The Trans Agenda #29 The papers: 34 articles, no trans voices

The Trans Agenda #29

[6 May 2024]

Welcome to The Trans Agenda, a newsletter that will arrive in your inbox Monday if you are subscribed. You can also read it on Substack and on Trans Writes.

Send stories

Subscribe now

Publications known for taking an anti-trans stance are and will be referenced and linked. Often, these are the most comprehensive sources for these stories because of their obsession with trans people. I give a summary for those stories so you can make the choice if you want to click the link or seek out more information elsewhere.

As always, if you have any suggestions, I’m open to feedback and you can contact me using the links on this page near the bottom.

Transgender. How do you know? By Lee Hurley

Due to the excessive length and how out of hand things were getting, I’ve split the newsletter into two with MEDIA & THE PAPERS in this one and NEWS & POLITICS, THIS WEEK IN PARLIAMENT, AROUND THE WORLD and ANY OTHER BUSINESS in its own, which you can read here, or in your email if you are subscribed.

THE PAPERS Tuesday 20 April – Sunday 5 May 2024

Across the week, a total of 34 articles & cartoons were produced about trans people in the Guardian/Observer, Times, Sunday Times, Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph, with the usual absence of positive representation. As always, not a single article was written by a trans person . Here’s a breakdown:

The Telegraph leads the charge: The Telegraph stands out for its particularly aggressive approach. They published the most negative articles overall (15), including a prominent front-page story on Wednesday.
A glimpse of neutrality: Just two articles maintained a neutral stance, offering factual information without bias. Both were in The Guardian.
Sunday surprise (not really): While Saturday saw no articles about trans people, the sole Sunday article, in The Observer, was also negative and we all know who wrote that.

Tuesday 30 April [Total: 6. Publications 4, positive 0, negative 5, written by trans people 0]

The Guardian [1: neutral 1, written by trans people 0]

Tory plan for transgender patients to be treated in single rooms The Guardian30 Apr 2024Denis Campbell Health policy editor Transgender people will be treated in single rooms in hospitals in England under new government plans to update the NHS constitution. The proposal follows a pledge last year by the then health secretary Steve Barclay to prevent people who have changed their gender identity from being treated on male- or female-only wards. The new plan is included in proposed changes to the NHS constitution, which sets out what rights patients have in terms of the care they can expect to receive from the NHS. Hospital managers responded by accusing ministers of ignoring much more pressing issues, such as long waits for care. The proposals also include a reaffirmation of patients’ existing rights to ask to receive “intimate care” – such as an examination of their breasts, genitalia or rectum – only from staff of the same sex as them and to stay on a single-sex ward. The Department of Health and Social Care said the aim was to enhance the privacy, dignity and safety of all patients, including transgender people. But Matthew Taylor, the chief executive of the NHS Confederation, which represents hospital trusts, told ministers it was important that “the NHS is not dragged into a preelection culture wars debate”. The debate around changing the constitution “should not be about grabbing headlines”, he said. Ministers would be better bringing forward plans to improve NHS funding, improve the state of health facilities and get waiting times for A&E care and planned surgery back to the levels that existed when the constitution was first published in 2012, he said. Dr Emma Runswick, the deputy leader of the British Medical Association, also criticised the plans for how the NHS should manage hospital inpatients who are transgender. “Some of the proposed changes to the NHS constitution run the risk of causing more harm than good, with the potential to incite further discrimination, harassment and ostracisation of an already marginalised group,” she said. “If these proposed changes come into effect, transgender and non-binary patients will potentially find their access to vital NHS services limited.” Taylor described the proposed guidance as “ambiguous”. It does not explicitly tell hospitals they should routinely put a transgender person in a single room. But it appears to presume that this will generally happen. Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, highlighted that NHS figures show that “the use of mixedsex wards has exploded under the Tories”. Article Name:Tory plan for transgender patients to be treated in single rooms Publication:The Guardian Author:Denis Campbell Health policy editor Start Page:6 End Page:6

The Times [1: negative 1, written by trans people 0]

Patients won’t be vilified for wanting single-sex ward Poppy Koronka Patients should not be “equated to racists” if they ask to be on same-sex wards, the health secretary said, as reforms to the NHS constitution could mean that transgender patients are treated in rooms on their own if other patients ask to be on single-sex wards. This is permitted under equality law, according to the health department, in situations “such as respecting a patient’s wish to be in a single-sex ward”. Under the new proposals the constitution will state: “We are defining sex as biological sex.” Victoria Atkins, the health secretary, said: “Listening to patients and respecting their rights are at the centre of my plans to make our NHS faster, simpler and fairer for everyone. Men and women experience illnesses and conditions differently and this must be reflected when delivering their care. But we know that this does not always happen, with guidance left too vague or interpreted in a way that puts ideology before biology. “We have heard farcical stories that claimed patients who demanded to be on single-sex wards were equated to racists: this cannot be right. We are launching a consultation on changes to make sure the fundamental principles that underpin all parts of the NHS are based on biological sex.” The NHS constitution outlines the rights of patients and staff in England and is updated every decade. The changes are subject to an eight-week consultation, which will hear the views of patients, staff and the public. Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, said “rights on paper are worthless unless they are delivered in practice”. He said: “The NHS constitution already pledges that no patient will have to share an overnight ward with patients of the opposite sex, but that is not the case for too many patients. The use of mixed-sex wards has exploded under the Tories. Women were forced to spend the night on wards alongside male patients 44,000 times last year, 20 times as many as a decade ago.” Maya Forstater, head of Sex Matters, a charity that campaigns for clarity on sex in law, policy and language, said: “We can expect an outraged response from trans rights activists, but this is simply a return to common sense.” Also included in the changes to the constitution is Martha’s rule, which follows the death of Martha Mills, 13, in 2021. She developed sepsis after a pancreatic injury. The rule provides a second opinion when a patient’s condition is deteriorating.

Daily Mail [1: negative 1, written by trans people 0]

Vindicated! Social worker in gender row wins £58,000 Daily Mail30 Apr 2024By Katherine Lawton A SOCIAL worker suspended over her belief that a person cannot change their sex has been awarded damages of nearly £58,000 after winning a landmark harassment claim. Rachel Meade was given a warning by Social Work England after a 2020 probe into a complaint about posts she made or liked on Facebook. She was then suspended by Westminster City Council and bosses began a disciplinary investigation, warning her she could be fired for misconduct. Ms Meade was given a final written warning after a year-long suspension in which she claims she was ‘ bullied into silence’ when trying to ‘speak up for women’s rights’ during the consultation on reform to the Gender Recognition Act. An employment tribunal called for both the council and the watchdog Social Work England to train staff in the principles of freedom of speech. Lawyers described the awarding of exemplary damages against a regulator as ‘unprecedented’. Ms Meade, 55, of Dartford, Kent, said she was delighted with the ruling after ‘a long and dreadful experience’. She told The Times she felt ‘vindicated and liberated’ that ‘justice and freedom of speech has prevailed’. Ms Meade, a social worker of 20 years, sued the council and Social Work England in 2022. In January, a judge ruled both had subjected her to harassment over her gender-critical beliefs. Judge Richard Nicolle said the watchdog’s actions amounted to a ‘serious abuse of its power’. The regulator’s chief, Colum ‘Freedom of speech prevailed’ Conway, said it was considering the judgment, adding: ‘We will continue our work in this area and clearly articulate the reasons when there are reasonable grounds to investigate a social worker’s fitness to practise.’ Westminster council said it would need ‘a little time’ before responding fully to the ruling, adding: ‘We have apologised to Rachel Meade and the points which emerged... are an important and helpful guide in clarifying what is... a rapidly evolving area of employment law.’ Article Name:Vindicated! Social worker in gender row wins £58,000 Publication:Daily Mail Author:By Katherine Lawton Start Page:28 End Page:28

Telegraph [3: negative 3, written by trans people 0]

Sex is a biological fact, NHS declares Trans women banned from female wards under changes welcomed by campaigners The Daily Telegraph30 Apr 2024By Laura Donnelly HEALTH EDITOR THE NHS will today declare that sex is a matter of biology, in a significant shift against gender ideology. Changes to the health service’s constitution proposed by ministers will for the first time ban trans women from female-only wards, and give women the right to request a doctor of the same sex for intimate care. The constitution, updated every 10 years, aims to set out the principles and values of the NHS and the legal rights for patients and staff. Campaigners for women’s rights welcomed the move, which comes after years of wrangling and follows accusations that the health service had been captured by “gender ideology”. In 2021, NHS guidance said trans patients could be placed in single-sex wards based on the gender with which they identified. But under the new proposals, the constitution will state: “We are defining sex as biological sex.” The clarification means that patients would “not have to share sleeping accommodation with patients of the opposite biological sex”. Until now, no commitment was made to biological sex, meaning some female patients were forced to share sleeping space with trans women – who are born male. Women’s rights campaigners said the move was “common sense” and recognition that women’s safety mattered. But NHS leaders raised concerns that the health service was being “dragged into a pre-election culture wars debate”. The changes to the constitution are a further indication of a change in attitudes after the Cass review into NHS gender identity services found evidence that allowing children to change gender was built on weak foundations. The updates to the constitution will also include the introduction of a duty to help patients get back to work and embed “Martha’s rule” into the framework of the health service. This follows pledges by Victoria Atkins, the Health Secretary, to give families the right to access a rapid review from an outside team if a patient is deteriorating. The pledge is named after 13-year-old Martha Mills, who died after medics missed signs of sepsis and failed to heed warnings from her parents that their daughter’s condition was getting worse. The proposed changes will also update discrimination requirements, with the word gender replaced with sex. Gender reassignment remains a protected characteristic, meaning that a transgender patient could be given their own room in a hospital to protect their right to a single-sex service. The document also places a duty on health providers to use “clear terms” to communicate and take account of biological differences. It follows pledges from ministers to stop NHS trusts using terms such as “chestfeeding” and “peo- ple who give birth”. Maya Forstater, the chief executive of gender-critical group Sex Matters, said: “It is excellent news that the NHS constitution is being revised to put ‘sex’ in its rightful place. “The confusion between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in official policies like the NHS constitution is what has enabled women’s rights to be trampled over in the name of transgender identities.” Ms Forstater said too many female patients seeking intimate care by a woman had been pressured into accepting a trans-identifying male instead. “Healthcare providers have become confused and frightened by the idea that a gender recognition certificate, or even just a personal identity claim, overrides other people’s rights when it comes to same-sex care from healthcare professionals,” she said. She added that the shift was “simply a return to common sense and an overdue recognition that women’s wellbeing and safety matter”. Matthew Taylor, the chief executive of the NHS Confederation, which represents healthcare leaders, said its members would review the proposals in detail. However, he added: “What is absolutely clear at this stage is that a focus on high-quality care for all is maintained and that the NHS is not dragged into a pre-election culture wars debate. This is not where energies should be focused.” Mr Taylor said staff worked hard to show fairness and compassion towards all patients. “In particular, groups of people, including trans and non-binary patients, continue to receive some of the worst health outcomes of any group in our society and NHS leaders and staff will want to do all they can to support these patients, as well as their trans and non-binary staff.” The NHS constitution, a document outlining the rights of patients and staff, was last updated in 2015. It has to be updated at least every 10 years by the Secretary of State. The eight-week consultation will be the first stage of a review of the constitution. For the first time, the constitution will set out an expectation that staff will provide help for patients to get back to work or to stay in employment. The shift follows a wider Government drive to reduce the welfare bill. The proposed document will say work is “an important determinant of health” on individuals. Article Name:Sex is a biological fact, NHS declares Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Laura Donnelly HEALTH EDITOR Start Page:1 End Page:1

