Top Tweets for #MaryButlerTd

A father is taking a Hove GP practice to the High Court for prescribing gender hormones to his under-18 child without parental consent — breaching NHS rules and the Cass Review’s call for extreme caution. This case matters for every parent. It is a safe guarding issue. Children must be protected from rushed, life-altering medical decisions. https://t.co/n3g2N2HrhT

Having now read the judgment in full, I suspect some institutions may find their current policy positions considerably more unsettling than they presently appreciate – not least because of the financial exposure they may have unwittingly created for themselves. This is not merely because the Tribunal found malicious intent. It did not. Quite the opposite. The judgment accepts that the employer’s aims were likely motivated by inclusion, dignity, and a belief that they were acting lawfully. But the Tribunal draws a sharp distinction between intent and effect. In essence: your aims may be considered noble by some, but good intentions do not absolve liability. Nor do they remove the obligation to consider the rights of all, rather than simply the group currently most institutionally fashionable. The Tribunal effectively says: you may genuinely believe your policy is compassionate and progressive. You may have relied upon external guidance. You may have acted without animus. But if the practical operation of that policy creates a hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for another protected group, benevolent intent does not rescue it. Saying stonewall told me I had to is not a magic shield. Indeed, one passages states: “reliance on contemporaneous guidance or good practice advice cannot justify an incorrect interpretation of the law. Employers must seek their own legal advice and ensure that they are applying the law correctly.” That paragraph alone should cause many organisations to pause, think, and potentially re-evaluate their position. For years, institutions have increasingly treated external guidance, internal social consensus, and reputational anxiety as though they were substitutes for statutory interpretation. The judgment also rejects the increasingly fashionable institutional proposition that objections themselves are inherently irrational, malicious, or fringe. The claimant was found not to be “hypersensitive” for her objection. Nor did the Tribunal treat the claimant’s policy disagreement as evidence of hatred. In addition, the tribunal also addressed enforcement of legally compliant policies: “We accept that it would not be possible for the respondent to guarantee that the single-sex toilets would only be accessed by women. However, this does not mean that the respondent could not take reasonable steps to ensure that such a policy was complied with by its employees and visitors, for example by making it a disciplinary offence to breach any employee policy or by requiring visitors to comply with appropriate policies.” For years, many organisations have behaved as though imperfect enforceability extinguishes the legitimacy of single-sex provision altogether, and therefore absolves them of obligations towards the women who work for them. The Tribunal rejected that proposition. And perhaps most significantly of all, the judgment expressly states: “there is no express legal right for a transgender person to use the single-sex facilities of their gender identity under the Act or under the Workplace Regulations.” That is a profoundly important conclusion because it directly challenges the common institutional assumption that identity-based access was a settled legal entitlement. It never was. This was established in FWS, yet the myth is still proving difficult to dispel. This judgment is, in effect, a warning that guidance, aspiration, and law are not the same thing. For a long time, many institutions attempted to dissolve these tensions rhetorically – by insisting that safeguarding concerns, privacy objections, religious modesty concerns, and sex-based boundaries were either irrational or merely pretexts for animus. Whilst this judgment is not binding, I hope organisations take heed of the warnings it offers. If they continue to ostrich, they may well regret it – as it may prove a financial exposure they failed to budget for.

RCPsych, under successive presidents, were more obsessed with pushing dangerous trans ideology, which saw male patients put on locked female wards, male transvestites put in charge of locked up female patients, and children sterilised in the name of "trans", than doing their job of protecting the profession and patient welfare. I wonder how many people were fast-tracked for "trans" medical experiments, on the say-so of an unqualified "MH worker"? CAHMS channelling distressed kids into "trans" experiment hubs, how many of these decisions were made by people who could not, for the lack of knowledge and skill, deal with these patients? On the other end you had sinister endocrinologists and "gender clinics" waiting with open arms. Psychiatry in the UK is among fields that most spearheaded doctor replacement with quacks, amidst a culture of avoiding responsibility, avoiding work, avoiding involvement with supervision of junior colleagues. RCPsych has been captured by ideologies that prioritised fantasy over reality and linguistic sleights of hands instead of medical ethics, and they congratulated themselves in their echo chambers, while shutting out - and down - any criticism from colleagues. Now the harms of this irreverence can no longer be covered up, the naked arse of the emperor is on full display. How long will it take those who presided over this disaster to realise that their tactics of shirking responsibility for what they have done won't work forever?