Dr Quizzical 🦕

Clinical psychologist, feminist, reality matters

[Trevor Phillips @TrevorPTweets]

My thoughts on the @EHRC guidance laid yesterday; this is not about non-existent "rights". It is about the safety of women - mothers, sisters, wives, daughters. We men need to hear their voices. Virginia Woolf : "Though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes".

My intro on @TimesRadio yesterday:

Where I live there are two different routes to and from the tube station. One, let’s call it Acacia Avenue, is quiet and residential. The other, London Road, is a busy major route with lots of traffic. At all times of the day, I automatically head for Acacia Road. It’s just much nicer.

The women in my family, on the other hand, will never willingly make that walk after dark. They live with an anxiety that most men find it hard to imagine, and frankly, rarely think about unprompted.

Last year 739,000 women were sexually assaulted in Britain. Virtually all such assaults - nine out of ten - are perpetrated by men. One in four women have been attacked at some time in their lives. Acacia Avenue is exactly the sort of place in which most women fear that they become vulnerable, and they are right.

As the author Virginia Woolf once wrote " Though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes".

I think this is the right context in which to understand the furore over the guidance being laid today by the government, over the meaning of the words man and woman when it comes to providing services and facilities in workplaces.

Many men think this is about a rather arcane dispute about who gets to use what loo. For their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters, it isn’t.

In a previous life, as Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, I had a hand in writing this country’s equality laws, in particular the 2010 Equality Act. It never occurred to any of us that there could be any confusion or dispute over the meaning of the words man and woman. But it has taken a decade of campaigning, a Supreme Court judgement and now hundreds of pages of guidance to settle the issue.

This is not about so called trans rights, which are completely unaffected by this guidance, since no-one has ever had the right to walk into a changing room reserved for teenage girls.

What it does mean is that women and girls are guaranteed the protection they deserve, and that their safety, which we spent half a decade drafting law to ensure, is protected.

But the whole business illuminates some serious issues in our politics.

First that many of our institutions, in spite of the fact that they always knew what the right thing to do was, decided to ignore the fears of their women customers and employees, under pressure from noisy pressure groups. Instead, the people who were supposed to be the grown ups behaved as though the law said what campaigners wanted it to say, rather than what it actually said. They settled for what they hoped would be a quiet life.

In a democracy, there’s little point in Parliament deciding anything if the law is then made an ass by activists intimidating bosses in companies, schools, universities and the media into doing something different.

Second, at the heart of the campaign to undermine the Equality Act is an idea that we specifically rejected in 2010, so called self-identification. That is to say, that it should be up to the individual to decide whether they have what’s called a protected characteristic - are you male or female, are you black or white. The problem is that self-ID would destroy the operation of any law against discrimination.

Look, it would almost certainly have been to my advantage as a young man to self-identify as a handsome, white public schoolboy. None of those things is true of me. And at various points I am pretty sure it’s been to my disadvantage. It is certainly statistically likely to have been to my disadvantage.

But according to the logic of those who say that self-ID should be the rule and that anyone should be able to decide for themselves whether they are male or female, black or white or Asian, were I to complain about racial discrimination, it would be difficult for anyone prove that I’d been discriminated against because of my race since anybody to whom I’d lost out could just tell the courts that they too were black.

I know that sounds like Alice in Wonderland but you can google the case where a chap, both of whose parents are white, insisted he should get money from the Arts Council because he so identified with the black struggle that he considered himself black, and everyone should accept his point of view. In the United States and Brazil exactly such outlandish claims have been made and people rewarded to the disadvantage of people actually born into minority families.

I have even been told about firms who, when reporting their gender pay gaps have put men who just happen to like wearing dresses at weekends - nothing wrong with that, let me be clear - into the female column and told their women employees that they really haven’t got anything to moan about because statistically they are paid equally, and they should get back in their box.

So today’s guidance isn’t just another tiresome chapter in culture wars. It is , I hope, a halt to the efforts to undermine one of the most important pieces of legislation on the statute book, by people who, for their own reasons, would prefer us to be living in the 1950s world of Mad Men.

[Prof. Gary Francione @garylfrancione]

The idea that it is inherently rightwing to support women's rights to exist as a sex class; to oppose homophobia and reject the idea that men can be lesbians; and to oppose telling children they were born in the "wrong bodies" is one of the most insane ideas of our insane time.

