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.
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.
I’m absolutely ignorant apparently. Why is it “terf island”
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.
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.
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”
