In 1 sense, this highlights the difference between being in Opposition and being in Govt. Because it is a lot easier just spouting the nice stuff as opposed to trying to balance the books. True for every Party.
The other bit is this. Any Pensioner that genuinely cannot afford to heat their home in Winter should be on benefits. The sort of benefits that would mean they got substantial help with their heating costs.
As opposed to the people who do not feel they should have to pay the same as everyone else. And believe that people who are still working should subsidise them-purely because of age. Not need.
Just a note of realism. To add to the Mail's faux hysteria.
Gender "identity" is rather simpler than the Mail would have you believe.
My youngest was born a Woman. In many senses, is still a woman. But her title is that of Mr, and she has a male Tax Code. All agreed via a Solicitor, before she was 18. Without my knowledge or consent.
Let's (please) leave to 1 side whether that should be the case. And concentrate on the important medical fact-it is the case.
It is not as simple as getting "gender" information. Doctors look at a Male title. And a male tax code. And make assumptions based on that. Not how people "identify"-from the official records presented to them. How that information is presented to Doctors so they can make the best Medical decisions is a complex issue.
Just a note of realism. To add to the Mail's faux hysteria.
Gender "identity" is rather simpler than the Mail would have you believe.
My youngest was born a Woman. In many senses, is still a woman. But her title is that of Mr, and she has a male Tax Code. All agreed via a Solicitor, before she was 18. Without my knowledge or consent.
Let's (please) leave to 1 side whether that should be the case. And concentrate on the important medical fact-it is the case.
It is not as simple as getting "gender" information. Doctors look at a Male title. And a male tax code. And make assumptions based on that. Not how people "identify"-from the official records presented to them. How that information is presented to Doctors so they can make the best Medical decisions is a complex issue.
However much the Mail wants to pretend otherwise.
It is apparently causing havoc with data collection, and putting people at risk over health issues.
It is only causing "havoc" in the tiny minds of anti-Trans protestors.
Who want to put everyone in just the 1 box. When life is not like that.
Someone who is merely identifying as a different gender has 1 set of medical criteria. Someone who is undergoing various chemical treatments either to change gender or (for example) to reduce breast size is another. And people who have undergone full surgery to remove sexual organs and replace them with something different are another again.
Doctors really can cope with that sort of change. As a simple example, they manage to cope with the far larger numbers of people who due to Cancer have had mastectomies or prostate removal.
Guess what? I don't think those people are a "problem" for data collection either.
It is only causing "havoc" in the tiny minds of anti-Trans protestors.
Who want to put everyone in just the 1 box. When life is not like that.
Someone who is merely identifying as a different gender has 1 set of medical criteria. Someone who is undergoing various chemical treatments either to change gender or (for example) to reduce breast size is another. And people who have undergone full surgery to remove sexual organs and replace them with something different are another again.
Doctors really can cope with that sort of change. As a simple example, they manage to cope with the far larger numbers of people who due to Cancer have had mastectomies or prostate removal.
Guess what? I don't think those people are a "problem" for data collection either.
They were quoting a couple of examples on the news this morning. One was that crimes committed by trans women are being recorded as crimes committed by women, and they are arguing that this skews the stats. More importantly trans men are not being notified of medical tests that they should undergo that are required by women.
It is only causing "havoc" in the tiny minds of anti-Trans protestors.
Who want to put everyone in just the 1 box. When life is not like that.
Someone who is merely identifying as a different gender has 1 set of medical criteria. Someone who is undergoing various chemical treatments either to change gender or (for example) to reduce breast size is another. And people who have undergone full surgery to remove sexual organs and replace them with something different are another again.
Doctors really can cope with that sort of change. As a simple example, they manage to cope with the far larger numbers of people who due to Cancer have had mastectomies or prostate removal.
Guess what? I don't think those people are a "problem" for data collection either.
They were quoting a couple of examples on the news this morning. One was that crimes committed by trans women are being recorded as crimes committed by women, and they are arguing that this skews the stats. More importantly trans men are not being notified of medical tests that they should undergo that are required by women.
Those 2 news stories have 1 thing in common.
Professor Sullivan (whose expertise is in sociology, rather than medicine) is a leading anti-Trans activist.
The answer to these supposed "problems" is to provide more complete medical information. As all GP Practices already do.
Simply because someone's gender and their sex are both important. Quite how important will depend on a whole range of factors, as I mentioned in my last post.
It is only causing "havoc" in the tiny minds of anti-Trans protestors.
Who want to put everyone in just the 1 box. When life is not like that.
Someone who is merely identifying as a different gender has 1 set of medical criteria. Someone who is undergoing various chemical treatments either to change gender or (for example) to reduce breast size is another. And people who have undergone full surgery to remove sexual organs and replace them with something different are another again.