[Victoria Smith @glosswitch]

Would love to see those famous men getting pats on the head for being so very concerned about incels and the manosphere finally join the dots and show some support for critics of the porn industry

[Women's Space Ireland @WomensSpaceIre]

"Last week Varadkar, dying on the hill of inclusivity, desperately asked Grok, the AI chatbot on X, what sex Khelif was 'assigned at birth'."

https://t.co/N9MLpXFzXc

[Dr Quizzical 🦕 @QuizzicalGoat]

@LeoVaradkar @grok @aoifeh1916 Imane always had the option of not making a career out of punching women.

[Naomi Fisher @naomicfisher]

Uta Frith, renowned autism researcher, gives an interview to the TES about autism – and the internet goes wild. We’re told that what she said will put back progress 40 years, that she knows nothing about autism, that she lacks critical thinking and that her words will harm autistic people to the point of suicide.

You’d guess she must have said something really awful. Perhaps something deeply offensive about autistic people which reveals her lack of compassion and understanding. Even then, it’s hard to know how one retired academic would have the power to make others commit suicide and to turn back progress to the extent that is predicted.

What she said was that she thinks the autism spectrum has expanded too far and that it isn’t helping anyone. Not those who originally received autism diagnoses, and not those who are now getting diagnoses who previously would not have done. She said that she thinks scientific progress is being held back because ‘autism’ now means something so heterogenous that we can’t identify anything that all autistic people share. Nothing biological or neurological, nothing cognitive, nothing behavioural. In her words, there are no markers.

The autism spectrum is, in fact, the widest spectrum imaginable. It goes from some of the most disabled people in our society to some of the highest achievers. And there’s no evidence that they have anything in common except their diagnosis.

Saying this sort of thing gets you into a lot of trouble online. There are accepted narratives that we are all expected to comply with, and one is the idea that the giant autism spectrum is protective, that it helps people to be included under one diagnosis. Any language which helps people differentiate is banned. Which is odd, because we don’t think that in any other area of medicine. No one says (for example), that we shouldn’t differentiate between Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes because it’s protective not to be able to talk about the differences. It’s obvious that differentiating between types of diabetes will lead to better understanding and interventions.

If you don’t comply with these narratives about autism – as Uta Frith hasn’t – then you will be publicly shamed. Your expertise will be challenged, even if you have 60 years of experience. You’ll be told that you are harming people and that you are ignorant. Personal slurs are likely to be used against you.

And it’s all about social control. Shame is about social control. It’s about creating things that can be said, and things that can’t be said. Others see the shaming and keep quiet.

It’s about controlling the narrative so that real discussions can’t be had. I’ve talked to so many clinicians who raise these concerns with me and who then say that they’d never speak up, for fear of shaming and even losing their job. There are important things that are not being talked about, for fear of the repercussions.

To my mind, the interesting question is really why. Why is it treated like blasphemy to say that the vast autism spectrum may no longer be fit for purpose? Why are we not allowed to discuss the reality of clinical practice?

Why are personal attacks the go-to when scientists disrupt the prevailing narrative? And why are we all so compliant, censoring ourselves to avoid the discomfort of shame?

Listen to our podcast with Uta Frith here. https://t.co/e4UoDdKTIe

[Adele Waters @AdeleWatersRx]

Should the MHRA reinstate Professor Jacob George to oversee the Pathways puberty blocker clinical trial?

[Dr Quizzical 🦕 @QuizzicalGoat]

@nbcsnl Abysmal. Cruel and unfunny.

[Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee]

🚨BREAKING: NHS-backed puberty blocker trial PAUSED as regulator raises safety concerns. The Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has requested the King’s College trial team amend study protocol, to better reflect risks to children 🧵
https://t.co/dqUNucqB2l

[Kishwer Falkner @KishwerFalkner]

I am tweeting for the first time since 2022 because today’s judgment was a personal vindication. I’m absolutely delighted, and grateful to the wonderful team who helped us to get this right.

[Emma Hilton @FondOfBeetles]

Here is my longest interview about Imane Khelif (and other similar athletes like Semenya).

Two points here (discussed in the interview):
1. It is entirely possible to have deep sympathy for people who believe they are girls then find out they are male, and to understand the trauma involved here.
2. The type of DSD Khelif has makes itself known at puberty, and cynicism that this goes unnoticed is reasonable.