A cartoon of Humza Yousaf with the word 'pronouns' in the top left corner and 'ex/former/past' beneath him. It is their one joke

Suzanne Moore Stonewall’s guidance on gender doesn’t stand up in law The Daily Telegraph30 Apr 2024 March out: activists at London Pride There is a person I know who works in a large university. This person is liberal and has spent years trying to improve the educational opportunities of those who have had a hard start in life. This person has led a life of outstanding public service. This person is a member of a secret WhatsApp group because this person and their colleagues cannot have an open conversation about what is going on in their workplace. This person uses the pronouns she/her because this is required of her and this person is, of course, a woman. A composite of many I know. Her boss uses the pronouns he/him because he is, in fact, a man. There is no doubt about that, but performative pronouns are a signal that you have signed up to the idea that gender identity is deeply significant. This is the rigmarole to which most of our public institutions still capitulate. Many people I know cannot be “out” about their gender-critical beliefs in their workplaces because those in charge still do not know the difference between what Stonewall says is the way to do things and the law. It is an act of gross negligence and groupthink that the leaders of our institutions do not care to inform themselves of the difference between the two. But they need to, sharpish. If the Cass Review broke the medical dam, then the many cases heard in employment tribunals are breaking the legal one. You are entitled to believe that men can be women and therefore enter any space that previously excluded them, from lavatories to prison, to refuges. But I am allowed to believe that this is not so. This has been brought home once more by Rachel Meade not only winning her case against Social Work England for harassment and sex discrimination, but also winning – unusually – exemplary damages. Meade had been a social worker in Westminster for 20 years. On her private Facebook page, she linked to petitions about keeping male athletes out of female sports and prisons. She also liked tweets written by well-known gendercritical people such as Graham Linehan and JK Rowling. For this, she was reported as “transphobic” by another social worker and Facebook friend Aedan Wolton. She was suspended by Westminster city council and, after a year, given a written warning. A disciplinary investigation was launched and she was told she could be sacked for misconduct. This poor woman. Perhaps as a trained social worker she knew something about safeguarding. Perhaps when we read the statistics on the numbers of children who went through the Gender Identity Development Service (Gids) who had been in care or “looked after” as the jargon has it, we might see the concerns of a middle-aged professional woman about this issue? But no. The regulator did not bother to look into the background of the person who complained – a trans activist, as the tribunal notes. Wolton is now working for Sport England as their “strategic lead on equality”. This is the grift, isn’t it? These people who want to get women fired from their jobs fail upwards. It’s the same old drivel, financially rewarded and regurgitated by those who think silencing women and allowing men into female space is the new “civil rights” – as opposed to patriarchy in a lurid Spandex dress. Meade won her case, just as Prof Jo Phoenix won her case against the Open University, just as Denise Fahmy won her case against Arts Council England. The judge in the Meade case made it clear that the managers of Social Work England need to go away and do some training. Indeed any public body that has only received training from Stonewall needs to do so. Urgently. Things will not change overnight but this horrendous culture of snitching on colleagues for wrongthink has to end. It is telling that it is always women who are reported. It is the role of a human resources department not to mindlessly reward the banal McCarthyism of someone reporting Facebook posts. This is extremist behaviour that has been tolerated for way too long. All those I know of in WhatsApp groups are not saying anything incendiary, unreasonable or even anti-trans, they are mostly just talking about resources being misdirected or false information propagated. They are afraid that if they question anything, they will not be promoted. This is madness and what we are now seeing is that when all those private conversations come out in the open, the wheels come off the gender-identity bus rather quickly. Those who were forced underground can now see the light, and anyone who thinks this is a side issue has not been paying attention. Hello Scotland. Article Name:Suzanne Moore Stonewall’s guidance on gender doesn’t stand up in law Publication:The Daily Telegraph Start Page:9 End Page:9

Wednesday 1 May [Total: 10. Publications 4, positive 0, negative 10, written by trans people 0]

The Guardian [0]

The Times [3: negative 3, written by trans people 0]

Forget diversity and focus on treatment, Atkins tells NHS Oliver Wright - Policy Editor The NHS should think again before employing diversity, equity and inclusion staff, the health secretary has said. Victoria Atkins told Times Radio that with “finite resources”, the NHS needed to prioritise spending on frontline healthcare. She made the comment as she announced changes to the NHS constitution that would, for the first time, define sex as “biological sex” for the purpose of patient rights. This would allow patients to insist on being treated in same-sex wards, with transgender patients treated in rooms on their own if they felt uncomfortable. Atkins said she wanted the NHS to move away from prioritising social issues and get back to treating patients. “Every single penny counts, and I do wonder whether those roles are as essential as some of the other roles we are recruiting to,” she said. “So my challenge to NHS England is to say we’ve had now a great deal of time to ensure that we are trying to be understanding and inclusive and responsive to people’s needs, we don’t need separate roles.” Atkins said that language used by the NHS should “be clear and make sense to people”, and not “eradicate women”. In a speech today, Kemi Badenoch, the equalities secretary, will call on the public to send ministers “real-world examples” of public bodies allowing trans people into single-sex spaces. Hospital leaders say that having a diverse workforce is important to help reduce health inequality, and point out that NHS spending on such roles is about £40 million a year — less than 0.03 per cent of the NHS’s annual resource budget for 2023-24. This compared with the £2.2 billion the NHS spent dealing with claims of bullying, harassment and discrimination in 2019.

Starmer backtracks to say only women have a cervix Max Kendix Rosie Duffield was right to say that only women have a cervix, Sir Keir Starmer has said, three years after he criticised the Labour MP for the remark. Starmer said that he got on “very well” with Duffield, who last year said that being in the Labour Party was like being in an abusive relationship after she was “shouted down” in the Commons over her views on trans issues. Duffield said in December that Starmer had not spoken to her since 2021. In his first comments on gender since the publication of the Cass review, Starmer said that “biologically”, Duffield was “of course right” to say that only women had a cervix. “She’s a much-respected member of the parliamentary Labour Party and I want to have a discussion with her and anybody else about how we go forward in a positive way,” he told Good Morning Britain on ITV. “There’s a distinction between sex and gender. The Labour Party has championed women’s rights for a very long time.” In September 2021, Starmer said that Duffield’s comments were “something that shouldn’t be said” and “not right”. Asked whether he would now apologise to Duffield, he said: “I don’t want this to go back into this toxic place where everybody is divided.” The author JK Rowling said on Twitter/X: “Politicians who chose to pander to activists issuing violent threats against their own female MPs enabled and emboldened the toxic culture that Keir Starmer now claims to deplore. When you’re part of the cause, you’ve got some brass neck putting yourself forward as a cure.” Last year, Starmer said that 99.9 per cent of women “of course haven’t got a penis”, but that the “very small number” who did needed legal support. Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, said this month that he regretted supporting the message from Stonewall, a charity for which he used to work, that “trans men are men, trans women are women ... get over it”. Streeting said he had reflected that there were “lots of complexities” to the issue after Dr Hilary Cass’s review of NHS gender-identity services. Duffield accused male leaders of taking “praise and credit for simply listening to an expert”, adding that many women had been “blanked, sidelined, dismissed by male leaders when speaking up and exposing this for years”.

Less woke, still broke The government is right to insist on common-sense terminology in the NHS, but the big problems with the health service, such as long waiting times, remain to be fixed Yesterday brought two reasons to be cheerful that have been in short supply of late: a burst of spring sunshine for most of the country, and some good news about the NHS. The government is putting the lid on some of the gender-related daftness that has been emerging in bits of the health service over the past few years. You might think that, of all the public services, the NHS would be the one in which biology trumped ideology, but that has not always been the case. Some NHS trusts use terms such as “chestfeeding” alongside “breastfeeding” and have renamed “maternity” services “perinatal” services. Victoria Atkins, the health secretary, has announced that the NHS’s constitution, which sets out patients’ rights, will in future ban the use of such terms as “people who have ovaries” as a substitute for “women”. It’s not just about words: in order to ensure that women and girls have “privacy and protection”, patients will have the right to be treated in samesex wards and to have intimate care from a doctor of the same sex. Trans women will not be entitled to be cared for in women’s wards: where possible, they will be looked after in single rooms. There is a certain amount of pushback from trans rights organisations, but the government knows that as far as the public is concerned, this move will be popular. The further reaches of progressive ideology may have made inroads into officialdom, but normal people tend to be confused and alarmed by woke terminology. Banning it will not, however, win many votes: the electorate’s judgement of how the government has managed the health service will be swayed not by the NHS’s language, but by its performance. On this front, the news is less good. While the waiting list for elective care is down from its peak last September, the drop – from 7.8 million to 7.5 million – is so small that nobody has noticed. Aside from seasonal dips and an inevitable decline during the pandemic as Covid-free people kept away from hospitals, the NHS waiting list has been rising since 2008. The problem is not just with acute care: while people are mostly happy with their GPs when they see them, there is widespread dissatisfaction with the difficulty of getting through to surgeries and making appointments. The NHS’s failure shows up in Britain’s poor health outcomes. Life expectancy is not purely the result of healthcare: it is determined also by factors such as inequality and lifestyle. Yet poor healthcare clearly contributes to the fact that life expectancy is lower than anywhere else in western Europe. The most recent data shows that 42 per cent of cancer patients urgently referred by a GP for treatment waited more than two months. Hardly surprising, then, that cancer survival rates are shockingly worse than in peer countries. The NHS’s poor performance hasn’t persuaded Britons to give up on it. A large majority support a tax-funded healthcare model, free at the point of use. Even so, opinions have deteriorated sharply. In the most recent annual British Social Attitudes survey, published in March, less than a quarter of people – its lowest ever figure – were satisfied with the NHS. Electorally, this matters a lot: health is the second most important issue to people, after the economy, and way ahead of immigration. The government is not solely responsible. Striking doctors have put extra strain on the NHS and continue to do so: junior doctors voted in March for more strikes. Yet the government must accept its share of the blame — it has had plenty of time to put the service on a healthier footing. Wedded to its monolithic structure, the government refuses to counsel the kind of radical solution — some form of insurance — that works well in other countries. Expunging pointless wokery is a good thing. But when people think of the NHS, that problem is not the one that first springs to mind.