Doctors really can cope with that sort of change. As a simple example, they manage to cope with the far larger numbers of people who due to Cancer have had mastectomies or prostate removal.
Guess what? I don't think those people are a "problem" for data collection either.
They were quoting a couple of examples on the news this morning. One was that crimes committed by trans women are being recorded as crimes committed by women, and they are arguing that this skews the stats. More importantly trans men are not being notified of medical tests that they should undergo that are required by women.
Those 2 news stories have 1 thing in common.
Professor Sullivan (whose expertise is in sociology, rather than medicine) is a leading anti-Trans activist.
The answer to these supposed "problems" is to provide more complete medical information. As all GP Practices already do.
Simply because someone's gender and their sex are both important. Quite how important will depend on a whole range of factors, as I mentioned in my last post.
Prof Sullivan is a leading light in an organisation called Sex Matters. Let's just say they divide opinion. In a manner pretty much the same as other similar groups.
I'm no Doctor. Any more than Prof Sullivan. But she believes that the root cause of what she perceives as "problems" is to prevent anyone being able to change gender in their medical records.
Let's give 2 simple examples. Person A. Someone born a Woman. Who is still biologically a Woman. But has a Male pronoun. And identifies as a Man
Person B. Born a Woman. Has had a total sex change, including hysterectomy and associated changes.
Suppose both A & B are presenting with symptoms that could warrant investigation as to possible Pregnancy.
Which piece of information do you think a Doctor wants first? Is it
1. This person's birth sex? Or 2. Whether they have a body (regardless of gender) that could be Pregnant?
There are genuinely people out there who believe it is 1.
Try asking them whether they would think it relevant to ascertain whether a Woman has has a hysterectomy before investigating pregnancy...
Prof Sullivan is a leading light in an organisation called Sex Matters. Let's just say they divide opinion. In a manner pretty much the same as other similar groups.
I'm no Doctor. Any more than Prof Sullivan. But she believes that the root cause of what she perceives as "problems" is to prevent anyone being able to change gender in their medical records.
Let's give 2 simple examples. Person A. Someone born a Woman. Who is still biologically a Woman. But has a Male pronoun. And identifies as a Man
Person B. Born a Woman. Has had a total sex change, including hysterectomy and associated changes.
Suppose both A & B are presenting with symptoms that could warrant investigation as to possible Pregnancy.
Which piece of information do you think a Doctor wants first? Is it
1. This person's birth sex? Or 2. Whether they have a body (regardless of gender) that could be Pregnant?
There are genuinely people out there who believe it is 1.
Try asking them whether they would think it relevant to ascertain whether a Woman has has a hysterectomy before investigating pregnancy...
I would have thought that someones medical history would be just that, a ronseal. Exactly what it says.............
Prof Sullivan is a leading light in an organisation called Sex Matters. Let's just say they divide opinion. In a manner pretty much the same as other similar groups.
I'm no Doctor. Any more than Prof Sullivan. But she believes that the root cause of what she perceives as "problems" is to prevent anyone being able to change gender in their medical records.
Let's give 2 simple examples. Person A. Someone born a Woman. Who is still biologically a Woman. But has a Male pronoun. And identifies as a Man
Person B. Born a Woman. Has had a total sex change, including hysterectomy and associated changes.
Suppose both A & B are presenting with symptoms that could warrant investigation as to possible Pregnancy.
Which piece of information do you think a Doctor wants first? Is it
1. This person's birth sex? Or 2. Whether they have a body (regardless of gender) that could be Pregnant?
There are genuinely people out there who believe it is 1.
Try asking them whether they would think it relevant to ascertain whether a Woman has has a hysterectomy before investigating pregnancy...
I would have thought that someones medical history would be just that, a ronseal. Exactly what it says.............
Exactly this.
The irony is that there will be some Doctors who make incorrect assumptions based on visual info alone.
The reason I find that ironic is this. The majority of anti-Trans activists are "radical feminists". And quite a lot of them look a lot like men.
Which is their right. In exactly the same way as some Trans people. And yet still don't have the ability to look in the mirror and realise that many of their comments apply in exactly the same way to themselves.
It's not the label on the tin that matters. It is the content of the tin.
Prof Sullivan is a leading light in an organisation called Sex Matters. Let's just say they divide opinion. In a manner pretty much the same as other similar groups.
I'm no Doctor. Any more than Prof Sullivan. But she believes that the root cause of what she perceives as "problems" is to prevent anyone being able to change gender in their medical records.
Let's give 2 simple examples. Person A. Someone born a Woman. Who is still biologically a Woman. But has a Male pronoun. And identifies as a Man
Person B. Born a Woman. Has had a total sex change, including hysterectomy and associated changes.
