Category: Transgenderism

Gilead and the BBC, a marriage made in hell | Glinner

On March 5, 2024, a concerned member of the public—formerly a senior media professional—sent the WPATH Files to Fergus Walsh, the BBC’s Medical Editor. The files contained damning information, including admissions from WPATH members about the harm caused by their treatments and the influence of non-medical trans activists.

Despite the gravity and the urgency of the situation, Walsh did not respond. Six days later, on the 11th March, the same individual tried to send an email with an email summarizing key points from an interview with Mia Hughes, the author of the WPATH report, only to discover that their address had been blocked.

But there’s more. It turns out that Walsh is married to Dr. Véronique Walsh, the vice president of Gilead Sciences UK and Ireland. Gilead Sciences is a pharmaceutical company that set up a $4.5 million fund to “to improve the safety, health, and wellness of the transgender community, particularly in light of the disproportionate impact of HIV on transgender individuals”.

$4.5 million sure pays for a lot of ‘wellness’. Gilead uses its financial resources to establish itself as a dedicated ally to the ‘transgender community’, which is really a collection of autistic, troubled, abused or just confused young people, along with middle-aged autogynephiles who have nothing to do with them. Gilead’s TRANScend Community Impact Fund, launched in 2019, has distributed over $9 million to 26 organizations across the United States. While this fund ostensibly supports “strategic program development, capacity building, and direct services”, it of course does so while promoting a specific, contentious narrative around matters trans.

A few years ago, when the War On Women was just starting out, we published a report on Gilead, who were the subject of a mass tort, alleging that the company withheld safer HIV/AIDS drugs from sufferers and manipulated patent timing for profit.

Fergus Walsh served as the BBC’s medical correspondent from 2004 to 2020, when he took over as medical editor for BBC News. In the years leading up to his appointment and since, the BBC has produced only one major investigation into the use of puberty blockers and the ideological basis of ‘trans healthcare’. This was the Newsnight investigation into the Tavistock by Deborah Cohen and her producer Hannah Barnes, the genesis of her acclaimed book ‘Time To Think’. With a scandal of such proportions, you would think BBC News would have turned its attention to follow-up stories, but the BBC’s interest in the issue, never what you might call ‘burning’, disappeared altogether on her exit.

For years now, the BBC’s handling of the trans debate has been a disgrace. Prominent voices like Helen Joyce, Maya Forstater, Stella O’Malley, and Kellie-Jay Keen have been glaringly absent, even from shows like ‘Women’s Hour’. Their coverage reeks of bias, and this habit of lying by omission has done great damage to the BBC’s reputation.

Source: (24) Gilead and the BBC, a marriage made in hell

Unearthed Emails Show Rachel Levine Discussing ‘Potential Revenue’ From Child Sex Change Procedures | The Daily Caller

  • Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine discussed revenue opportunities resulting from hiring a gender clinic social worker while Levine was serving as Pennsylvania’s acting secretary of health, according to emails obtained by parental rights activist Megan Brock and reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation. 
  • The pair discussed the potential return on investment and downstream revenue generated by social workers at gender clinics, particularly through surgical referrals. 
  • “I am trying to give them some numbers to help them realize the eventual ROI [return on investment] for this necessary position,” the doctor wrote. “Even if the patients under 18 who go for surgery might be limited, the patients we start with will eventually be over 18…so I still think it’s worthwhile. Of course, I think it’s worthwhile no matter what.”

Source: Unearthed Emails Show Rachel Levine Discussing ‘Potential Revenue’ From Child Sex Change Procedures | The Daily Caller

The Bookseller – News – Publishing network launches for those ‘concerned about the impact of gender ideology’

A publishing network for those “concerned about the impact of gender ideology on our sector and wider society” has launched for publishing professionals, authors and creatives.

SEEN Publishing is currently on X/Twitter (@SEENPublishing) and LinkedIn (SEEN in Publishing), though it is not yet known who is behind the network or if they will remain anonymous. Similarly, the number of members so far is as yet unknown.

