“He’s got the White House looking like Saddam Hussein opened up a Cheesecake Factory” — Obama

Genspect Statement on the Puberty Blocker Trial Dr Hilary Cass’s recent remarks in the House of Lords raise profoundly troubling questions about the proposed puberty blocker trial, particularly her description of children who have been socially transitioned since early childhood and who, after 18 months of therapy, still have “absolutely no sense or concept of living in their biological gender.” We believe it is harmful to socially transition a two-year-old. There is no established evidence base to support our point of view, as this radical intervention has not been adequately studied. Our objection, however, is an ethical judgment informed by what we know about child development and by a duty of care and responsibility towards very young children. Deontology recognises that some acts are fundamentally right or wrong. We do not need to wait for evidence of harm before questioning whether it is ethically acceptable for adults to impose a gender identity on a two-year-old. Most of all, we are extremely concerned by Cass’s language about “living in their biological gender.” A child who has been socially transitioned since early childhood is entering therapy from a contradictory starting point. Why was this transition initiated, and what role might it have played in shaping or reinforcing the child’s distress? Cass’s account does not explain how a socially transitioned child could somehow resolve their gender dysphoria through therapy while continuing to live within the social transition that may have reinforced it. We should not treat a child’s difficulty imagining life in their own sex as proof that they cannot live in it. We welcome the news that fewer than 20 of the 1,600 children seen are even being considered for the trial. Fewer children will be exposed to the possibility of harm. But the number does not make the decision unimportant, and it does not relieve the Government, clinicians or researchers of their responsibility to scrutinise it. We note that Dr Cass blurs two different questions about consent. Under-16s can consent to treatment if they are Gillick competent; the Court of Appeal said competence must be assessed individually, not by age rules. A trial’s requirement for parental consent and a young person’s assent is a separate research safeguard. It does not overturn Gillick or answer the wider question of whether the trial is justified. Cass treats the court ruling as a reason the Government cannot take a view. The Court of Appeal rejected the lower court’s age-based guidance. It did not rule that the Government must stay out of debate about the trial, its evidence or its policy. “We do not know of any definite irreversible effects” is not evidence that there are none. She acknowledges that the effects are uncertain, then leans on monitoring and the two-year limit as reassurance. Monitoring can identify problems; it cannot necessarily reverse them. The testosterone-at-the-gym line also sets up a false choice. The alternative to joining the trial is not necessarily obtaining hormones illicitly. It could be continued psychological and family support, or waiting while more evidence is gathered. The central problem remains unresolved. We are considering exposing children to medical interventions whose long-term consequences are uncertain, when there is existing data from the previous puberty blockers trial that has yet to be examined. A child’s inability to imagine living in their own sex is not evidence that doing so is impossible. Nor should the decisions made by adults to socially transition their very young children become the justification for puberty blockers for these children. These children are likely to grow up to be same-sex attracted if they don’t medically transition. Many are neuro diverse. These children deserve the highest standard of care, not to have their puberty blocked as part of a reckless and incoherent clinical trial. hansard.parliament.uk/lords/…

Published tomorrow, great to see it on sale already! amazon.co.uk/Growing-Up-Cult…

Irish pol calls for 'common sense' after gov-funded PSA calls for grandparents to get consent before hugging grandkids trib.al/6Z5BzVW

An amendment to the sporting events bill was defeated by Labour voting against it. @louie_french (and I as I suggested it in The Lords) Conservative shadow sports minister wanted int. events brought to this country to insist the female category is protected as the ioc does, & the uk Supreme Court ruling stipulates .. sadly Labour doesn’t seem to care if our girls get fair sport