Daily Mail [1: negative 1, written by trans people 0]

Our free speech PM Daily Mail1 May 2024 By failing to defend Ms Duffield against the aggressive trans mob, Sir Keir stands accused of helping to crush free speech. luckily, Rishi Sunak isn’t so spineless. In a speech, the PM launched a full-throttled attack on the pestilence of cancel culture. He condemned the intolerant woke brigade who seek to silence disfavoured views on topics such as transgenderism and race. The shutting down of people’s lawfullyheld standpoints, making them scared to speak out, was ‘chilling’, he said. ‘That is not what this country stands for.’ Ahead of a crucial general election, it is reassuring that at least one main party leader understands that free speech is the bedrock of our democracy. Article Name:Our free speech PM Publication:Daily Mail Start Page:16 End Page:16

Telegraph [6: negative 6, written by trans people 0]

This was on the Telegraph’s front page:

cartoon, newborn baby with a balloon at the end of the crib with 'it's a they'

Starmer changes mind on what a woman is Labour leader shifts his position on comments by Rosie Duffield that only women have cervixes The Daily Telegraph1 May 2024By Genevieve Holl-allen POLITICAL REPORTER ROSIE DUFFIELD was right to say that only women have a cervix, Sir Keir Starmer has said, in a sign of a shift in his stance on gender. The Labour leader said that his views on gender issues “start with biology” and that his party’s MP for Canterbury was “biologically” correct by stating only women can have a cervix. In 2021, Sir Keir leader had criticised Ms Duffield for saying only women have a cervix, saying her comment was “something that shouldn’t be said. It’s not right”. But asked on ITV’S Good Morning Britain yesterday whether Ms Duffield’s statement was right or wrong, Sir Keir said: “Biologically, she of course is right about that.” Sir Keir, however, would not apologise to Ms Duffield, instead saying that the pair “discuss a number of issues” and “get on very well”. Ms Duffield, a prominent feminist campaigner who believes a person’s sex cannot be changed, has regularly complained about her experiences in the party, and has likened it to being in an abusive relationship. She has previously been heckled by male colleagues on her benches while speaking about trans issues in the Commons, which prompted her to accuse Labour of having a “woman problem”. Sir Keir’s comments are the latest sign of a shift in stance from the top of the Labour Party on trans issues, in the wake of the Cass Review into gender care for children. The review found that evidence for allowing young people to change gender was built on weak foundations and that there was no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of treatments such as puberty blockers, given to children. In his first comments on gender since the review’s publication, Sir Keir said: “There’s a distinction between sex and gender. The Labour Party has championed women’s rights for a very long time.” However, when asked about whether Ms Duffield was owed an apology by the party, he told ITV: “I don’t want this to go back into this toxic place where everybody is divided.” He added: “Rosie Duffield and I get on very well, we discuss a number of issues. “She’s a much-respected member of the Parliamentary Labour Party and I want to have a discussion with her and anybody else about how we go forward in a positive way.” Sir Keir has been trying to clarify his views on gender since 2021, when he struggled to say whether or not a woman could have a penis. In 2023, he said that 99.9 per cent of women “haven’t got a penis”, before going on to say in July last year: “Firstly, a woman is an adult female, so let’s clear that one up.” His latest remarks come after the Government proposed changes to England’s NHS constitution, to give patients the right to request to be treated on single-sex wards, with transgender people placed in rooms on their own. Asked how Labour would respond to transgender women who did not want to go on male wards, Sir Keir said: “We have to accommodate that situation as it arises, but treat everybody with respect and dignity… I do not accept this is an issue that cannot be resolved with respect and dignity.” He added: “Where we need to make accommodations, we can make accommodations… As a country, we’re a pretty reasonable, tolerant bunch and most people know that there are a small number of individuals who do not identify with the gender that they were born into. Many of them suffer great distress and trauma. And for my part, I’m perfectly happy to say I would treat them, as I would treat anybody, with respect.” Article Name:Starmer changes mind on what a woman is Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Genevieve Holl-allen POLITICAL REPORTER Start Page:8 End Page:8

Patients wanting single-sex wards ‘should not be treated like racists’ The Daily Telegraph1 May 2024By Laura Donnelly health editor PATIENTS who ask for single-sex wards should not be treated like racists, the Health Secretary has said. Victoria Atkins made the remarks as she proposed changes to the NHS constitution to ensure that women have the right to accommodation that is only shared by those of their biological sex. Previous NHS guidance from 2021 said trans patients could be placed on single-sex wards on the basis of the gender with which they identified. Women’s rights campaigners said the situation left female patients who asked for intimate care from a woman pressured into accepting care from staff who were born male. Ms Atkins told The Times: “We have heard farcical stories that claimed patients who demanded to be on single-sex wards were equated to racists. This cannot be right.” The constitution, updated every 10 years, aims to set out the principles and values of the health service and set out legal rights for patients and staff. Under the proposals, the constitution will state that “we are defining sex as biological sex”, in a landmark move. It follows accusations that the health service had been captured by “gender ideology”. The plans enshrine the right to ask for intimate care from a health worker of the same biological sex. Maya Forstater, the chief executive of Sex Matters, the gender-critical group, said healthcare providers had become “confused and frightened by the idea that a gender recognition certificate, or even just a personal identity claim, overrides other people’s rights when it comes to same-sex care from healthcare professionals”. The draft constitution, now subject to an eight-week consultation, also places a duty on health providers to use “clear terms” to communicate and take account of biological differences. It follows pledges from ministers to stop NHS trusts using terms like “chestfeeding” and to “people who give birth”. Ms Atkins told Sky News that we “shouldn’t have to eradicate women from our language in order to be inclusive and welcoming”. The eight-week consultation will be the first stage of a review of the NHS constitution. Article Name:Patients wanting single-sex wards ‘should not be treated like racists’ Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Laura Donnelly health editor Start Page:10 End Page:10

cartoon with a nurse running with NEW NHS CONSULTATION document shouting 'doctor doctor we've got an outbreak of common sense' while a 'guide to chest-feeding' in trans colours sits on the table, and a sign points to patients with a cervix and birthing people clinics

Common sense at last on single-sex wards The Daily Telegraph1 May 2024ESTABLISHED 1855 Some political issues resurface time and again, years after promises have been made to address them. For instance, it was reported yesterday that “hate preachers” will be banned from the UK, something many thought had happened after the 9/11 terror attacks in America. The latest iteration of this phenomenon is the Government’s insistence that the NHS should provide hospital wards solely for women. This argument goes back almost 30 years to when Labour was in opposition and Tony Blair said that the sexes should not be made to share. But nothing happened until the Coalition came to power in 2010 and the practice was outlawed. Yet official figures show the rules were breached nearly 5,000 times in February alone. Managers say there is not the capacity in the system to meet the pledge. Now the Health Secretary Victoria Atkins is proposing to change the NHS constitution to ensure women have the right to accommodation that is only shared by those of their biological sex. Why is this necessary when there is already a rule supposedly preventing mixed-sex wards? The reason, unlike many years ago, is the demand that transwomen be treated as women in hospital and NHS guidance issued in 2021 accepted this, despite the bar on mixed-sex wards. Why this was allowed to happen is another story in the culture wars. But it stems from a wilful refusal to distinguish between sex and gender, even if it means placing women with someone who is biologically a man. It also means that they could be treated and intimately examined by staff who were born male. Ms Atkins said the NHS must stop this and treat sex as a matter of biology, a statement that just a few years ago would have been considered utterly uncontentious yet which now makes headline news. Labour said that it supported the ban and, with luck, we are seeing the tide of gender militancy pushed back down the beach. Sir Keir Starmer said his views on gender issues “start with biology”, though that was hardly the case when he said that 99.9 per cent of women “don’t have a penis” and that it was not right for an MP to say “only women have a cervix”. Is the Labour leader repudiating this because he knows the great majority in the country thinks it is wrong or is it a genuine acknowledgment that the gender zealots must now be faced down? Since he aspires to be prime minister by the end of the year, we need to know. Article Name:Common sense at last on single-sex wards Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:ESTABLISHED 1855 Start Page:15 End Page:15

NHS and gender The Daily Telegraph1 May 2024 SIR – An indication of where we are as a society is that it takes ministers to propose changes to the NHS constitution regarding blindingly obvious facts about sex (“Sex is biological, NHS states in landmark shift against gender ideology”, report, April 30). Gray’s Anatomy is clearly not extensively read in medical circles. Iain Maitland Sherborne, Dorset SIR – I wrote to you in 2022, stating that, whatever one does to one’s body, the chromosomes remain unchanged: XX or XY. I never dreamt that, two years later, the NHS would take notice. Hilary Jarrett Norwich Article Name:NHS and gender Publication:The Daily Telegraph Start Page:15 End Page:15

Thursday 2 May [Total: 14. Publications 4, positive 0, negative 13, neutral 1, written by trans people 0]

The Guardian [1: neutral 1, written by trans people 0]

Trans rights row with Rowling is ‘really sad’ – Radcliffe The Guardian2 May 2024 ▼ Daniel Radcliffe, left, said he had had no direct contact with JK Rowling, right, since the controversy over trans rights erupted Daniel Radcliffe has described his rupture with JK Rowling over trans rights as “really sad”, and said that her role in his life as the creator of Harry Potter “doesn’t mean you owe the things you truly believe to someone else for your entire life”. His comments, in an interview in the Atlantic, mark the first published remarks by a Harry Potter star since the publication of the Cass review of gender identity services, and Rowling’s suggestion that Radcliffe and his co-star Emma Watson were “celebs who cosied up to a movement intent on eroding women’s hard-won rights and who used their platforms to cheer on the transitioning of minors”. Radcliffe and Watson’s dispute with Rowling dates back to the writer’s intervention in the controversy between trans-rights activists and gender-critical feminists in 2020. Radcliffe then issued a statement through the LGBTQ+ suicide-prevention group the Trevor Project, saying: “Transgender women are women. Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional healthcare associations who have far more expertise on this subject matter than either Jo [Rowling] or I.” He told the Atlantic: “I’d worked with the Trevor Project for 12 years and it would have seemed like… immense cowardice to me to not say something. I wanted to try and help people that had been negatively affected by the comments. And to say that if those are Jo’s views, then they are not the views of everybody associated with the Potter franchise.” He added: “I did have a realisation of a connection to Harry Potter and this stuff. A lot of people found some solace in those books and films who were dealing with feeling closeted or rejected by their family or living with a secret.” Radcliffe also said he had had no direct contact with Rowling since the controversy erupted. “It makes me really sad, ultimately, because I do look at the person that I met, the times that we met, and the books that she wrote, and the world that she created, and all of that is to me so deeply empathic.” In 2020, Radcliffe was joined in opposing Rowling’s position by the Potter co-stars Watson and Rupert Grint, as well as the Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them star Eddie Redmayne. Of the British media’s response, Radcliffe said: “There’s a version of ‘Are these three kids ungrateful brats?’ that people have always wanted to write, and they were finally able to. So, good for them, I guess … “Obviously Harry Potter would not have happened without [Rowling], so nothing in my life would have probably happened the way it is without that person. But that doesn’t mean you owe the things you truly believe to someone else for your entire life.” He added: “I will continue to support the rights of all LGBTQ people, and have no further comment.” ‘I will continue to support the rights of all LGBTQ people’ Daniel Radcliffe Actor Article Name:Trans rights row with Rowling is ‘really sad’ – Radcliffe Publication:The Guardian Start Page:19 End Page:19

The Times [3: negative 3, written by trans people 0]

Online trans clinic warning after teen gets ‘massive’ hormone dose Jonathan Ames - Legal Editor, Lucy Bannerman A teenager was prescribed “dangerously high” levels of hormones that could have led to sudden death, a judge said as he warned of the perils of accessing transgender treatments online. Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the family division of the High Court, said in a ruling yesterday that there was “very significant concern” over children “accessing cross-hormone treatment from any offshore, online, unregulated private clinic”. McFarlane had heard evidence from an expert witness that the dosage of hormones prescribed to the teenager by GenderGP after just a single online consultation with a counsellor was so high that it was “highly abnormal and frankly negligent”. Jacky Hewitt, a consultant paediatric endocrinologist based in Melbourne, told the court that in 20 years of practice she had never seen such a “massive” dose given to a child, and that such treatment would be unlawful in her native Australia. She said that the teenager was immediately prescribed levels of testosterone that would normally be administered only to an adult, after a period of steady escalation over the course of two or three years. “Not only did GenderGP prescribe this top-end dosage to a testosteronenaive child, but they did so by directing a ‘loading’ [double] dose at the commencement of the treatment,” she said. The teenager’s blood was later assessed by Russell Keenan, a consultant paediatric haematologist at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool, who advised that the results were effectively normal when compared with reference points relevant to an adult male. At the heart of the case was a 16-yearold, referred to in the ruling as J, who was born female before beginning a course of cross-hormone treatment at the start of last year. The autistic teenager has a history of anorexia and self-harm. J’s last testosterone injection was in August and the next was scheduled for November. But further treatment was postponed, with J’s agreement, after the teenager’s father raised objections, on which the judge was asked to rule. In his judgment, McFarlane delayed ruling on the dispute over whether J, as a minor, had the capacity to consent to life-changing treatment, as it was agreed that no further medical action was required for six months. It was noted that there was a possibility that, when the time came, J could continue treatment with a British provider. But the judge went on to signal deep concern over the use of online gendertreatment clinics that are based abroad. He said it was “right to record” that if J considered resorting to using GenderGP, which is based overseas, for further prescriptions, “then there will be a need to consider very carefully ... his capacity to consent to that particular option and ... whether the circumstances are such that the court should exercise the inherent jurisdiction to prohibit him from doing so”. GenderGP describes itself as a “worldwide transgender clinic” that provides “advocacy, support, advice, healthcare and access to a range of complementary services, which enable trans people to live their lives more easily”. The judge said there “must be very significant concern about the prospect of a young person such as J accessing cross-hormone treatment from any offshore, online, unregulated private clinic”. Paul Conrathe, the solicitor representing J’s father, called for the government to issue a warning to pharmacies not to honour hormone prescriptions from providers such as GenderGP. He added that the case had “exposed a dangerous gap in NHS provision, which urgently needs to be remedied”. GenderGP was contacted for comment.Teacher fights ban over pupil misgendering A decision to ban a Christian maths teacher after he misgendered a pupil was an “unjustified interference” with his rights to freedom of speech and religion, the High Court has been told. Joshua Sutcliffe is pursuing an appeal against a prohibition order in May last year after a regulator found him guilty of “unacceptable professional conduct” while working at The Cherwell School, in Oxford, between 2015 and 2018. A Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) panel concluded he did not treat a transgender student with “dignity and respect” by failing to use his “preferred pronoun” in class and while appearing on This Morning on ITV. It found Sutcliffe failed to safeguard pupils’ wellbeing when saying God stopped a person from being gay because it was wrong. The panel concluded he did not provide a balanced view to a video played in class about men being “not masculine enough” while at St Aloysius’ College in Islington, north London, in 2018. At a hearing in London, Sutcliffe’s lawyers argued the decision to ban him, which may be reviewed after two years, was “unsafe” and included “perverse” findings. They said that there was “no legal requirement to use preferred pronouns” and that he had a right “not to believe gender identity belief”. The Department for Education, which accepted the TRA’s recommendation to ban Sutcliffe, opposes the appeal, arguing it has been brought too late and has “no merit”. Government lawyers said the teacher had failed “to distinguish between his role as a teacher and his activities as a preacher”. Mr Justice Pepperall will issue his written ruling at a later date.Falling out with Rowling has been really sad, says Radcliffe Shayma Bakht Daniel Radcliffe and JK Rowling in 2011 Daniel Radcliffe has described his fallout with JK Rowling over her transgender views as “really sad”. The actor, 34, who became a global star after being cast as Harry Potter in the film adaptations of Rowling’s novels, said that he had not spoken to her for four years. Rowling had been involved in casting Radcliffe in 2000, but the pair fell out after she wrote tweets in June 2020 that were labelled by some as anti-trans. “It makes me really sad, ultimately,” Radcliffe told The Atlantic magazine, “because I do look at the person that I met, the times that we met, and the books that she wrote, and the world that she created, and all of that is to me so deeply empathic.” Radcliffe responded to Rowling’s tweets by defending trans people in a statement via The Trevor Project, the LGBT suicide-prevention charity for which he is an advocate. Last month, after the Cass report said that the evidence for gender treatments for children was “remarkably weak”, Rowling said she might not forgive the Potter actors and “celeb[rities] that cosied up” to the trans-rights movement. Radcliffe said that he stood by his statement, adding that it would have shown “immense cowardice to me to not say something”.

Daily Mail [4: negative 4, written by trans people 0]

I’m a woman doctor and we have to stop trans activists and their supporters in the NHS imposing their fantasy on everyone else’s reality Daily Mail2 May 2024By Dr Renee Hoenderkamp Dr renee Hoenderkamp is a practising GP. When I pick up a male patient’s notes for the first time, there are some conditions I tend to rule out. Ovarian cancer is one of them. So imagine this scenario. It’s a hypothetical case — but one that is all too plausible. A new patient books a GP appointment at my surgery, complaining of back pain, bloating and loss of appetite. Let’s call him ‘Mac’. My initial concern might be that he has irritable bowel syndrome. The first assessment is done over the phone. Mac wants an instant cure, a prescription to fix the problem. That sense of urgency makes me cautious, and I ask him to come in for a consultation. There may be nothing in the medical notes, nothing at all, to indicate that Mac is a trans patient — a biological woman, presenting as a man. But one simple question — ‘Were you born female?’ — could prove a lifesaver, though in the current climate I might hesitate to ask directly. If Mac does indeed have early- stage ovarian cancer, that’s something that I could never have surmised from the notes. Damage The nhS’s obsession with ‘ trans rights’ is deeply dangerous in many ways, not least to the trans men and trans women whose medical records do not reflect that they identify as the opposite sex. They might even have obtained a new nhS number to eradicate their history. health Secretary Victoria Atkins’ announcement this week that it is essential ‘biological sex is respected’ cannot undo all the damage wreaked in the past decade by trans dogma. But it is a crucial step in the right direction. It means that the nhS must start using clear, unambiguous language, sweeping away the woke waffle that labels mothers-to-be as ‘ pregnant people’ and ‘breast-feeding’ as ‘chest-feeding’. And it heralds a shift away from the misuse of single-sex wards, where biological males identifying as ‘trans women’ can share facilities with women. It also raises a renewed hope that women undergoing intimate examinations will be able to request that the doctor carrying out the examination is a biological woman, without trans women present. But I have serious misgivings about the news. It comes far too late: I’m one of many women doctors who have been warning about these problems for years, and our voices have been comprehensively ignored until now. The Secretary of State’s pledges do not go nearly far enough — and already we are seeing resistance from outraged trans activists within the health service, who will fight to prevent any changes to the nhS constitution. Yesterday Dr emma Runswick, the deputy chair of the British Medical Association council, lashed out at the proposals. These will be subject to an eight-week consultation period during which they are at risk of being completely reversed or once again watered down until they are meaningless. The proposals have, said Dr Runswick, ‘the potential to incite further discrimination, harassment and ostracisation of an already marginalised group. Transgender and non- binary patients will potentially find their access to vital nhS services limited’. She makes no comment about women who are excluded as a result of current trends. Trans activists and extremists within the nhS cannot be allowed to keep imposing their fantasy on everyone else’s reality. The vast majority of British people, in my long experience as a doctor, have no truck with the notion that gender is a personal choice, a matter of ‘emotional instinct’ rather than basic biology. At a time when public trust in the health service is already eroded, peddling the trans ideology actively discourages people from seeking medical help. One of my patients, a man well past pension age, became visibly frustrated and distressed last week when he was asked to fill in a form asking questions that were, to him, deeply nonsensical. he hated being asked whether he ‘identified as the sex to which he was assigned at birth’, and he was genuinely insulted by a question about his sexuality. In the end, I took the form and put a red line through the offending sections — then wrote across the top in red Biro, ‘This patient is 79 and male,’ with details of his symptoms. That’s all any doctor needs to know. I have to assume that when pages of data like this are being collected from every patient, there will be armies of analysts collating it and compiling it into reports — at untold cost to the nhS. That money could go into the reduction of waiting lists. In the same way, inordinate amounts of time and money are being spent on the leaflets, the posters, the Pride flags, the slogans, the diversity officers and all the rewriting that goes with ‘trans inclusivity’. Dangerous It’s a colossal waste of resources, probably running into hundreds of millions of pounds. If that energy and funding wasn’t being diverted into pointless wokery, it could be helping to solve the nhS crisis that leaves patients dying in emergency waiting rooms before they can be seen by A&e doctors. By concentrating on ‘transfriendly’ language, the nhS is dehumanising everyone else. I hate being called a ‘person who menstruates’, ‘a cervix-haver’ or a ‘patient with ovaries’. That reduces me to the status of a chattel defined by body parts. It’s also dangerous. I know exactly what an ovary and a cervix is, but many women sadly don’t. It’s abominable to discriminate against women who don’t happen to have all the medical terminology memorised. After all, data shows 44 per cent of women don’t know what a cervix is, so it’s only right that cancerscreening clinics should invite ‘women’ to attend, not ‘people with cervixes’. every woman knows she’s female, whether or not she can explain where her cervix is. If medical data does not accurately record whether patients are biologically male or female, the results will be skewed. This has long-term implications: how can clinicians improve early diagnosis rates if they don’t have the full facts? how can public health plan for future needs and spend money effectively? Disgrace Men and women don’t only have different diseases, they have different risks of developing diseases shared in common. For example, either sex can suffer breast cancer, but it’s much more prevalent in women. The most urgent problem of all is the presence of trans women in all-female hospital wards, a bizarre change introduced in 2021. For three years, nhS guidance has been that trans patients can be placed in single-sex wards, based on the gender they ‘identify’ with. The health Secretary’s proposals will belatedly reverse this. The new guidance will state: ‘We are defining sex as biological sex.’ This cannot come a day too soon. Women in hospital wards are especially vulnerable to assault. Between 2017 and 2021, according to data in the British Medical Journal, 35,000 female patients suffered rapes, sexual assaults and sexual harassment in hospital. That is a disgrace, something the nhS should be doing everything to prevent. One obvious way is to put an end to the madness of placing trans women on female wards. nobody wants to deprive trans people of any medical care. That should go without saying. But the crisis in the health service affects everyone. We cannot continue to allow the nhS to be held to ransom by a tiny minority of activists who continue to trumpet the increasingly discredited slogan that ‘trans women are women’. Article Name:I’m a woman doctor and we have to stop trans activists and their supporters in the NHS imposing their fantasy on everyone else’s reality Publication:Daily Mail Author:By Dr Renee Hoenderkamp Dr renee Hoenderkamp is a practising GP. Start Page:14 End Page:14