However, in a statement, the network said its members “believe in the material reality of sex” and “value diversity of thought and freedom of expression”.

It goes on: “We believe that everyone in publishing should be able to express legally held views on sex and gender, including where these views relate to publishing-sector decisions, free from fear, harassment, discrimination, and negative career repercussions.”

A process for screening new members is in place, the network said, and membership is confidential. The Bookseller understands that a Substack is also forthcoming.

The network is the latest “SEEN” group to launch with others established in other industries such as the Police SEEN UK and SEEN in Schools.

Source: The Bookseller – News – Publishing network launches for those ‘concerned about the impact of gender ideology’

Unsealed Court Documents Show That Admiral Rachel Levine Pressured WPATH To Remove Age Guidelines From The Latest Standards Of Care

When the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s Standards of Care Version 8 was released in September 2022, a very strange thing happened: WPATH removed references to minimum age requirements for various medical interventions, describing the change as a “correction” in a notice that now reads, weirdly: “This correction notice has been removed as it referred to a previous version of the article, which was published in error.” Whatever happened, exactly, it’s clear that until late in the game the document did have age minimums until, suddenly, it did not.

Thanks to a rather remarkable document just unsealed as part of Boe v. Marshall, one of the many American lawsuits over youth gender medicine, we now have a potential explanation for why the age guidelines were removed: direct pressure from assistant secretary for health of the Department of Health and Human Services Admiral Rachel Levine (who is a trans woman herself) and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The document is titled “Appendix A To Supplemental Expert Report Of James Cantor, Ph.D. In it Cantor, a Canadian sex researcher, critic of youth gender medicine, and frequent expert witness on behalf of those attempting to ban or or restrict it (including in this case), claims that “Assistant Secretary for Health Dr. Rachel Levine strongly pressured WPATH leadership to rush the development and issuance of SOC-8, in order to assist with Administration political strategy.”

More worryingly, Cantor charges that “Assistant Secretary Levine also attempted to and did influence the substantive content of SOC-8, based on political goals rather than science. Specifically, Assistant Secretary Levine, though [sic] a staff member, pressured WPATH to remove recommended minimum ages for medical transition treatments from SOC-8.”

Here, too, he has evidence from anonymized emails written by those involved in the SoC 8:

Sarah Boateng, who is Adm. Levine’s chief of staff [said the] biggest concern is the section below in the Adolescent Chapter that lists specific minimum ages for treatment, she is confident, based on the rhetoric she is hearing in DC, and from what we have already seen, that these specific listings of ages, under 18, will result in devastating legislation for trans care. She wonders if the specific ages can be taken out and perhaps an adjunct document could be created that is published or distributed in a way that is less visible than the SOC8, is the way to go.

[T]he Levine angle is important and alarming. It demonstrates an indisputable conflict between how WPATH has portrayed the SoC 8 — as a document steeped in evidence and careful deliberation on the part of experts — and how the guidelines were actually formulated.

Source: Unsealed Court Documents Show That Admiral Rachel Levine Pressured WPATH To Remove Age Guidelines From The Latest Standards Of Care

Consultation open: All-gender sanitary facilities | ABCB

We are consulting on the potential inclusion of all-gender bathroom provisions in the National Construction Code (NCC). We want to hear if, and how, the suggested changes will impact your work.

Source: Consultation open: All-gender sanitary facilities | ABCB

Dawn of the Detransitioner Lawsuits, with Josh Payne | Stella O’Maley

In this episode, Sasha and I welcome lawyer, Josh Payne, co-founder of Campbell Miller Payne, a law firm dedicated to representing individuals who were misled and abused – many as children – into psychological and physical harm through a false promise of “gender-affirming care.” Campbell Miller Payne is committed to its mission to speak up for these victims, assert their rights, and pursue justice.

