User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Michelle Styles's avatar

When is swastika not a swastika? When it is a fylfot (hint the arms point in the opposite direction in Buddhism). Their use predates Nazism by several centuries. You can find them in Anglo Saxon churches as well as in Buddhist temples. At Balmoral (the Queen's residence in Scotland) the WW1 memorial has them on and a big explanation about what they are.

My grandfather (in the journal he wasn't supposed to be keeping during the North Atlantic convoy Autumn 1941) wrote about looking up how to make the Nazi symbol for the flagged position of known German subs ad didn't want to do the fylfot by mistake. He was trying to make his men aware of the danger (this was before the Reuben James went down) and wanted to get the symbol right.

It is very sad that Nazism appropriated this symbol and people are ignorant of what the fylfot used symbolise. All that was needed was a sign explaining its meaning.

A great round up as usual Nellie

This morning had the interesting news that women can have a gene which causes Alzheimer's. It could explain why 2/3 more women get the condition than men. It is another blow for bikini medicine. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/30/health/female-alzheimer-gene-discovered-wellness-scn/index.html

The Scottish civil service was treated to a trans 101 course where GC feminists were called FARTS. One would have thought someone would have had more sense to cut the schoolboy humour.

'Women who question transgender ideology have been branded ‘farts’ as part of equalities training offered to civil servants in Nicola Sturgeon’s Government, it has emerged.

Workers who attended a workplace “trans 101” course were told the term was an acronym for “feminism appropriating ridiculous transphobe” and that women who oppose inclusivity measures were part of a “trans hate group”.

Staff who attended the training session, run by the Scottish Government’s taxpayer-funded LGBTI+ internal staff network, were also urged to study claims that biological sex is a “falsehood” invented by the medical profession to “reinforce white supremacy and gender oppression”.'

Smmetimes you couldn't make it up.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/30/farts-how-women-who-question-transgender-ideology-described/

And someone at Warner Brothers finally decided to champion JK Rowling. "'She is one of the world's most accomplished storytellers, and we are proud to be the studio to bring her vision, characters, and stories to life now – and for decades to come." I suspect WB were reminded that she still owns the Intellectual Property Rights to Harry Potter.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10966471/Warner-Bros-defended-JK-Rowling-Sky-News-reporter-blocked-Tom-Felton-interview.html

Expand full comment
Gordon Freeman's avatar

I think that on a per-capita basis, there is no Woke cohort that is as flat-out moronic as those infecting Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon is as dumb as a rock, and her many admirers dumber still.

There's just something about willful stupidity that I find intolerable--sucks to be me, I guess...

Expand full comment
Kara Stanhope's avatar

You should write your own newsletter!

Expand full comment
jt's avatar

TYTY as always, Ma'am.

Expand full comment
Alison Bull's avatar

The new CEO Zaslav announced a while back that he was planning something with JK Rowling.

Thank you again for your roundup! I look forward to it along with TGIF.

Expand full comment
Michelle Styles's avatar

You are very welcome.

And I forgot -- the Halifax Bank in the UK decided to go aggressive woke this week with employee pronoun badges (supposedly optional) and told customers that if they did not like it, they could leave. They have in droves. I should imagine the higher ups are not too pleased about the exodus and what it is going to do to the Lloyd's Banking Group share price. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10971383/Halifax-exodus-banks-woke-badges-amid-outcry-decision-urging-staff-share-pronouns.html

Expand full comment
jt's avatar

You are the eighth wonder. TY again. :-)

Expand full comment
Unwoke in Idaho's avatar

I’ve decided that my pronouns shall be Your Royal Highness/My Liege.

Expand full comment
Michael Kelly's avatar

Why not Chief Justice?

Expand full comment
Unwoke in Idaho's avatar

Because being queen would be so much better. I’d have no need of courts.

Expand full comment
Alison Bull's avatar

I tried to follow the Allison Bailey trial on Twitter but for the sake of my sanity I’m staying off Twitter probably indefinitely. How did that wrap up?

Expand full comment
Michelle Styles's avatar

Unknown at present. Judgement is reserved. The closing submissions were on the 20th. It can take a few weeks for the judge and the panel to go through the evidence. The big thing is that Garden Court Chambers' reputation is shredded as is Stonewall's. GCC was a bit up itself and a real right on luvvey chambers so as the Bar is prone to a good gossip, people in the profession are finding it amusing as well as horrifying about how badly it was run.

Helen Webberley, the GP behind Gender GP was suspended for 2 months as she was deemed unfit to practice. Her husband was of course struck off.

