Hi @youngwomenscot @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The Equal Opportunities Monitoring Form in your trustee application has 'gender identity' in what apears to be a list of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

1/11

This video is full of inaccuracies, lies, scaremongering & gaslighting. Please take a look and report on YouTube, especially the multiple mentions of suicide risk/suicide ideation. Thread below with timestamps of problematic content. Please also

1:17 – talks about transgender children rather than having gender dysphoria.

1:47 – admits he’s not a specialist in endocrinology, paediatrics, psychiatry.

3:04 – gaslighting about free & equal citizens, suggesting there’s a debate about whether they exist as human beings.

3:25 – suggests children should simple have access to whatever treatment they "need" (define need)

4:00 – describes puberty blockers as “pause button” & suggests that once stopped puberty will carry on "in the usual way".

5:18 / 6:10 – promoting brand name prescription drugs.

6:30 - suggests puberty blockers used in transitioning is just the same as use for precocious puberty.

9:11 - one of multiple assertions that people are “assigned" female at birth or "assigned" male at birth.

9:40 - implies that intersex people are not male or female

10:25 - implies chemical intervention is a “natural counter-balance mechanism”

10:49 - “assigned at birth” falsehood again

11:10 - talks about characteristics associated with “gender” instead of “sex”

12:00 – says the way these drugs work is well understood. It is not.

I'm reading Radcliffe Hall.

She has many feelings that modern transmen, female detransitioners, and butch lesbians would recognise.

But to call her a "transman" makes no sense, historically.

I'm reaching for something here, you might be able to help me clarify it.

The existence of the category "transman" depends on the possibility of medical transition.

You can't be a tramsman without it.

You might have all the same feelings, but not have access to drugs and surgeries, and it wouldn't make sense to say you ARE trans.

I want to go back to my Foucauldian academic roots and start talking about the way in which institutions create and forbid desires, identities, enable ways of being. But also, f*ck Foucault, child rape apologist, "bucolic pleasures," no thanks.

How do i say it in words i can believe? Am i back to "trans is not a thing you are, it's a thing you do and it's a very recent, modern solution?"

Ok,i think i have it. Is the desire to say about historical figures "they ARE trans" actually a move to solidify trans as a category?

To say that trans as a category has always existed and that it can exist outside of drugs and surgeries? To give it "depth and weight"?

If you say "x historical figure is trans" you are saying "trans is what you are, not what you do."

Here follows my quick first thoughts of Roberts et al., 2020.

I predict this paper will generate much discussion over the coming weeks and months.

The link to the paper is here:

The authors studied 46 transwomen (TW) and 29 transmen (TM), majority in active service with the US Air Force.

Highly-active people, albeit not specifically-trained athletes. Mean age 26.6 yrs +/- 5.5 yrs.

Transgender officers were treated along standard hormone regimes. There is “documented suppression” of testosterone in TW but no raw numbers. Similarly, there are no raw numbers for TM.

USAF officers are subject to annual fitness tests, comprising push-up/sit-up reps per minute and a timed 1.5 mile run.

The performance of TW/TM over 30 months of treatment was retrieved from official records and compared with pre-treatment “baseline” performance.