I’m so sad about my trans row with JK (says the star with £76m Potter fortune) Daily Mail2 May 2024By Chris Matthews No contact in years: Radcliffe and JK Rowling Daniel Radcliffe has reignited his row with JK Rowling saying he is ‘really sad’ about her views on trans rights. The Harry Potter star, 34, also admitted he had not had any contact with Ms Rowling in the four years since the author first published her gendercritical statements on X . Ms Rowling has faced frequent backlash from trans lobbyists for saying that women’s rights and spaces should be protected for biological women only. Her spat with Radcliffe started in 2020 after she highlighted an article that used the phrase ‘people who menstruate’ instead of women, writing: ‘i’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?’ Shortly afterwards, Radcliffe issued a statement via an LGBT+ suicide prevention charity that said ‘transgender women are women’. This week, Radcliffe, who has reportedly earned a total £76million for his role in the wizarding series, told The atlantic that while he owes Ms Rowling his career, he doesn’t have to change his beliefs. His comments came after a report last month into an NHS clinic found there is ‘remarkably weak evidence’ surrounding gender-affirming medical treatment for children. Following the Cass Review, Ms Rowling suggested he should apologise to those harmed by puberty blockers. But Radcliffe has refused. instead, he said: ‘i will continue to support the rights of all LGBTQ, and have no further comment than that.’ He added: ‘Obviously Harry Potter would not have happened without her, so nothing in my life would have probably happened the way it is without that person. ‘But that doesn’t mean you owe the things you truly believe to someone else for your entire life. it makes me really sad, because i do look at the person i met and the world she created, and all of that is to me so deeply empathic.’ Ms Rowling insisted she wouldn’t forgive those who had supported the ‘movement’, including Ratcliffe and costars emma Watson and Rupert Grint. Article Name:I’m so sad about my trans row with JK (says the star with £76m Potter fortune) Publication:Daily Mail Author:By Chris Matthews Start Page:26 End Page:26

Now guidance has changed, can I get my job back, asks teacher banned for pupil ‘misgendering’ Daily Mail2 May 2024Education Editor By Eleanor Harding A CHRISTIAN teacher who was banned from the classroom over ‘misgendering’ a pupil is contesting the decision in the High Court. Lawyers for Joshua Sutcliffe argue it was ‘perverse’ to expect him to use the child’s preferred pronouns, which had no basis in law. In a hearing yesterday, they also said it was an ‘unjustified interference’ with freedom of speech and religion. The maths teacher was banned last year after the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) found him guilty of ‘unacceptable professional conduct’. While working at the Cherwell School in Oxford in 2017, he had said ‘well done girls’ to two children, one a transgender pupil who identified as male. Since then, the Government has issued draft trans guidance, which states teachers should not be made to use ‘preferred pronouns’. Mr Sutcliffe believes the TRA would not have banned him had the guidance been in place at the time. The 32-year- old father of one said outside court: ‘I feel vindicated by the draft government guidance, and it is time for my ban to be overturned. ‘I believe affirming children in a transgender identity in the classroom is psychologically damaging for them. I do not believe it is in any child’s best interests to affirm them in something that is untrue.’ Mr Sutcliffe, who is being supported by the Christian Concern campaign group, said he had a right ‘not to believe’ gender identity ideology. The original TRA panel concluded he did not treat a transgender student with ‘dignity and respect’ by failing to use his ‘preferred pronoun’ in class and later in a TV interview. It also found against him because he had expressed Christian views about homosexuality and had not provided a balanced view regarding a video he had showed pupils about masculinity. The Department for Education, which accepted the TRA’s recommendation for a ban, opposed the appeal bid, arguing it was brought too late and had ‘no merit’. Iain Steele, for the DfE, claimed Mr Sutcliffe’s ‘level of insight and remorse was, at best, limited’ and he had failed to safeguard pupil wellbeing. The hearing before Mr Justice Pepperall concluded yesterday, with the judge due to issue his written ruling at a later date. Article Name:Now guidance has changed, can I get my job back, asks teacher banned for pupil ‘misgendering’ Publication:Daily Mail Author:Education Editor By Eleanor Harding Start Page:30 End Page:30 Breastfeeding charity storm at call to let in trans women BRITAIN’S oldest breastfeeding charity has called in regulators amid claims of ‘harassment and bullying’ over a policy to include trans women in meetings. Daily Mail2 May 2024By Alex Ward Social Affairs Correspondent Directors at La Leche League GB (LLLGB) have requested the Charity Commission intervenes over an inclusivity policy that permits biological males. The majority of the charity’s board of directors have objected to allowing transgender women to be at the gatherings. Directors have raised concerns that the diktat from the global organisation – based in the US – could mean volunteers are also forced to give advice to trans women wishing to breastfeed. But a minority of its board members have sought to implement the inclusion policy and brought in LLL International as back up. Meetings are currently femaleonly and LLLGB’s directors have resisted attempts to permit males. The row has become so heated that it has seen six of the 12 board members sent notices of complaint, threatening them with removal. A serious incident report has now been sent to the Charity Commission, which will decide whether to investigate. The report, seen by the Mail, warns of an exodus of volunteers if the charity’s international parent body forces the policy on them. It also warned that women in need of support would be put off from attending meetings if trans women were present. The report read: ‘ Opening meetings to males (of any gender identity) would exclude a significant number of our beneficiaries i.e. mothers. ‘At meetings, they expose their breasts and share intimate experiences. Most are comfortable doing so around other mothers; many will not breastfeed around men, whether for religious reasons, modesty, previous (or current) experience of male violence or “just” discomfort. ‘Leaders are all volunteer mothers experienced in the “normal course of breastfeeding”. ‘We consider that insistence on opening meetings to males and supporting males to lactate will prompt many Leaders to leave. ‘Following the most recent trustee election a minority of trustees began . . . to thwart the majority in discussing these issues. The result has been a culture of censorship, harassment and bullying.’ The row reflects a wider move by LLL International which has been interpreted as undermining women’s rights. A Charity Commission spokesman said: ‘We are assessing the information to determine whether this is a matter for the Commission as regulator to become involved in.’ LLL International was contacted for comment. ‘A culture of censorship’ Article Name:Breastfeeding charity storm at call to let in trans women Publication:Daily Mail Author:By Alex Ward Social Affairs Correspondent Start Page:30 End Page:30

Telegraph [6: negative 6, written by trans people 0]

