Nice to finally hear some small positive news from here on terf island.
I agree with the statement but I’ve downvoted this as I can find no reference to it anywhere on the BMA website or any other official public communication.
What I did find was an article about it here, and when questioned for a reference the author responded with an ever unhelpful “I have been told it is on the members only part of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) website.”
OP, if you can provide proof of this I’ll gladly turn that downvote into an upvotes.
Edit: The Guardian has reported on it so it appears to be true, nice one!
That’s fair, as far as I know it’s a screenshot form the redient doctors conference.
I went digging for more information after your (very fair) comment, I didn’t find it in the agenda https://www.bma.org.uk/media/g2ofmswk/resident-doctors-conference-2025-motions-for-voting.pdf
But I have found an explanation for that and a somewhat dubious confirmation via this thread on Reddit, https://old.reddit.com/r/doctorsUK/comments/1k97tti/british_medical_association_conference_calls/mpc84s8/ wherin a doctor states that it was an emergency motion and they voted in favour. (Side node; a lot of people in that thread are unhappy about the BMA acting beyond the role of a trade union)
On the one hand it’s a random Reddit thread, on the other hand, a lot of people who are likely to have first had knowledge aren’t actively disputing the presence of success of the motion and there are anecdotal confirmations of both.
I will admit I probably jumped the gun here, I was just happy to finally see some trans positive sentiment from a UK institution.
Resident doctors working in the NHS also condemned the supreme court’s ruling on gender as having “no basis in science or medicine”. Medics at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) resident doctors conference in London passed a motion stating that “attempting to impose a rigid binary has no basis in science or medicine”. While the motion was passed at the conference it will not become BMA policy unless voted on at the union’s annual meeting later this year.
That’s more like a credible source, thank you!
I’m absolutely ignorant apparently. Why is it “terf island”
Government and many prominent Bourgeois are rabidly anti-trans; most basing their arguments on it being some kind of insult to biologically cis women. JK Rowling in particular has been absolutely unhinged and is just digging deeper on the daily.
Because there is a small war going on, backed mostly by Americans, because of the generally positive LGBTQ+ nature here.
Americans then like to call other people names as to try and deflect from how much worse it is at home for them.
An example for reference.
Wonder how much of this was scientific and how much of it was due to political agenda. On either side. Very confusing debate.
The problem is that, for many, their “political agenda” is to take a position that’s supported by scientifically backed research. If some research appeared tomorrow unequivocally and clearly invalidated the existence of trans people, the BMA and others like them would change their tune to match that research. However, there’s over a hundred years worth of clinical and scientific studies supporting the validity of trans people, including studies showing that
- Gender is a real thing that exists in the brain.
- Multiple means by which a person’s body may develop as one sex but the opposite gender.
- The brains of trans people match those of cis people who are the same gender identity (ie trans women’s and cis women’s brains work the same, ditto for trans men and cis men).
Meanwhile the research against trans people is just… Bad research. One of the most famous studies on whether trans kids persisted as trans conflated transgender with gender non-conforming people, meaning that cis gender people were labeled as trans because they didn’t fit the researchers’ assumptions about how a man or woman should look/behave. That same study assumed outcomes of subjects that they lost track of instead of omitting them from the study.
Another that coined the phrase “rapid onset dysphoria” had serious selection bias issues, only interviewing parents who were in support groups for folks who don’t want their kids to be trans. Additionally, the phrase given above was only mentioned in the conclusion of the study as one possible explanation for the observations made about trans kids, with the caveat that more research was needed to confirm/deny this explanation. Of course the right wing media leaves out that part.
My third favorite example wasn’t a research study at all, but basically an opinion piece published as research. In it the author insists that trans women are “gynophiliacs” who transition ONLY because they get turned on by vaginas. No evidence was given to support this assertion, just some twisted logic by the author going “well the other reasons don’t make sense to me.”
But no, it’s the people who are supportive of trans folks who keep getting accused of having a political agenda. My dude, it’s the opposite; they just care about the truth.