This conversation is about various legal challenges faced by detransitioners, such as issues with informed consent, systemic healthcare problems, and the experimental nature of many treatments. The discussion emphasizes the vulnerability of clients, the lack of comprehensive care addressing underlying mental health issues, and the need for cautious medical practices, underscoring the importance of seeking justice for those affected and advocating for more responsible treatment alternatives to gender-affirming care.

Source: Dawn of the Detransitioner Lawsuits, with Josh Payne

The Context, BBC News Channel, 19 February 2024 | Contact the BBC

Complaint

Prompted by a leaked letter from the medical director of an NHS Trust which claimed milk produced by trans women with the help of drugs was nutritionally comparable to that produced by a mother following the birth of a baby, the programme included an interview with Kate Luxion, described as “a research fellow in creative global health at the University College, London and a lactation consultant trainee”.  A viewer complained that (1) “the science cited in the letter was accepted without question” and “the science was undoubtedly misrepresented”; (2) that the item’s reference to advice from the World Health Organisation was inaccurate and misleading; (3) that it was also misleading to show “pictures of women (females) feeding babies” at the point where Ms Luxion was talking about a study of lactation induction in a trans woman; and (4) that Ms Luxion was presented as “a neutral ‘expert’” whereas she had “a vested interested in this debate”,  and “as an authority on the issue without inviting on a medical expert to counter her argument”.  A second viewer complained in similar terms.  The ECU considered the complaints in the light of the BBC’s editorial standards of accuracy and impartiality.

Outcome

On the first point, the ECU found limited evidence to support the claim, attributed to Dr James, that “a transgender woman’s milk is just as good for babies as breast milk”; of the five studies cited by Dr James in her letter as “informative resources” on “the composition of human milk after induced lactation (nonpuerperal lactation) versus lactation after birth” only one referred specifically to trans women, and was based on a single case (most referred to those whose sex was recorded as female at birth).  The weight of relevant evidence was not, therefore, made sufficiently clear and in the ECU’s judgement viewers would have been left with a materially misleading impression.

On the second point, the terms in which the introduction to the item referred to Dr James’s letter (“The Trust referred to studies and the World Health Organisation guidance, including one case which found what it called no observable effects in babies fed by induced lactation”)  would have led viewers to infer that the WHO guidance supported Dr James’s claim about “a transgender woman’s milk”.  In fact, the WHO guidance does not refer to trans women, and so accepted that the audience would have been left with a misleading impression of the evidence to support Dr James’s claim.

On the third point, generic pictures of babies feeding were shown as Ms Luxion referred to “the research which has been done specifically about trans women”.  The first complainant considered this potentially confusing to viewers because “a recent study showed that a third of people believe a ‘trans woman’ is someone whose birth sex is female”.  The ECU considered that, although the term may not be universally understood, the concept of gender identity and the terms trans woman and trans man are widely used in public discourse and by relevant authorities such as the NHS when referring to people with gender dysphoria.  The extent to which members of the audience would have been misled by the use of the term alongside images of babies being fed was, therefore, limited.

On the fourth point, Ms Luxion stated there was persuasive evidence to support the nutritional value of trans women’s milk and dismissed any health concerns about the potential presence of male hormones in milk produced by trans women.  In light of the limited evidence to support the view she expressed and her lack of any specialist knowledge about the nutritional value of human milk, it should have been made clear to audiences that more research is needed before such conclusions can be drawn with confidence.  The presenter did offer some challenge to the views expressed by Ms Luxion but the programme failed to give due weight to an appropriate range of views and perspectives on a controversial issue.

The ECU noted that the management of BBC News had already acknowledged to the complainant that some of the scripting of the item, such as the reference to the WHO, could have been clearer, and that it would have been better to interview another contributor alongside Ms Luxion to examine the issues raised by Dr James’s letter, and had made a posting to that effect on the significant complaints page of bbc.co.uk.   These actions allowed the ECU to conclude that the issues of complaint in relation to the second and fourth points to have been resolved.  The ECU upheld the first point of complaint in relation to accuracy, but found no breach of editorial standards in relation to the third point.

