• The document that reveals the remarkable tactics of trans lobbyists | Coffee House

    People and organisations that at the start of this decade had no clear policy on or even knowledge of trans issues are now enthusiastically embracing non-binary gender identities and transition, offering gender-neutral toilets and other changes required to accommodate trans people and their interests. These changes have, among other things, surprised many people. They wonder how this happened, and why no one seems to have asked them what they think about it, or considered how those changes might affect them.

    Some of the bodies that have embraced these changes with the greatest zeal are surprising: the police are not famous social liberals but many forces are now at the vanguard here, even to the point of checking our pronouns and harassing elderly ladies who say the wrong thing on Twitter.

    How did we get here?

    So the question again: how did organisations with small budgets and limited resources achieve such stunning success, not just in the UK but elsewhere?

    Well, thanks to the legal website Roll On Friday, I have now seen a document that helps answer that question.

    The document is the work of Dentons, which says it is the world’s biggest law firm; the Thomson Reuters Foundation, an arm of the old media giant that appears dedicated to identity politics of various sorts; and the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Youth & Student Organisation (IGLYO). Both Dentons and the Thomson Reuters Foundation note that the document does not necessarily reflect their views.

    The report is called ‘Only adults? Good practices in legal gender recognition for youth’. Its purpose is to help trans groups in several countries bring about changes in the law to allow children to legally change their gender, without adult approval and without needing the approval of any authorities.

    In short, this is a handbook for lobbying groups that want to remove parental consent over significant aspects of children’s lives. A handbook written by an international law firm and backed by one of the world’s biggest charitable foundations.

    And how do the authors suggest that legal change be accomplished?

    I think the advice is worth quoting at length, because this is the first time I’ve actually seen this put down in writing in a public forum. And because I think anyone with any interest in how policy is made and how politics works should pay attention.

    Another recommendation is even more revealing: ‘Avoid excessive press coverage and exposure.’

    According to the report, the countries that have moved most quickly to advance trans rights and remove parental consent have been those where the groups lobbying for those changes have succeeded in stopping the wider public learning about their proposals. Conversely, in places like Britain, the more ‘exposure’ this agenda has had, the less successful the lobbying has been:

    La question d’actualité, c’est si les parents ont leur mot à dire sur la décision de leurs enfants de transitionner avant la puberté : d’un côté ça permet de ne pas développer des caractères sexuels secondaires qui seront encombrants pour la suite et de transitionner plus facilement, de l’autre... ce sont des enfants qui n’ont peut-être pas les moyens de peser leur décision et les cas de #détransition se multiplient, de jeunes adultes qui regrettent que cette option leur ait été proposée comme ça.


    #lobby #transidentité #transgenre

    • Gender dysphoria in children: puberty blockers study draws further criticism | The BMJ

      The NHS Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), based at London’s Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, is England’s only provider of NHS specialist treatment for young people with gender dysphoria.

      In 2010 GIDS and University College London’s Institute of Child Health applied for ethical approval to conduct a cohort study offering puberty blockers to a “carefully selected group of adolescents” with gender dysphoria in early puberty.

      But questions continue to emerge about the researchers’ conduct of this early intervention study.

      We reported in July that potentially crucial information may have been missing from the study’s protocol and patient information sheets, casting doubt as to whether participants gave informed consent.1 Critics had said that the researchers had downplayed interim findings that might suggest increased suicidality. And the researchers had not submitted the annual progress reports required by the NHS Health Research Authority (HRA), which promotes patients’ interests in health research. Also, despite the full study findings remaining unpublished, the NHS changed its policy to allow GIDS to prescribe these drugs to children under 12 in established puberty.

      Here we present new allegations that the researchers might have broken rules when seeking ethical approval. They might also have misinterpreted another study’s findings about potentially worrying effects of the drugs on changing bone density.