The expulsion of Heather Brunskell-Evans.
This is the second post on W.E.P following their vote to accept men who self-identify as women. You can read part one here:
This one will focus on an episode of the moral maze, from 2017, which BBC licence holders can listen to here: 👇
This was the Composition of the panel:
These were the witnesses who were called :
I will cover Fae and Caspian in this one and cover Whittle and Brunskell-Evans in the next one.
Quite a good introduction from Buerk recognising the exponential growth in referrals to the Tavistock, including children as young as three. He also asks if medicalising identity is solving a problem or creating one? He covers the issue of what accommodations are asked of the rest of us and whether that should compromise single sex spaces including NHS wards and Rape crisis centres etc.
The presenter first turns to the only person “who identifies as male”, ‘as introduced by Michael Buerk, Matthew Taylor. At the time he was chief executive of the Royal Society of the Arts. (R.S.A). he is now Chief Executive of NHS Confederation. He was formally head of Labour Party Policy unit under Tony Blair and worked at a left leaning think tank. This is his opening position.
Next up is Claire Fox who is perfectly fine for people to identify however they wish providing the rest of us are not forced to go along with it. She does worry the tyranny of coercing people and institutions have to go along with subjective beliefs about oneself. Fox also worries that this may be a fashion rather than the historic issue of people feeling “trapped in the wrong body”.
Mona Siddiqui believes we should try to find a safe space for minorities, try to accommodate as far as possible, to allow people to make their own mistakes and to have the right to self-expression.
Ann McElvoy “I think it is easier, in principle, to establish the right to self-identity which many liberals would support than it is to work out what follows from it” She goes on to say this is a social, clinical, psychological and medical minefield. She advocates for a need for a very careful examination of the issues and stresses the need to consider the ethical issues it raises.
“Jane” Fae
Buerk then introduces “Jane” Fae as a “trans woman”, using she/her pronouns, he also references Fae’s close relationship with the controversial charity Mermaids. (Today the Charity Commission announced a statutory investigation into Mermaids.)
You can read an earlier piece on Fae below:
Jane Fae: Trans Britain (Part 13)
Buerk uses the language of “transgender children” in describing the work of Mermaids, rather than a more neutral framing of children showing gender identity issues. His opening question to Fae is that, whilst we might have sympathy for adults, like Fae, we can also worry about the administering of, potentially, irreversible treatments to pre-pubescent children; while their identities might seem to be in flux.
This was Fae’s response to that question. This, by the way, is a blatant lie because by 2017 we had been administering puberty blockers, to children as young as 10, for over five years. Later he will acknowledge, and defend, the very real medical interventions happening to children.
Fae is then asked about becoming an activist, by McElvoy, and what moral lesson would he draw from his experience. {Fae seems suspiciously keen to shoehorn a mention to the panel that he had given a talk at the WOW conference (Women of the World). WOW was set up by Jude Kelly formerly of West Yorkshire Playhouse in case you wondered where she stands. Fae has been invited more than once.} He then claims he became an accidental activist; forced into it because of a need to discuss the finer points of legislation. He also bridles at the suggestion there is any “agenda” being pushed by trans activists.
McElvoy presses him about the age for medical intervention and says 16 still seems very young. She also mentions the sky rocketing of referrals to the Tavistock, Gender Clinic. Again Fae talks about children only being “socially transitioned”. McElvoy doesn’t let him get away with this and mentions delaying puberty being a medical intervention. This forces him to admit we are giving medical treatment. His new argument is that if we don’t block puberty and the child turns out to be “trans” we are setting them up for more medical intervention /surgeries to reverse the impact of this puberty. Asked about whether he agrees with “watchful waiting” Fae brings in the fact that we allow contraception and abortions based on Gillick competence and claims this is equivalent because we already administer hormone treatment to girls. {Note contraceptive pills are not the same as giving testosterone to females and there is no equivalent of the pill for male children.}
Claire Fox follows up be raising the issue of affirmative approaches to children, who claim a “gender identity” at odds with their biological sex, and asks why we validate gender identity but not, for example, an anorexic? He again claims we are only supporting the child but he then conceded that age ten puberty starts to have a major impact and it is clear he knows full well we are blocking puberty from that age. Fox also interrogates what support for a child might look like? Re-organising society for a child that thinks they are the opposite sex? Fae dismisses this. {Another lie, this is precisely what is happening, schools are instructed to let boys who identify as girls use female changing rooms and toilets and be address by wrong sex pronouns}.
Fae then changes the subject, to respond to McElvoy’s earlier point, about the exponential growth in referrals. Fae claims that nobody becomes “trans” they simply are “trans” based on the medical model of a “trans” identity. The idea this is a natural occurring mutation is hugely contested. I will just leave you with these statements by Andrea Chu 👇 and remind you that, as John Ozimek, Fae was a vocal defender of extreme porn.
James Caspian
Next up James Caspian, a psychotherapist, who worked with this group of patients for many years until he became concerned about increasing incidents of post surgery regret. This is his background.
Djordjevic had recently had seven people approach him to get “reversal” surgeries which had concerned him greatly. It was for this reason that Caspian wished to research de-transition but, as you can see above, Bath Spa University blocked this research, fearing backlash.
Matthew Taylor opens his line of questioning by asking Caspian to agree that the marginalised “trans” community, until recently, paid a huge price when they begin to identify as the opposite sex. Taylor’s point is that increased social acceptance has increased the numbers identifying as “trans”. (Caspian, though is talking about increased rate of regret, which, based on Taylor’s argument we would expect to see decreased). Caspian then talks about his shock at seeing the increased rate of teenage girls who regretted their bodily changes including mastectomy. Taylor’s rejoinder is to ask why Caspian had chosen to focus on this group.
Caspian explains that, in his two years of preliminary research, he found that the detransitioners he spoke to were wrestling with mental health issues, eating disorders, previous sexual abuse and their “transition”had not alleviated their issues. He also pointed out that those with autism were over-represented x 6, based on its prevalence in wider society. This is something widely known but nobody understands why this is the case.
Mona Siddiqui now asks what Caspian’s opinion is on the “right” reasons to transition. Caspian makes it clear this is a complex question. For this condition there is no diagnostic test and he points out this is the only condition where we perform surgery when no medical cause can be identified. It is diagnosed by a self-report from the patient.
First Do No Harm.
James gives an excellent clinician’s answers invoking his professional responsibility and that of the Doctors to “Do No Harm”. We are not just talking about someone’s “identity” but the medical consequences. He reiterates the amount of detransitioned femsles who deeply regret the hormones /surgeries they underwent and how easy it was to access treatments under the “affirmative model”. He then also points to a book Blood and Visions, about detransitioning, written by 10 females. I have not been able to locate a copy but this is the tumblr account which appears to be behind it.
I will break off here so that I have space to cover Stephen Whittle’s and Heather Brunskell-Evans’ contribution but also to look at the consequences for Heather and her own commentary on the experience.
You can support my work by a paid subscription to my substack or a donation below. All donations are gratefully received and help to cover my costs and keep my content open.
Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.
£10.00