Source: The Context, BBC News Channel, 19 February 2024 | Contact the BBC

Alabama judge to weigh sanctioning LGBTQ lawyers for ‘judge shopping’ | Reuters

Eleven attorneys involved in LGBTQ rights litigation must appear before an Alabama federal judge beginning on Monday to determine if they should be punished for attempting to steer to other judges their challenge to the state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth.

The proceedings followed the unsealing in March of a report by a three-judge panel from each of Alabama’s district courts that said the 11 lawyers attempted to circumvent procedures designed to have cases randomly assigned a judge.
The report said they did so because they viewed Burke as a “bad draw” who likely would rule against them. He did not, though, and eventually enjoined the law’s enforcement, though the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later reinstated it.
Burke, in an order announcing the hearings, said the lawyers’ conduct implicated prohibitions against “attempts to manipulate or circumvent the random assignment of judges” and invoked the courts’ power to sanction lawyers for conduct that “abuses the judicial process.”

Most of the attorneys hail from civil rights and LGBTQ advocacy organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, while some worked at law firms working pro bono on the litigation.
Burke in a series of extraordinary earlier orders threatened some of the lawyers with jail if they did not turn over a document prepared during a probe of their conduct and found some may have committed fraud.
According to the judges’ report on April 8, 2022, plaintiffs represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, GLAD, and other groups sued in Alabama’s Northern District to challenge a ban on gender-affirming care that Republican Governor Kay Ivey signed into law that month.
A separate lawsuit was filed in Alabama’s Middle District on April 11 by lawyers at the ACLU and other groups. The ACLU sought to have its case assigned to U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson, an appointee of Democratic former President Jimmy Carter, by marking it as “related” to a closed 2018 case in which he had ruled in favor of transgender rights.
The case was instead assigned to another judge who, with the eventual consent of the parties, transferred it to the Northern District, where the first case had been assigned to U.S. District Judge Annemarie Axon.
Both cases were then transferred to Burke, causing surprise and “panic” among the plaintiffs’ lawyers, according to the report, by U.S. District Judges W. Keith Watkins, R. David Proctor and Jeffrey Beaverstock, all appointees of Republican presidents.
Both legal teams voluntarily dismissed their cases. NCLR, GLAD and their co-counsel then filed a new one in the Middle District with new plaintiffs to avoid the appearance of judge shopping and to avoid Burke, the report said.
The case was instead, at the direction of U.S. District Judge R. Austin Huffaker, reassigned to Burke.
The case is Boe v. Marshall, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, No. 22-cv-184.

Source: Alabama judge to weigh sanctioning LGBTQ lawyers for ‘judge shopping’ | Reuters

Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Tennessee Law Banning Transition Care for Minors | New York Times

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to consider a Tennessee law that bans certain medical treatments for transgender minors, the first time the justices will decide on the constitutionality of such statewide bans.

The move could have broad ramifications for about 25 states that have enacted similar measures. Republican-led state legislatures have pushed to curtail transgender rights in recent years, with laws that target gender-transition care and that regulate other parts of life, including which bathrooms students and others can use and which sports teams they can play on.

The case, United States v. Skrmetti, will be heard in the court’s next term, which typically begins on the first Monday in October, though no date has been set yet for oral argument. The justices had considered whether to hear two challenges to transition care, including the Tennessee appeal and one centered on a Kentucky law, at their private conference each week. But they had repeatedly postponed making a decision, suggesting there might have been debate over whether to do so.

The court’s decision to take up the case signals a willingness by at least some of the justices to delve into yet another polarizing social issue, even as they have yet to rule on some of the biggest cases for this term, involving emergency abortion care, disinformation on social media and the scope of presidential power.

Source: 12ft