School reports parents over gender stance Teachers told social services after deciding to reaffirm child’s gender choice rather than follow clinical advice The Daily Telegraph2 May 2024By Daniel Sanderson Scottish correspondent A leading private school had parents investigated by social workers after they fought teachers’ attempts to “affirm” their daughter’s transgender identity. George Watson’s College in Edinburgh called in social services in 2020 after a dispute in which the parents, acting on advice from psychologists, asked for the school to adopt a “watchful waiting” approach to their child. However, the school insisted upon “respecting [the child’s] wishes to use masculine pronouns”. A LEADING private school in Scotland had parents investigated by social workers after they fought teachers’ attempts to “affirm” their daughter’s transgender identity. George Watson’s College in Edinburgh called in social services in December 2020 after a long-running dispute in which the parents, acting on advice from psychologists, asked for the school to adopt a “watchful waiting” approach to their child. “Watchful waiting” is where a child’s view of their gender is closely observed but without social or medical intervention. However, the school insisted upon “respecting his [the child’s] wishes to use the masculine pronouns”, claiming they had the teenager’s “best interest and wellbeing at heart”. The school announced it received a gold award from trans activist charity LGBT Youth Scotland (LGBTYS), which requires schools to rewrite policies, in April 2019. Schools are then given a gold, bronze or silver rating for their LGBTQ+ friendliness as part of a charter scheme that is backed by the SNP government. The child’s mother, whom The Telegraph is not naming in order to protect the pupil’s identity, said the school would defer to the charity rather than listen to the parents, who were acting on clinical advice that affirming the teenager’s gender was not in her best interest. “We were repeatedly lied to by the school,” the mother said. “I feel that our child was just seen as a little guinea pig by the school and LGBT Youth Scotland. The school policies, which LGBT Youth Scotland help write, are set up to ensure parents are deliberately misled. “We had received two expert opinions, including from a specialist in gender, not to challenge our child but that adults should basically turn a blind eye, and not affirm her. But these experts were repeatedly dismissed by teachers.” She added: “Rather than engaging meaningfully with us, we were referred to social services by the school and investigated. Fortunately, they were sensible and it went no further, but the fact that this was deemed appropriate in the first place is outrageous.” Sources at the school admitted social services were contacted but said this was for advice about how to “support the young person”. Dr Hilary Cass, whose landmark review into child gender services in the English NHS was published last month, has warned about the possible dangers of social transitioning, meaning to informally change name and gender. The leading paediatrician called for a cautious approach, including in schools, saying social transitioning was more likely to push children onto a potentially damaging medical pathway. Social workers were called in by the school in December 2020, who interviewed the parents and the child before agreeing with the clinical advice and taking no further action. However, the mother says the school still persisted with the “affirming” approach. The school was still attempting to contact social workers the following August. Jenny Gilruth, the SNP education secretary, said last week that she was looking at implications of the Cass Review into Scottish government’s guidance for schools, which LGBTYS helped write. In a letter from Ms Gilruth regarding the George Watson’s case, sent last November, she said ultimately a child’s wishes on whether parents were informed about gender transition “should be respected”. Information the mother obtained from the school after making a Subject Access Request shows her daughter’s “preferred name” was changed on school systems after she said she was non-binary. Meeting records show the school said in late 2019 it would “be respecting his [the child’s] wishes to use the masculine pronouns” despite the fact that “mum and dad absolutely do not agree with the ‘positive affirmation approach’ that school is endorsing”. A spokesman for George Watson’s College said: “We have always worked collaboratively with parents and apologise to those involved in this case for any distress caused by what are difficult and challenging circumstances.” A spokesman for LGBTYS said George Watson’s had been awarded a charter in 2018 and that it expired in 2022. He added: “When it comes to advising on supporting trans pupils in schools we always refer to Scottish government guidance.” ‘I feel that our child was just seen as a little guinea pig by the school’ ‘Rather than engaging with us, we were referred to social services by the school’ Article Name:School reports parents over gender stance Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Daniel Sanderson Scottish correspondent Start Page:1 End Page:1

Radcliffe will keep supporting LGBT despite Rowling stance The Daily Telegraph2 May 2024By Daily Telegraph Reporter DANIEL RADCLIFFE has said that he will continue to support the rights of LGBT+ people after criticism from Harry Potter author JK Rowling. The actor, who starred in eight of the films, was speaking after a critical report into the healthcare of children taking puberty blockers. Rowling suggested after the Cass review was published last month that she would not forgive the franchise’s stars, also including Emma Watson, if they apologised to her over their stance on trans issues. Radcliffe responded by telling The Atlantic: “I will continue to support the rights of all LGBTQ people, and have no further comment than that. It makes me really sad, ultimately.” Acknowledging the impact of Rowling, he said that “obviously Harry Potter would not have happened without her, so nothing in my life would have probably happened the way it is without that person. “But that doesn’t mean that you owe the things you truly believe to someone else for your entire life.” Of Rowling he added: “It makes me really sad, ultimately, because I do look at the person that I met, the times that we met, and the books that she wrote, and the world that she created, and all of that is to me so deeply empathic.” The Cass report revealed that children had been let down as a result of a lack of research and evidence on hormones and puberty blockers. Following its publication, Rowling was asked on X, formerly Twitter, if Radcliffe and Watson would be “safe in the knowledge” she would forgive them if they offered her a public apology. Both stars had previously been outspoken in support of transgender rights. Rowling responded by saying: “Not safe, I’m afraid. “Celebs who cosied up to a movement intent on eroding women’s hardwon rights and who used their platforms to cheer on the transitioning of minors can save their apologies for traumatised detransitioners and vulnerable women reliant on single-sex spaces.” The Scotland-based author, who has always denied being transphobic, had previously welcomed the review by Dr Hilary Cass, which said that young people have been caught up in a “stormy social discourse” and gender care is currently an area of “remarkably weak evidence”. Since December 2019, Rowling been criticised by fans of her novels for her views on transgender rights. Radcliffe put out a statement in June 2020 through the LGBT suicide prevention charity The Trevor Project, saying “transgender women are women” and anything to the contrary “erases the identity and dignity” of people. In a series of social media posts that same month, Watson, who played Hermione Granger, said: “Trans people are who they say they are and deserve to live their lives without being constantly questioned or told they aren’t who they say they are. “I want my trans followers to know that I and so many other people around the world see you, respect you and love you for who you are.” Rupert Grint, known for the role of Ron Weasley in the Harry Potter film series; and Eddie Redmayne, who stars in Rowling’s Fantastic Beasts films, have also been outspoken in support of trans people following Rowling’s comments. Article Name:Radcliffe will keep supporting LGBT despite Rowling stance Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Daily Telegraph Reporter Start Page:3 End Page:3

Girls ‘got UTIS after avoiding unisex toilets’ The Daily Telegraph2 May 2024By Genevieve Holl-allen political reporter GIRLS at school developed urinary tract infections because they did not want to use gender-neutral toilets, Kemi Badenoch has claimed. The women and equalities minister said that the school thought it was following correct guidance, but had been advised by an organisation that “wasn’t looking at the equality law”. It comes as Ms Badenoch urged the public yesterday morning to provide examples of state bodies failing to provide single-sex spaces, amid concern that the NHS, local councils and others are misinterpreting guidance. She told LBC: “We are looking for examples where a public institution is either issuing guidance or has a policy that is not in accordance with the Equalities Act when it comes to single sex spaces. “If I were to give an example of a school that had gender-neutral toilets and young girls there didn’t want to use the same toilets as boys so they weren’t going to the toilet at school and got urinary tract infections.” Ms Badenoch described the situation as a “scandal”, telling Times Radio that there had been “a report, and this was confirmed by doctors, that there were girls who were not using the toilet in some schools and getting urinary tract infections because they didn’t want to share their toilets with boys”. The launch of the “call for input” comes a day after the Health Secretary announced plans to overhaul the NHS constitution to “ensure that biological sex is respected”. The Department for Health and Social Care said on Tuesday that it is “defining sex as biological sex” with the new document. Proposed changes will also ensure hospital patients in England have the right to request to be treated on single-sex wards, with transgender people placed in rooms on their own. The Government Equalities Office said its call for input builds on this, and will move to clear up confusion in what Ms Badenoch described as a “complex” area involving public spaces. In response to the Government’s “call for input”, Bridget Phillipson, Labour’s shadow education secretary, said that Ms Badenoch “does love nothing more than a culture war”. She told Times Radio: “She is pitching to Conservative members for the leadership contest to come in the Conservative Party, and frankly our country deserves a lot better than it always being about the Conservative Party.” Article Name:Girls ‘got UTIS after avoiding unisex toilets’ Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Genevieve Holl-allen political reporter Start Page:7 End Page:7

Autistic trans teenager must not be given hormones, court rules The Daily Telegraph2 May 2024By Michael Searles health correspondent and Daniel Martin AN AUTISTIC transgender teenager must not be prescribed hormones, the High Court has ruled in a potential landmark case. The 16-year-old, known as “J”, was put on cross-sex hormones aged 15 by Gender GP, a Singapore-registered private clinic, despite having just one online appointment with a counsellor. After the case was brought by the child’s father, the court said a child accessing high doses of testosterone from an “off-shore, online, unregulated private clinic” gave rise to “serious concerns as to the safety of patients”. The court ruled that J should no longer receive hormones from Gender GP, and both parents agreed the child undergo proper assessment in the UK. Expert evidence presented to the court found a litany of safety issues including the prescribing of a “dangerously high” dose of testosterone being given to a child born female that left them “at risk of imminent death”. It comes as polling revealed the majority of British people believe clinics offering gender reassignment surgery to under-18s should be shut down and teenagers not prescribed puberty blockers. J, who was born female but identifies as male, had suffered from disordered eating and self-harm aged 12 and was detained in a children’s mental health unit for nine months. The child was diagnosed with autism and anorexia at 13. Sir Andrew Mcfarlane, the president of the High Court family division, ruled on Wednesday that Gender GP would need to provide “a detailed account from the clinic setting out their proposed course of assessment and treatment” in order to overturn its decision. He issued a warning to other courts “faced with a case involving Gender GP to proceed with extreme caution before exercising any power to approve or endorse treatment that that clinic may prescribe.” In 2022, J’s mother agreed to contact the clinic and the child then began receiving injections of testosterone from an NHS GP in January 2023 every six weeks. The court heard how the counsellor at Gender GP, registered in Britain, had declared: “I have no concerns, at this time, with him getting the help he needs from hormones.” A prescription for a “double” dose of testosterone was then written by a doctor registered in Barcelona, Spain and posted from Romania. The father, who had separated from the mother when J was aged 10, had disagreed with the decision and appealed to the court in April 2023 on the grounds of consent and competenc and claimed under-18s should not be allowed treatment outside of specialist NHS services. Dr Jacqueline Hewitt, a consultant paediatric endocrinologist based in Melbourne, Australia, and government adviser there, was the court’s expert witness after no UK specialists agreed to partake. In her evidence, Dr Hewitt was “highly critical” of Gender GP. Her biggest concern was that the clinic had administered “dangerously high” doses of testosterone to a child that had never had it before. She said there was “no professional society of paediatric endocrinologists internationally who would consider this anything other than a highly abnormal and frankly negligent approach” and said it would be “unlawful” in Australia. The court sought NHS intervention after “receipt of Dr Hewitt’s worrying advice that J may be at risk of imminent death” but these were “unsuccessful”. Paul Conrathe, the human rights lawyer representing J’s father, said in light of the case “the Secretary of State should immediately seek to prevent vulnerable children from accessing powerful life-changing hormonal medication from unregulated providers”. ‘No professional society of paediatrics would consider this anything other than highly abnormal’ Article Name:Autistic trans teenager must not be given hormones, court rules Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Michael Searles health correspondent and Daniel Martin Start Page:7 End Page:7

