by definition, children lack full legal and developmental capacity for medical decision-making.

The above points seem eminently reasonable to me, which makes it all the more tragic that the Democrat administration couldn't have properly examined this issue.

Here is the EO from Jan 28th:

This raises a critical question: are children capable of consenting to life-altering medical interventions?

On that point specifically, the legal standard that is usually applied in the UK is "Gillick competence" which refers to a legal case taken by a Catholic mother of ten (Victoria Gillick) relating to whether teenage girls could get contraception against the wishes of their parents. The case established a right of teenagers to do exactly that, assuming they pass certain tests of maturity etc

This point has been made before, but it is reasonable to accept that teenage girls who want contraception actually do understand what they are consenting to. The basic facts around contraception are understandable by any teenager.

Can you say the same about "gender affirming" medical care? I don't think so. Do pre-pubescent kids know what they are consenting to by taking puberty blockers? There has to be a serious doubt about that. Nobody knows what the long term consequences of this medication is.

Gillick competence is a square peg hammered into a round hole when applied to gender affirming "medicine"

It certainly seems like there will be plenty of "mistakes" in need of covering up.

I just skimmed the executive summary. For me the noteworthy thing is that the country where most of this stuff seems to have originated has taken an official position in line with Cass. Previous US responses to Cass were almost universally of the doubling-down on unscientific positions variety.

Reactions to medical scandals in the US seemed to be strangely muted in general, with only the injured and those close to them being passionate about it. That's probably not likely to change as long as the money flows towards the status quo.

Another point that's essential in weighing up the benefits and risks of prescribing contraception to someone who asks for it is that the consequences of not using contraception are very often not "not having sex", but rather a much higher risk of pregnancy - and even aside from the problems of early parenthood, the physical and mental risks of pregnancy to a young body are FAR higher than the medical risks from contraception.

That's why the Cass report's finding that the evidence of positive effects on mental health from puberty blockers were so poor as to make them hard to prescribe ethically matters so much. Because while activists were able to push the claim that they were an unalloyed good, it was very hard for doctors to refuse patients who were determined to have them. And easy to push vulnerable young people into demanding them.

That's what the Cass report changed, and it was massive. Because there's no equivalent "benefit" to outweigh the risks from puberty blockers. The benefits from PBs are far less clearcut. The US report reaches similar conclusions. Unsurprisingly.

To be fair to the doctors who first prescribed them, they are reversible in terms of physiological puberty: when they are stopped, the body’s natural hormones kick in and the person then undergoes puberty. So to that extent it’s true.

The other consequences, on bone density etc, are not always reversible. I don’t know why that was occulted for so long but it’s concerning.

And of course puberty is far more than just those physical changes: the development the brain undergoes may be subject a window of opportunity. It was reckless of doctors and researchers not to have examined those issues far more closely.