Ted Hudacko's minor son believed that he was really a girl. His mother went along. Ted fought tooth and nail to block the medicalization of his son. The judge who celebrated her own's son rejection of his sex, gave him a bone. She gave custody to the child's mother with ONE EXCEPTION. That EXCEPTION was that no gender-related surgeries could occur without Ted's consent or a court order. USCF's Drs. Stephen Rosenthal, Diane Ehrensaft, and Janet Lee really really really wanted to surgically give the boy puberty blockers. UCSF's attorney Asaf Orr said go for it. The child's counsel. Dan Harkins, who is supposed to advise based upon the best interest of the child green lit the surgery. The teenage boy was chemically castrasted. The hell with Ted's parental rights. The hell with the court's order. The figured Ted would just go away. But he didn't. He sued. And now the Supreme Court is deciding whether to take his case. I filed not one, but two briefs to support Ted with help from my friends, @ebclaw @_CryMiaRiver @genspect @JonniSkinner -Full brief links and excerpts from the Brief 2 follow. supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/2…

This father says his parental rights were violated, and he’s asking the U.S. Supreme Court to step in. 🚨 Ted Hudacko alleges that the University of California system, UCSF hospital personnel, his ex-wife, and others coordinated to have a sex-rejecting surgical procedure performed on his minor son. A federal appeals court shut the door on his claims against the California state actors, ruling they were shielded by qualified immunity. Hudacko wants the Supreme Court to bring those claims back. Today, Do No Harm filed an amicus brief supporting him. ⚖️ In our brief, we explain the need for the Court to clarify the rules under which parents may protect their children from becoming the next victims of so-called "gender-affirming care." Specifically, we explain that: ➡️ Sex is objective, binary, and immutable. Every single cell of the body is forever encoded and operating as either male or female. ➡️ “Gender identity” is based on a psychological state. It is a subjective and mutable "feeling," and there is a documented “likely” role of social influence, such as media and peers, in shaping one’s feelings. ➡️ “All well-designed systematic reviews — conducted by experts in Finland, England, Sweden, and elsewhere — conclude that the evidence for sex-denying interventions is weak; zero have come out the other way.” ➡️ Experts have catalogued the various potential risks of these procedures, including adverse effects on fertility, brain development, and much more. Sex-rejecting procedures for minors are a medical scandal. 🚩 The Supreme Court needs to step in and establish uniform rules by which state actors can be held accountable as parents seek to protect their children. Read our brief below. 👇

This is brilliant lol

A giant inflatable pumpkin went on the run in Cary, North Carolina, near Raleigh, after strong winds from Isaias sent it rolling away.

I’ll be speaking at this one next Saturday at 2.45pm - Children’s Literature and the Culture Wars. It’s a great panel, a fab chair and a thorny topic - get your tickets here from @acadofideas!

New by me, I felt this for a while, but recent events prompted me to write it up.... "But the proposal to take that discussion to a broad professional audience was blocked by a committee. The explanation I received concerned the potential risk to accreditation provided by an affirming organisation. The irony is difficult to miss." Thanks @dennisr_howell @wearepsychreg psychreg.org/gender-critical…

This day is profoundly painful for so many New Yorkers. It marks three years since the horrific war crimes of October 7. On that day, Hamas killed more than 1,100 Israelis and abducted 251 others. We grieve alongside our many friends and neighbors who still carry that unthinkable loss. The suffering did not begin nor end that day. It instead continued through the Israeli government’s devastating, ongoing genocide in Gaza, in which it has killed more than 74,000 Palestinians—including more than 21,000 children. Even since the so-called ceasefire, more than 1,400 Palestinians have been killed. That suffering has intensified with every Israeli bomb dropped on ambulances waiting outside hospitals, every drone strike targeting a residential building or journalist, and every shipment of food aid turned away at a border crossing. Many New Yorkers are reckoning with this unbearable grief, and we mourn alongside them – all while knowing that our tax dollars fund these war crimes. Three years later, we must refuse to accept a world in which occupation and apartheid continue, where war crimes are met with impunity, and our federal government continues its complicity with every arms shipment. To honor the dead, we must fight for a world in which every person can live with freedom, safety, and dignity.

Thankfully, angry old women are allowed too, so I will be there! @acadofideas #BattleFest