Dr Cass: Children need ample therapy before transitioning ‘No regulator should be put under pressure to lower the bar on standards of clinical practice’ The Daily Telegraph2 May 2024By Henry Bodkin THERAPISTS must be allowed to question children who believe they are trans, the author of a landmark report on the dangers of gender ideology has said. Dr Hilary Cass, whose review found that children should have extensive therapy before they are allowed to transition, said “exploration of these issues is essential”. She spoke during a row at Britain’s psychotherapist body over the issue of conversion therapy for children. The UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) has been a signatory to a memorandum of understanding (MOU) opposing conversion therapy, the practice of trying to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, since 2016. However, the UKCP’S leadership has now withdrawn, claiming that the document was updated to include children specifically and therefore may prevent therapists from discussing changing gender with young patients. The UKCP has argued that including children in the policy could be interpreted as a ban on even discussing with children why they want to change gender, known as “exploratory therapy”. A spokesman for Dr Cass’s independent review told The Telegraph: “No regulator should be put under pressure to lower the bar on standards of clinical practice and safeguarding for any cohort of children and young people.” Key findings of the Cass report, published on April 10, were that children should have extensive therapy before they are allowed to socially transition, let alone begin medical treatment. The former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health found that no one under 25 should be rushed into changing gender. Dr Cass’s spokesman added: “Whilst the review’s terms of reference do not include consideration of the proposed legislation to ban conversion practices, it believes no LGBTQ+ group should be subjected to conversion practice.” Her review followed years of increasing concern that children were being harmed because doctors, teachers and other professionals were simply affirming their choices. Despite the findings, the UKCP’S decision to quit the conversion therapy UOM has now triggered a backlash from some members. The board of trustees is facing a coup attempt, led by a body called Therapists Against Conversion Therapy & Transphobia. The group of trans activists has started a petition for the UKCP’S removal which has attracted about 1,500 signatures – more than one in 10 members – raising the possibility of a board election. The chairman of the UKCP, Dr Christian Buckland, branded the coup attempt “disturbing” and said: “It is deeply disturbing that in return for seeking to ensure the safety of children, the board of trustees of the UKCP has been met with a petition for their removal.” The MOU, which was also signed by NHS England, the mental health charity Mind, the British Psychoanalytic Council and the Royal College of General Practitioners, is headed by Dr Igi Moon. Dr Moon, who uses the pronouns they/them, has described those with gender critical views as “terfs”, said that binary gender is inherited “from colonialism” and called for greater access to hormones. Dr Moon has worked at Gender Plus, a private clinic set up by staff from the controversial Tavistock NHS gender clinic for children, which is closing down over safety fears. Dr Moon said: “It is with great regret that any organisation would want to leave the Mouv2 whose aim is to bring an end to conversion therapy, described correctly by Boris Johnson as ‘abhorrent’.” Both sides claim to have minutes of meetings that support their version of events. Article Name:Dr Cass: Children need ample therapy before transitioning Publication:The Daily Telegraph Author:By Henry Bodkin Start Page:7 End Page:7

Attack on JK Rowling shows the stupidity of the woke Left The Daily Telegraph2 May 2024 How can you tell that JK Rowling is totally in the wrong about gender identity? The answer, it turns out, is very simple. Some conservatives agree with her. That, at least, is the logic employed by Billy Bragg, the Left-wing singer turned trans activist. In an interview this week, he explained why he so deplores the author’s stance on gender. “My problem with people like Rowling,” he declared, “is really who they are lined up with.” It reminded him, he said, of a political debate he took part in years ago with some fellow pop stars and two MPs: one Labour, one Tory. The Labour MP was on Bragg’s side, while the Tory was on the other, with an old friend of Bragg’s. And, to Bragg, this proved his old friend was in the wrong. “I pointed to who he was sitting with, and told him he was on the wrong side of the table. And that’s what I see with Rowling and the others: they are on the wrong side of the table.” Bragg’s attitude perfectly sums up the vacuity of political tribalism. Forget the arguments – just judge the people who are making them. While we’re at it, Bragg is a lifelong socialist and trade unionist. As was Dennis Nilsen. Should we judge Bragg on this basis? Should we accuse him of being “lined up with” a serial killer who flushed the remains of his victims down the lavatory? Personally, I think not. But by his own logic, perhaps we should. Article Name:Attack on JK Rowling shows the stupidity of the woke Left Publication:The Daily Telegraph Start Page:7 End Page:7

Friday 3 May [Total: 3. Publications 4, positive 0, negative 3, written by trans people 0]

The Guardian [1: negative 1, written by trans people 0]

Concern over cross-sex hormones available online for £11 a month The Guardian3 May 2024Nicola Davis Sarah Marsh * Name has been changed PHOTOGRAPH: VUK VALCIC/ SOPA IMAGES/LIGHTROCKET VIA GETTY IMAGES Protesters during a transgender rights demonstration outside Downing Street Cross-sex hormones designed to masculinise or feminise a person’s body are available to buy online for less than £11 a month, with experts warning that growing numbers of under-18s may turn to the medicines hidden economy. Last month the landmark Cass review of children’s gender treatment in England concluded there was a lack of reliable evidence supporting the use of cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers by young people questioning their gender identity. As a result, provision of crosssex hormones to under-18s is under review. The report said that while they can still be made available to patients from the age of 16, they should be prescribed only with extreme caution and a strong clinical rationale for not waiting until an individual reaches 18. The recommendations apply to the NHS and the private sector. Trans adults are often prescribed such hormones, but it is illegal to supply the drugs in the UK to adults or under-18s without a prescription. Guardian research found online pharmacies in places ranging from India to Hong Kong and Portugal offering hormone treatments without a prescription, typically ranging from about £10 to £30 for a 28-day supply of a starting dose of feminising hormones. Some suppliers state their websites can be used only by people aged 18 and over, there appear to be few, if any, barriers to younger people making purchases. There is also an extensive array of online sellers, some UK-based, who prepare mixtures of hormones themselves – often for injection – in a process known as “homebrewing”. Cross-sex hormones are drugs used to change the body. For birthregistered females, testosterone can be administered by injection, through patches or via gels applied to the skin to produce changes such as the growth of facial hair and a deepening of the voice. Hormones including oestrogen can be given in tablets, injections, gels, sprays or patches to birth-registered males to promote changes such as the growth of breasts. According to the Cass review, about 500 young people were on these hormones when they were discharged from the NHS Gender Identity Development Service between April 2018 and December 2022. Now concerns have been raised about the ease of availability of “DIY” hormones online, and whether young people might increasingly turn to the hidden economy, including drug dealers, to obtain the hormones illegally. Dr Alison Cave, the chief safety officer at the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, said: “Patient safety is our top priority, and we strongly advise that people do not self-prescribe or try to obtain medicines from an unregulated source. “A prescription only medicine may only be sold or supplied lawfully in accordance with a prescription issued by an appropriate healthcare practitioner. It is also illegal to sell or supply unauthorised medicines.” The MHRA had not authorised any medicines for the treatment of gender dysphoria, she added. Maria*, whose teenage daughter bought testosterone online and, later, from a drug dealer, said hormones should not be given without a prescription. “That doesn’t mean that therefore the NHS route should be made easier, and that all the safeguarding should be kicked to one side,” she said. The Trans Safety Network said that since the sharp reduction in referrals to hormone experts for young people from 2020 onwards, there had been several inquests into suicides by young trans people, including judgments finding that a lack of access to healthcare was an aggravating factor. “The near-removal of these pathways will lead to young people being exposed to risk and taking measures into their own hands,” a spokesperson said. The Department of Health said the MHRA monitors online channels and, where possible, works with partners to disrupt the illegal trade in human medicines. “We are looking closely at what can be done to curtail any loopholes, including legislative,” it said. Article Name:Concern over cross-sex hormones available online for £11 a month Publication:The Guardian Author:Nicola Davis Sarah Marsh * Name has been changed Start Page:10 End Page:10

The Times [1: negative 1, written by trans people 0]

School reported parents of ‘trans’ child Helen Puttick, Marc Horne An independent school has apologised for reporting parents to social workers when they opposed attempts to classify their child as transgender. George Watson’s College in Edinburgh alerted social services in December 2020 after a long dispute in which the parents, acting on advice from psychologists, asked for the school to adopt a “watchful waiting” approach to their child. This involves closely monitoring a child’s view of their gender without making medical or social interventions, such as changing name or pronouns. However, the parents say the school insisted on facilitating the child’s wish to identify as a boy. The Times has seen correspondence in which the school said it felt compelled to “share our concerns” with child protection services. The pupil’s mother said one message from the school suggested that her child was “vulnerable and meets the threshold for child protection” because of the way her exploration of gender identity was being managed. “The stress of it was absolutely horrendous. When I got that email my stomach just dropped,” she said. “Waiting for the investigation and its conclusions was also hugely stressful.” However, she praised the way the child services employee dealt with the case. “The social worker was very sensible and was happy to listen to us and engage with us,” she said. The mother, who has asked not be named to protect her child’s anonymity, believes the school’s actions were shaped by its adherence to policies supported by LGBT Youth Scotland, which urges teachers to change toilets from mixed sex to gender neutral. The school had received a gold award from the charity for “LGBTQ+ friendliness” in April 2019. “I feel that our child was just seen as a little guinea pig by the school and LGBT Youth Scotland,” the mother told The Daily Telegraph. “We had received two expert opinions, including from a specialist in gender, not to challenge our child but that adults should basically turn a blind eye, and not affirm her. But these experts were repeatedly dismissed by teachers.” Social workers were called in by the school in December 2020. They interviewed the parents and the child before agreeing with the clinical advice and taking no further action. George Watson’s College insisted it had sought advice from “relevant partnership agencies”. A spokeswoman said: “We have always worked collaboratively with parents and apologise to those involved in this case for any distress caused by what are difficult and challenging circumstances. “Every school in Scotland has to weigh up parental engagement with the rights of children, with transitioning being a fluid and ongoing challenge for all. The welfare of our pupils remains our first priority and we continue to work constructively with both parents and their children.” LGBT Youth Scotland confirmed that George Watson’s had been awarded a charter in 2018 and that it expired in 2022. “When it comes to advising on supporting trans pupils in schools we always refer to Scottish government guidance,” a spokesman said. Dr Hilary Cass, whose landmark review into child gender services in NHS England was published last month, has warned about the dangers of social transitioning, or informally changing name and gender. She called for a cautious approach, saying social transitioning was more likely to push children on to a potentially damaging medical pathway. Jenny Gilruth, the education secretary, said last week that she was looking at the implications of the Cass Report on the Scottish government’s guidance.