Curious to what your second and third paragraph is referring to. As for the fourth- is there a possibility of that? I see an obsession online with “egg culture” and people fetishizing femboys at time and flirting with themselves. Also the infamous Chris Chan case (although I would be among the first to call out that using Chris Chan as a model for all trans people is MASSIVELY disingenuous.)
I feel like it’s a topic that requires a lot of research. I find my opinion constantly shifting (although I think as well, opinions aren’t necessarily important anyway, we should be legislating on statistically what is best for woman’s safety and transgender people’s mental health. But we shouldn’t be enforcing that people must hold certain opinions either)
Starting to think that maybe people from all sides should drop their pitchforks, accept that opinions may differ and it’s okay to feel differently about the subject, but then actually write laws that benefit and keep everyone safe and mentally healthy based on statistics.
But we shouldn’t be enforcing that people must hold certain opinions either)
We have to draw a line when some people’s opinion is that some other people shouldn’t exist.
That is true if it’s what they’re actually stating, but some would do mental gymnastics to claim that “if you don’t 100% agree with me, you’re claiming some people shouldn’t exist”
Replying as an actual trans woman here. Claiming that both sides are equally valid or have equal issues is disingenuous. When one side is simply asking to be allowed to exist equally with everyone else and the other side is using the courts to take away the rights of the other that is not equal. When one side is advocating for what is already the middle ie. equal treatment and respect for all. You cannot equate them as equally problematic and you cannot compromise.
As an unrelated but clear example of this the half way point between equality for all and slavery is segregation / apartheid.
I’m sure you would agree that equating the want for equal freedom and the want to enslave others as equal is* problematic. This is a clear example of what I’m trying to convey here.
I just want to live my life, trans people like me just want to live our lives as who we are with equal respect for everyone. Sadly there are a lot of people in this world who would rather see me and others like me as erased, dead and gone. I’m sure you can understand that it can get very difficult to tolerate mistakes and confusion from others sometimes considering how much our very right to exist has come under constant and severe attack at a government and court level.
We are only human same as you same as everyone else. We’re not saints we don’t have infinite patience and it is extremely stressful to deal with on a daily basis.
So please do not equate our frustration and exhaustion as equally problematic to the hatred and wrath of those who want to erase our very existence.
There weren’t any rights necessarily taken away- just the invalidation of special privileges that were granted. The trans movement doesn’t often advocate for equal treatment, but special privileges or considerations.
The anti-apartheid wanted equal rights. They wanted equal employment and pay with white people. Trans people get the same rights to employment, pay, etc, as everybody else. What’s being advocated for is state-funded cosmetic surgery and in many cases, access to sports, bathrooms and in some cases, changing rooms.
I agree that claiming “trans people shouldn’t be allowed to work in law/health/teaching because they’re trans” isn’t acceptable at all. They should be afforded the same dignity and right to life as everybody else. I support and would advocate for your right to exist. But the special considerations should be able to be debated without comparing someone to a racist, like you just did. Which is why I feel disillusioned towards the movement.
It’s probably just a me thing- when it comes to politics, I like respect and civil discourse. I dislike the “us vs them” bs that’s being perpetuated.
I literally didn’t compare you to a racist. I explicitly said it was an unrelated example that I used to clearly explain my point. Also I said a couple times that I assumed your position on the matter used in that example was not that of a racist.
Please don’t misconstrue my words to support your argument against my right to be able to use changing rooms etc that match my gender. I’m going to be clear here I hope that you simply misunderstood what I wrote. That is what I am assuming.
I don’t think me wanting to use women’s change rooms / bathrooms counts a “special consideration” as you put it. I am a woman so I should be allowed to use them same as every other woman. That is equal treatment. That is what trans people want. I as a woman do not want to be forced into men’s spaces where I am placed at risk of harassment / assault.
If you are going to argue that I should not be given equal treatment after considering my words then I can only assume that you do not think of me as a woman. If and only if you continue to argue your same point. There would be no other way for it to be understood in that case. If you don’t argue that point further then please disregard this section.
If you want to protect women then you must include trans WOMEN as well as we are women. If you want to support my right to exist then please support my right to not be forced into men’s spaces where I, a woman, would be at risk of danger.
