Charlotte is so brave here.
As I said earlier: it's very upsetting as a rape survivor to see my suffering weaponised to justify these authoritarian measures. Measures which won't do anything to end sexual violence, but risk great injustice – mostly to cut costs.
So sad, and so unnecessary. We offered a legal indemnity, against all legal risks, to the leadership of Women's Institute, and Girlguiding, so they could continue to include all women.
Both declined.
meet VAC Bob!
As an expert on the jury system, I am sceptical about this, and think it will reduce the system's legitimacy.
As a minoritised victim of crime, I would always trust a jury over a judge when it comes to understanding my life and the circumstances in which I have, e.g., been beaten in the street.
in case you've never seen it, this is Roger Ebert on The Mummy
Marx did not argue that the invention of automation was the problem lol, "actually the economic system that produced the feudal aristocracy and peasantry was good" is not a left-wing position it's hyperfascism
One easy example of a time it worked out lol en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washing...
1. A new NHS England Review excluded 97% of all trans care studies to conclude that trans youth care doesn't work.
It explicitly violates several guidelines around reviewing literature, and appears to be politics masquerading as (shoddy) science.
Subscribe to support our journalism.
That we reject ON PRINCIPLE any review that does not have trans leadership and trans accountability steeped in its design.
The cis people who have been put into positions of authority across trans youth healthcare do not have our trust & continue to demonstrate they do not DESERVE our trust.
Really importantly - THIS 1000 page 'evidence' review, does not dignify a detailed response.
I will NOT be preparing a detailed analysis of every wrong step taken.
We need to instead state openly & clearly that this fraud is abusive and beneath contempt. That we reject it.
Every protest, every advocacy, needs to focus on this power imbalance.
There is zero point detailing all the thousands of errors in this current evidence review when that feedback goes to the leaders who intentionally designed the process to distort the outcome.
Trans healthcare needs to be led by trans people, to be accountable to trans communities and trans youth.
Folks who don't believe in the existence of a trans child cannot continue to hold the reins of healthcare policy and governance.
This is where we start.
I don't know exactly what the solution is.
But the solution lies in finding ways to challenge the power imbalance that enables this medical and scientific mis-practice.
Not in tinkering with the details in their 1000 page report.
We can't combat an exercise in power & domination over trans youth by showing them the errors in their homework.
The errors here are so obvious.
They are intentional.
They are almost showing off - how little pretense at 'evidence' is needed to subjugate trans youth.
The whole thing is not about healthcare evidence.
It is a exercise in power over trans youth (and trans communities).
They are demonstrating their power.
And asserting their power to squash trans youth.
Trans under 18s are currently ONLY offered conversive psychoeducation and talk 'therapy' (plus vocal training after forced through a puberty they don't want).
And now we look at where the NHS aims its sights next
Trans youth healthcare in the UK has always been the worst of the worst for medicalised mispractice of this kind.
But this particular one is more egregious than most.
On this flimsy sham they have banned under 18s HRT on the NHS.
Importantly throughout all the many studies that they excluded for one reason or another, there is also NO EVIDENCE of significant harm.
You can bet your bottom dollar they would have been interested in ANY study that showed harm - those wouldn't have been deemed out of scope.
Through this method, and some other chicanery, smoke and mirrors, they were able to claim NO EVIDENCE for a healthcare that is well understood, safe, cheap, beneficial and hugely important.
This claim of NO EVIDENCE is enough for a full ban.
It is also very well established that non-binary youth have to pretend to be binary in order to access hormones in many clinics, so the studies on binary youth will for sure include non-binary youth pretending to be binary.
For non-binary people they were even more tricky - looking for studies that focus ONLY on non-binary people. Of course these do not exist, because clinics divide people based on their hormone they are taking, not by their identity.
This method, meant that they could exclude nearly all the studies on under 18s.
They also excluded every study of over 18s, even though the difference between a 17 year old on HRT and an 18 year old on HRT in terms of MEDICAL risk is not defined.
Worse than that though, they also excluded EVERY study with a mixed cohort.
Some studies of HRT in under 18s looked at everyone on HRT, including some youth who had been on blockers first, and some who had gone straight to HRT.
These were all excluded.
As mentioned, blockers first was for a long time a MANDATORY part of the medical pathway, INCLUDING in the NHS.
They excluded every study looking at young people who took HRT, if they first had experience on blockers.
First of all they decided that a 16 & 17 year old taking HRT without prior time on blockers is COMPLETELY different from taking HRT without prior time on blockers.
Then they decided to exclude from consideration every study that focused on young people who went first to blockers before HRT.
BUT the NHS came up with a clever trick to stop these 16 & 17 year olds from accessing (safe, beneficial, low risk, well evidenced) HRT.
They looked at the evidence in a VERY specific way.
GUESS what? This isn't a problem. Blockers at 16 and 17, on their own and without HRT, are actually a terrible idea.
They are not good healthcare. They cause menopause.
16 and 17 years olds shouldn't be put onto blockers with HRT.
16 and 17 years olds cannot access blockers at all on the NHS, through intentional government policy. They've not been able to access blockers for several years.
Therefore, 16 & 17 year olds wanting to start HRT, will, in the main, not have first started blockers.
Accordingly, the vast majority of past clinical studies, followed young people who first went on blockers, then to HRT.
But, in the UK, our government and NHS have criminalised access to blockers.
They are only accessible through a trial, that is only open to under 16s.
The vast majority of trans youth, in past clinical studies, had blockers first, and then HRT.
This stepped path was mandatory in the UK. It was literally not possible to go straight to HRT under the age of 18.