Daily Mail [1: negative 1, written by trans people 0]

Online clinic is blasted after autistic teen given ‘danger’ hormone dose Daily Mail3 May 2024By Alex Ward Social Affairs Correspondent THE most senior family judge in England has issued a warning over a private gender clinic after an autistic teenager was prescribed ‘dangerously high’ doses of hormones. Sir Andrew McFarlane, the president of the Family Division of the High Court, said ‘any other court’ should exercise ‘extreme caution’ over contact with Gender GP, an online clinic. His ruling came in a case concerning the capacity of a 16-yearold trans boy to provide consent to treatment, having already taken prescribed testosterone. The court had heard the boy, referred to as J for legal reasons, was prescribed a ‘massive’ dose of testosterone by Gender GP. The teenager was born a female and has been diagnosed with autism as well as having a history of anorexia and self-harm. He was given a referral after a single online session with a Gender GP counsellor before he was prescribed hormones and ‘strongly recommended’ to take puberty blockers. The court noted J received a prescription despite no clinical evaluation taking place or a meeting between him and a doctor. It also heard evidence from an endocrinologist. Judge McFarlane, summarising the evidence in his judgment, wrote: ‘[The endocrinologist’s] principal criticism of Gender GP’s intervention, however, relates to the dose of testosterone that was prescribed. ‘Not only did Gender GP prescribe this top-end dosage to a testosterone-naive child, but they did so by directing a “loading” (double) dose at the com ‘Very significant concern’ mencement of the treatment. ‘[The expert] advised “with confidence” that “there is no professional society of paediatric endocrinologists internationally who would consider this anything other than a highly abnormal and frankly negligent approach”.’ While the judge declined to issue any declaratory relief in the case – stating a prohibition on private clinics was a matter for Parliament – he added there was a ‘very significant concern’ about Gender GP’s practices. Article Name:Online clinic is blasted after autistic teen given ‘danger’ hormone dose Publication:Daily Mail Author:By Alex Ward Social Affairs Correspondent Start Page:30 End Page:30

Telegraph [0]

Saturday 4 May 2024 [Total: 0 Publications 3]

The Guardian [0]

The Times [0]

Daily Mail [0]

Telegraph [?]

Saturday’s Telegraph is never available on Press Reader and I’m still trying to work out why.

Sunday 5 May [Total: 1. Publications 4, positive 0, negative 1, written by trans people 0]

The Observer [1: negative 1, written by trans people 0]

Sonia Sodha compares the debate over assisted dying with self-ID and surrogacy in her article this week.

Sometimes our take on human nature trumps our political allegiances. Good As I found during last week’s assisted dying debate, it’s not wrong to agree with the other side The Observer5 May 2024Sonia Sodha ⬤ Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi. It’s not often you find yourself nodding along with those with whom you normally profoundly disagree, and raising an eyebrow at the contributions of those you would count as political allies. But it was the position I found myself in listening to MPs debate assisted dying last week. What to make of my outbreak of fervent agreement with Conservative Danny Kruger and DUP MP Ian Paisley? Some may see this as the mark of a repressed rightwinger, or a born-again social conservative. If you agree with a member of tribe X, you must de facto be part of that tribe, or so the argument goes. I see this unlikely affinity differently: as healthy proof that even in the polarised political discourse of 2024, there are some ethically complex issues that resist alignment along a leftright spectrum. How people value the individual in relation to the collective often cuts across divisions between left and right. Do you privilege individual freedom and autonomy, even when that may come at a cost to others? Or do you believe that constraining individual liberty is the price we sometimes have to pay to avoid exploiting those whose autonomy is limited by their material or emotional circumstances? This axis is key to understanding why people have different views on assisted dying. The strongest arguments in favour are that it should be up to an individual when to end their own life with medical assistance if they are suffering from an illness likely to be terminal. As I wrote last month, one strong reason against legalisation is the clear risk of state-sanctioned wrongful deaths as a result of people being coercively controlled, or even just lightly pressured, into opting for assisted dying by family members or wider society, and the knock-on effects the very existence of this option might have on how society values people with disabilities. The benefit to some more autonomous citizens may be great, but could come at significant harm to others. It’s not just assisted dying. This axis manifests itself in relation to gender self-ID proposals: should the benefit to some individuals of being able to self-identify into spaces, facilities and sports reserved for those of the opposite sex override the broader risks for the safety, privacy and dignity for women who want or need certain femaleonly spaces? And on surrogacy: should the benefits for infertile women, single men and gay male couples and for those women who actively desire to be a surrogate outweigh the dangers of a more liberal framework for the women who might be exploited, or the rights of a newborn baby to have a relationship with the mother who gestated them? There are also parallels with the legalisation of prostitution: there are some for whom selling sex may genuinely be a lifestyle choice, but how should their autonomy be balanced against the risks to women coerced into this dangerous industry? It’s no coincidence that all these issues relate in some way to women’s rights, given that coercive control and exploitation are more likely to be experienced by women. And there is an additional dimension on top of the difference between those who understand personal choice as the product of autonomous individuals, and those who see it as a brew of human relationships and cultural influences. Some people generally assume that enough individuals act with the best of intentions and in good faith to mean the risks of exploitation are marginal. Others believe that the small minority of individuals who behave badly or dangerously means society must implement safeguards to protect those who are vulnerable. Although sweeping claims are often made in relation to the evidence base on both sides, the truth is that, when it comes to all of these issues, there is very little reliable data that enables judgment of the empirical balance of freedoms against risks. Exploitation defies measurement because so much of it goes under the radar, and takes painstaking research to uncover. And so it is often our own instincts about human nature and how we understand the lives of others, not just our own, that drives our position on them. I have no doubt that writing about male violence against women and child abuse has shifted my outlook from team autonomy to team interdependency on a much wider range of issues, because I understand more about the world than I did a decade ago. Although these issues defy definition into left and right – some of the strongest proponents of gender self-ID and assisted dying are Cameroonian Conservatives, for example – we live in a world where the tribalism of social media encourages polemicists to see the world through the lens of good versus evil. Conservative MP Matt Hancock last week positioned assisted dying as the next logical step for the steady march of social progress after the introduction of same-sex marriage; a ludicrous comparison that elides the fact that there is much more to this question than liberal values and personal freedom. His colleague Kit Malthouse ridiculed safeguarding concerns as “the view the country is teeming with granny killers”. One prominent campaigner painted the well-founded concerns raised in the debate as “pearl clutching”, with connotations of scandalised social conservatives; another wrote a piece describing how watching the parliamentary debate left her “moved to shake some MPs… by the throat”, and “fuming” when concerns were raised about a slippery slope. Feelings understandably run high when people have personal experiences of suffering; but MPs need to be able to rise above the emotionally fraught timbre of the debate to consider the risks on all sides. Thankfully, some parliamentarians took a more nuanced tone; just as I think it is no bad thing to find myself in occasional agreement with Kruger, I found it reassuring to see a thoughtful MP such as Tonia Antoniazzi, with whom I agree on much in relation to women’s rights, on the other side. She may come down in a different place to me but her speech acknowledged the validity of many concerns and the importance of properly scrutinising any specific proposals. If assisted dying happens, it will be improved by her involvement. Not only is it OK to disagree with your friends and agree with your opponents; sometimes the world is a better place for it. Do you privilege individual freedom, even when that may come at a cost to others? Article Name:Sometimes our take on human nature trumps our political allegiances. Good Publication:The Observer Author:Sonia Sodha Start Page:46 End Page:46

The Sunday Times [0]

Mail on Sunday [0]

Sunday Telegraph [0]

Subscribe now

TRANSWRITES YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED

The 32 things The Cass Review recommends and why they are concerning, by Gemma Stone.
NHS & puberty blockers: Former GIDS patients reflect on long wait times, invasive assessments, by Sasha Baker.
The Cass Review: A government-sanctioned attack on trans lives, by Lee Hurley.

SUPPORT THE TRANS AGENDA

Tired of the same old news narratives? Get ‘The Trans Agenda’ delivered right to your inbox – news with the trans community at the forefront. Subscribe now!

The Trans Agenda also needs your help. Your donation powers my reporting efforts, amplifying trans voices and keeps you in the know. Support independent trans journalism. Help keep in-depth reporting in ‘The Trans Agenda’ available and accessible by donating today!

CALL FOR STORIES

Seen something newsworthy related to the trans community in the UK? Send me a tip! I’m always looking for leads and underreported stories.

Thank you for reading The Trans Agenda by Lee Hurley. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Follow us on

The Trans Agenda #29 The papers: 34 articles, no trans voices

THE PAPERS Tuesday 20 April – Sunday 5 May 2024

Tuesday 30 April [Total: 6. Publications 4, positive 0, negative 5, written by trans people 0]

The Guardian [1: neutral 1, written by trans people 0]

The Times [1: negative 1, written by trans people 0]

Daily Mail [1: negative 1, written by trans people 0]

Telegraph [3: negative 3, written by trans people 0]

Wednesday 1 May [Total: 10. Publications 4, positive 0, negative 10, written by trans people 0]

The Guardian [0]

The Times [3: negative 3, written by trans people 0]

Daily Mail [1: negative 1, written by trans people 0]

Telegraph [6: negative 6, written by trans people 0]

Thursday 2 May [Total: 14. Publications 4, positive 0, negative 13, neutral 1, written by trans people 0]

The Guardian [1: neutral 1, written by trans people 0]

The Times [3: negative 3, written by trans people 0]

Daily Mail [4: negative 4, written by trans people 0]

Telegraph [6: negative 6, written by trans people 0]

Friday 3 May [Total: 3. Publications 4, positive 0, negative 3, written by trans people 0]

The Guardian [1: negative 1, written by trans people 0]

The Times [1: negative 1, written by trans people 0]

Daily Mail [1: negative 1, written by trans people 0]

Telegraph [0]

Saturday 4 May 2024 [Total: 0 Publications 3]

The Guardian [0]

The Times [0]

Daily Mail [0]

Telegraph [?]

Sunday 5 May [Total: 1. Publications 4, positive 0, negative 1, written by trans people 0]

The Observer [1: negative 1, written by trans people 0]

The Sunday Times [0]

Mail on Sunday [0]

Sunday Telegraph [0]

TRANSWRITES YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED

SUPPORT THE TRANS AGENDA

CALL FOR STORIES