Oh and the Secretary of State for Health -- Javid has changed the law so that the people behind the Cass Review can access the records of Tavistock. 9000 people and they don't appear to have done much follow up (if at all). Because the children who transitioned were given a new NHS number and their old records sealed under Data Protection there has been problem accessing. It should give robust evidence about puberty blockers etc when they report. This may take awhile.

Expand full comment
Alison Bull's avatar

Conveniently changed patient numbers. Wonder what’s really in those files? Thank you!

Expand full comment
Michelle Styles's avatar

And this is what the Cass Review just put up: https://cass.independent-review.uk/research/

It explains what it is trying to do and why. (I figured you might be interested)

What data will be looked at?

Data from clinical records at the GIDS service will be used, which will contain information on:

When a child or young person was referred to GIDS

Who referred them – school, GP

Co-occurring conditions e.g. autism

Mental health conditions

Number of appointments

Treatment information

Discharge information – GP, Adult GIC

These will be linked to data held by NHS Digital which contains hospital admission, Accident and Emergency attendance, mental health service use and prescribing data.

For those who are now young adults, information from adult NHS Gender Dysphoria Clinics will be used to find out about medical treatment and surgical procedures.

What will the research tell us?

The objectives of the research are to:

describe the clinical and demographic characteristics of this population of children and young people and their clinical management in the GIDS service; and

assess the intermediate and longer-term outcomes of this population of children and young people utilising national healthcare data.

In building the evidence base the aim is that some of the uncertainty around the likely outcomes of different options/care pathways will be removed – for clinicians, those children and young people using gender identity services, and their parents/carers. However, to achieve the best information and evidence possible to inform decision making, the research will need to capture the pathways and outcomes for all children and young people. If the required data linkage cannot be achieved, there is the risk that the research will miss some successful and unsuccessful outcomes experienced by this population, rendering the sample biased and skewed.

What happens next?

To support this research, the Department of Health and Social Care laid The Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) (England) Order 2022 in Parliament on 30 June 2022. This instrument will make a minor change under the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004 to facilitate the progression of the Review’s research programme, enabling the researchers to have carefully controlled access to pseudonymised data (i.e. they will not be able to identify anyone from the data they receive) for a time limited period, and solely for the purposes of the Review’s research.

The Review’s research team is undertaking service user engagement and involvement to explain the research process.

Ultimately, this research will aid the creation of a world leading evidence base and will enable the Review to make clear recommendations to the NHS on how to better plan the provision of services.

Expand full comment
Alison Bull's avatar

I am very interested in reading that, thank you. From what I’m reading here it from deteansitioners and parents it seems as if previous mental illness such as depression, anxiety, eating disorders and autism are not taken into proper consideration prior to treatment and I’m wondering if it’s the same in the U.K.

Expand full comment
Michelle Styles's avatar

Yes! That is what Cass found in her interim report -- there was a rush to affirm without looking at the child holistically. If you read the Interim report, the Dutch protocol would have eliminated all those people from transitioning. Under the Dutch protocol, only children with sound mental health were supposed to be candidates. It was quite shocking to read the difference in the UK to the Dutch approach and then to read some of the US detransitioners and realise that the safeguards were none existent for some. It is why Javid has changed the law because he is worried about another Rotherham situation (Rotherham was where they turned a blind eye to Pakistani grooming gangs because they were worried about being called racists -- only really uncovered thanks to several Times of London reporters). Javid was Home Secretary under May and so knows the dangers.

Several of the papers I have recently read have stated that the best outcomes are when the family are actively involved in the treatment. Peer group affirmation does appear to play a part.

Expand full comment
jt's avatar

I've always wondered if there was an implicit bias for patients to say they are much better off with the blockers/hormones/surgeries. I mean, how many would have any incentive to say "I was stupid and never should-a gone through with it." A few mebbe, but...

TYTY yet once again, Ma'am.

Expand full comment
ALToronto's avatar

Of course! Nobody likes to admit that they've been swindled. Plus there is tremendous peer pressure to stay the course. Transitioners are more susceptible to suggestion than the rest of us.

Expand full comment
jt's avatar

Yeah, they are.

Expand full comment
Michelle Styles's avatar

It becomes a definite bias if they don't follow up those who stop/drop out/change their minds which is what appears to have happened in the UK.

You do seem to be seeing more of the detransistioners, but also there was a rush to affirm and this can several years to work its way through. It used to be close to 0 wanted to detransistion but you also had really strict protocol about who could take the drugs etc, and 85 -90% desisted on their own. Loosening the protocols appears to have increased the number who regret their decisions and that decision does potentially have so many consequences that you need to make sure the safeguards are there in the way they used to be.

Expand full comment
jt's avatar

UK is lightyears ahead-a US.

Expand full comment