Suppose both A & B are presenting with symptoms that could warrant investigation as to possible Pregnancy.
Which piece of information do you think a Doctor wants first? Is it
1. This person's birth sex? Or 2. Whether they have a body (regardless of gender) that could be Pregnant?
There are genuinely people out there who believe it is 1.
Try asking them whether they would think it relevant to ascertain whether a Woman has has a hysterectomy before investigating pregnancy...
I would have thought that someones medical history would be just that, a ronseal. Exactly what it says.............
Exactly this.
The irony is that there will be some Doctors who make incorrect assumptions based on visual info alone.
The reason I find that ironic is this. The majority of anti-Trans activists are "radical feminists". And quite a lot of them look a lot like men.
Which is their right. In exactly the same way as some Trans people. And yet still don't have the ability to look in the mirror and realise that many of their comments apply in exactly the same way to themselves.
It's not the label on the tin that matters. It is the content of the tin.
I had to get a copy of my medical history the other day. For my whole life, it spanned three and a half A4 pages.
Comments
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/keir-starmer-in-trouble-as-labour-mps-plotting-sizeable-rebellion-against-pm/ar-AA1AZvcv?ocid=msedgntp&pc=W230&cvid=def6eb7c941e476d8fbb7806305927ba&ei=78#fullscreen
The other bit is this. Any Pensioner that genuinely cannot afford to heat their home in Winter should be on benefits. The sort of benefits that would mean they got substantial help with their heating costs.
As opposed to the people who do not feel they should have to pay the same as everyone else. And believe that people who are still working should subsidise them-purely because of age. Not need.
Gender "identity" is rather simpler than the Mail would have you believe.
My youngest was born a Woman. In many senses, is still a woman. But her title is that of Mr, and she has a male Tax Code. All agreed via a Solicitor, before she was 18. Without my knowledge or consent.
Let's (please) leave to 1 side whether that should be the case. And concentrate on the important medical fact-it is the case.
It is not as simple as getting "gender" information. Doctors look at a Male title. And a male tax code. And make assumptions based on that. Not how people "identify"-from the official records presented to them. How that information is presented to Doctors so they can make the best Medical decisions is a complex issue.
However much the Mail wants to pretend otherwise.
Who want to put everyone in just the 1 box. When life is not like that.
Someone who is merely identifying as a different gender has 1 set of medical criteria.
Someone who is undergoing various chemical treatments either to change gender or (for example) to reduce breast size is another.
And people who have undergone full surgery to remove sexual organs and replace them with something different are another again.
Doctors really can cope with that sort of change. As a simple example, they manage to cope with the far larger numbers of people who due to Cancer have had mastectomies or prostate removal.
Guess what? I don't think those people are a "problem" for data collection either.
One was that crimes committed by trans women are being recorded as crimes committed by women, and they are arguing that this skews the stats.
More importantly trans men are not being notified of medical tests that they should undergo that are required by women.
Professor Sullivan (whose expertise is in sociology, rather than medicine) is a leading anti-Trans activist.
The answer to these supposed "problems" is to provide more complete medical information. As all GP Practices already do.
Simply because someone's gender and their sex are both important. Quite how important will depend on a whole range of factors, as I mentioned in my last post.
I'm no Doctor. Any more than Prof Sullivan. But she believes that the root cause of what she perceives as "problems" is to prevent anyone being able to change gender in their medical records.
Let's give 2 simple examples. Person A. Someone born a Woman. Who is still biologically a Woman. But has a Male pronoun. And identifies as a Man
Person B. Born a Woman. Has had a total sex change, including hysterectomy and associated changes.
Suppose both A & B are presenting with symptoms that could warrant investigation as to possible Pregnancy.
Which piece of information do you think a Doctor wants first? Is it
1. This person's birth sex? Or
2. Whether they have a body (regardless of gender) that could be Pregnant?
There are genuinely people out there who believe it is 1.
Try asking them whether they would think it relevant to ascertain whether a Woman has has a hysterectomy before investigating pregnancy...
Exactly what it says.............
The irony is that there will be some Doctors who make incorrect assumptions based on visual info alone.
The reason I find that ironic is this. The majority of anti-Trans activists are "radical feminists". And quite a lot of them look a lot like men.
Which is their right. In exactly the same way as some Trans people. And yet still don't have the ability to look in the mirror and realise that many of their comments apply in exactly the same way to themselves.
It's not the label on the tin that matters. It is the content of the tin.
For my whole life, it spanned three and a half A4 pages.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/fresh-blow-for-keir-starmer-as-another-channel-migrant-record-is-broken/ar-AA1Bo0vD?ocid=msedgntp&pc=W230&cvid=e1ff9d31eb7d4cf38e28d195a473c312&ei=74#fullscreen