@AndrewGold_ok

https://t.co/wE8xuKXCah

[FakeBPSCommentary @psychsocwatchuk]

The Rt Hon Wes Streeting
Secretary of State
Department of Health and Social Care
14 December 2025

Dear Secretary of State,

Plea to halt the Pathways Puberty Blocker Trial

We, the undersigned 20 clinical psychologists, have personally noted and experienced the censorship of open debate in academia, educational and health service settings and in the media. Clinicians and other professionals have been silenced and feared for their jobs and reputations. It is only now that more of us feel able to speak out, and we are doing so to ask that the Pathways Puberty Blocker trial be halted.
There are many possible psychological, familial, cultural and social reasons why some children show signs of feeling unhappy with the sex they were conceived with and born as. This distress is not the same as suffering an inborn constitutional condition or a serious life-threatening illness such as cancer, hence the ethics and the cost-benefit weighing of the medical risks of clinical trials is completely different. It is neither ethical nor is it possible to conduct a legitimate randomised controlled trial on puberty blocking for psychologically based distress. The actual purpose of the Pathways Puberty Blockers trial is ill-defined, and its methodology cannot answer questions beyond "what happens if we do this to one group and do it a bit later to another?”. With such an unsound rationale it is clear that the medical and developmental risks are not justifiable.
It seems only political intervention at this stage can pause the trial so that the many serious questions can now be raised by clinicians. There is not a current professional or clinical consensus in this area of practice and many clinical experts have grave reservations. We are concerned, as you are, about the sociopolitical context that has influenced previous decision making and we strongly question the assumptions that underpin the rationale for this trial. Our concerns include ideological agendas and vested interests. Past research in this area has been heavily scrutinised and weaknesses, bias, suppressed and inadequate research exposed. The current trial risks repeating and replicating these issues again in its flawed research design.
Key psychological and clinical considerations are central to our grave concerns. Young children do not understand the essential nature of their birth sex until they are older, or the nature and fluidity of the concept of their identity which is still forming. At the age at which it is being proposed they receive puberty blockers they cannot validly consent to risk their fertility, their ability to experience sexual pleasure and other aspects of adult sexuality. Parents cannot validly consent on their behalf as this is not the same as their sanctioning risky treatment for potentially life-threatening diseases.
Politicians on all sides of the House would support you to act with courage and responsibility.  Halting the Pathways Puberty Blocker trial will allow these seriously problematic issues to be fully and more widely considered before more children are subjected to medical interventions that we already know interfere with normal maturational processes and which are likely to result in serious lifelong changes to their bodily functions and their brains.
We welcome your openness where you acknowledged that you have concerns with, and deep discomfort about, medications that interfere with puberty. As clinicians we share that discomfort. Leaving behind the heated ideology which to date has interfered with debate, the reality is that previously suppressed profound lack of consensus remains within the clinical community and that the trial should therefore not proceed. We are happy to engage in further discussion or assistance.
Yours sincerely,
Ms Patricia Harvey Consultant Clinical Psychologist (rtd)
on behalf of 19 Consultant Clinical Psychologists/Clinical Psychologists signatories

[Dr Quizzical 🦕 @QuizzicalGoat]

@SkyNews @TrevorPTweets Very well said, Baroness Faulkner. Successive governments have prioritised the feelings of men over the rights of women and girls.

[Hannah Barnes @hannahsbee]

NEW: I’ve taken a deep dive into the new puberty blockers trial, exploring how we got here, what it will and won’t answers, with a sprinkling of new revelations too.
With contributions from Hilary Cass, trial team members (past & present) and MPs

https://t.co/0uMRuSyLyS

[marcus evans @marcuse99903226]

@sueevansprotect and I have written an Open Letter to @wesstreeting, Secretary of State outlining our serious concerns about the proposed puberty blocker trial.

You can read it here.

https://t.co/nvF1h0KmLx

@Transgendertrd @CanSG_org @SexMattersOrg @segm_ebm @rcpsych @theRCN @KemiBadenoch @Hilary_Cass @WesselyS

[Dr Quizzical 🦕 @QuizzicalGoat]

@squinteratn Referring to feminists who stand up for women's sex-based rights as 'toilet-defenders' says a lot about your attitude towards women and girls.

[SEENinSport @SportSEENuk]

"I hold the course record here… I would be devastated if I was female and lost my course record to a male"

"It's only right that women have a fair playing field for records, achievements, wins."

Be more James

Make @parkrunUK results fair and lawful for women & girls

https://t.co/UyIeaobb50 via @YouTube