Gemma Stone

Articles posted to The Daily Mail and The Times are making claims that Health Secretary Sajid Javid is looking to change the law regarding record keeping for trans patients with the NHS. This is allegedly an attempt to aid in the ongoing Cass Review

I would go on and dissect more of this UCLan style guide but its really all just the same. A complete disregard for transgender lives and an attempt to make transphobia easier to practice in the media for bigots. The point isn't fairness, equality, accuracy or balance. Its simply to create a double standard wherein the actual identity of a transgender person becomes part of the story - something that is literally never on the table when cisgender people commit crimes.

And they're entirely right. It is a classic example of pinkwashing and I think we should call it out. Making this extremely minor change to how their database records user details would likely take less than a few hours work. There is no excuse for having not done this, especially given the multiple attempts by campaigners like Tom, the general push for more non-binary inclusivisity in society elsewhere and the fact that by flying the pride flag during June they want you to think they are supportive.

The way the "41%" figure is used by transphobes is an attempt beat us down even further than they already do. But its just not what the data says. The data says that suicide isn't the inevitable out come of a transgender life, that you can and should fight for your survival because there is a light at the end of the tunnel and one day you will be free.

The point of this misunderstanding is entirely to set up the legal backing for the idea that it would be lawful to exclude transgender women from women's spaces. If you have to actually be legally registered as female to be protected from discrimination on the basis of sex and therefore misogyny then automatically the vast majority of trans women are locked out. Not to mention every transgender child given that the GRA is only for 18+.

This isn't that article, this article is the one where we take Kellie-Jay's advice and we let women speak - but not just the women she personally approves of. I asked on Twitter - selection bias beware - for women to tell me what's important to them. You can find the full thread here and below you can find the first 100 responses.

Its my view that these rules won't stand up to legal scrutiny and will amount to discrimination despite their best efforts not to. Not only that, but it will also put pressure on healthcare organisations to allow younger transitions to happen - something which the anti-trans forces behind campaigns such as "protecting women's sports" also campaign against.

The evidence is clear, UK transphobia is ramping up its efforts in targeting trans youth in particular. I spoke with numerous children's charities month ago who told me they were "not prepared" to give comment on these issues because its a sensitive area which they need to get it right on.

I am writing to complain about the article originally headlined; "We are being pressured into sex by some trans women". In this letter I intend to set out what my issues with the piece were and how the 'solutions' offered by the BBC's ECU have not at all addressed that problem. The outcome I am searching for is a full retraction and apology for the piece. In my opinion this article does not mean journalistic standards and serves only to elevate gossip of known anti-trans agitators to a position it simply does not belong.

The fact that transgender men and nonbinary people exist (and in the case of the former can have legal recognition of that fact) is enough to warrant the use of inclusive language. It's not about beliefs or about ideologies, its about ensuring that people get the care they need and that requires going beyond primitive views of 'basic biology'.