Skip to content

Blindingly obvious

The proposed update states that the long-standing trans policy, in place for at least the last decade, could have “unintended negative consequences to [a patient’s] overall health where they have chosen a name and gender identity that differs from their current legally designated name and sex assigned to them at birth.”

It adds: “Decisions based on, for example test results, can differ between those with chromosome XX and those with chromosome XY due to the physiological and biological differences.

“Therefore there could be a clinical risk if the biological sex is not known by the clinician, as treatment may be required to be based on the patient’s sex at birth instead of their gender identity.”

As all us sensible people have been saying all along, sometimes it matters and sometimes it doesn’t. The actual arguments are about when.#

Who gets served the Babycham and who the pint, it doesn’t. When trying to make babies of course it’s vital. So, these intermediate cases – with medical records, vital.

And on to the difficult ones – who gets to bare their genitals in the women’s changing room…..

14 thoughts on “Blindingly obvious”

  1. I’m shocked Tim.

    Are they actually saying that someone can’t just change from a woman to a man or vice versa by simply saying so??

  2. All of us sensible people say that the state should not facilitate deception or fraud because once one addresses that point the arguments about when it matters and when it doesn’t completely disappear.

    By all means undergo surgery and feel free to dress unconventionally but your sex at birth as a biological and administrative fact should be immutable.

  3. TMB

    Agree 100%. The recent horrific murder of the confused young man was an unquestionable tragedy.

    However the decision to drive a coach and horses through known precedent and allow the media to name his 16 year old killers, something which would not have been countenanced in a “normal” case, shows a state going beyond facilitating deception and using it to actively promote an agenda.

  4. Not sure it wouldn’t have been countenanced in other cases, John. What about the killers in Ipswich who killed the girl’s mother? They were named. The killer of that teacher? He was named.

    It’s rare, but it’s not just reserved for cases involving trans issues.

  5. Justice needs to be seen to be served – that’s why we name those convicted. If you don’t want to be named and thus potentially be a target for the rest of your life, don’t commit the crime. And if you do get reprisals because of what you did, hard fucking luck.


    And opinion of the baby, then or subsequently, is irrelevant.

  7. Julia

    I’m sure you’re right. It’s just that the endless repetition of variants on “…….and a youth aged 16 who cannot be named for legal reasons” stick in my mind. Some young offenders, even murderers, are more equal than others.

    See also “the public are warned to be on the lookout for a male aged approximately 20 wearing jeans and a grey hooded top”.

  8. Usually 16 year olds are indeed not named for legal reasons. But it’s exactly what Julia said – for very serious offences, it’s quite normal for them to be named. It would at least be countenanced. So this isn’t some precedent-setting, agenda-driving thing.

  9. BBC article on the kerfuffle over Sunak comments about Starmers confusion on what is a woman said the Brianna murder was partially motivated by transphobia which is untrue given the evidence ,, but got to keep shovelling the propaganda


    Anything which is a product of human observation is subject to human error. Unless you make an arbitrary rule that a person’s sex is always what the attending doctor or midwife writes down on the record, it must be always subject to revision in the light of new information.

  11. @Charles

    Don’t see that that invalidates @jgh’s point? If someone has differences in sexual development and turns out not to have been so straightforward to classify as male/female as first sight suggested, then sure, change the health record to reflect that. That’s still an objective observation of the biological sex of their body, which for health purposes is indeed helpful. It’s still not an arbitrary assignment, and it isn’t based on the person’s subjective feelings about their gender identity.

  12. If sex at birth matters and sex at birth is *assigned* (as these people claim) then why can’t they just have their sex re-assigned? Its just a checkbox on a piece of paper, after all;)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *