What advice did Gendered Intelligence receive from the Charity Commission, when they said they were under "no obligation to reference additional material" that suggests that the thousands of girls being referred to clinics did not have the "gender identity" of the opposite sex? (p. 85, https://transpolicy.substack.com/p/charity-commission-complaint-regarding-bba)
This was within the social context of what the RCGP called an “urgent need” to increase understanding of matters related to cross-sex identification:
There is an urgent need to increase the capacity of gender identity specialists and clinics and expand the understanding of gender variance issues across the entire health system, including more definitive knowledge about the causes of rapidly increasing referrals and the outcomes of interventions or 'wait and see' policies. The gaps in education, guidance and training for GPs around treating gender dysphoria for both adults and children, and managing broader trans health issues, also needs to be urgently addressed (https://web.archive.org/web/20220802121754/https://www.rcgp.org.uk/policy/rcgp-policy-areas/transgender-care)
Why were Gendered Intelligence telling children to not worry if they didn’t feel “trans enough”? (p. 26, https://transpolicy.substack.com/p/charity-commission-complaint-regarding-bba)
Why did Gendered Intelligence provide a “Guide for young trans people” that said puberty blockers “allow time for exploration of gender identity”?
There are two types of hormone treatments: puberty delaying treatment (PDTs) or ‘blockers’, and hormone replacement therapy (HRT). PDTs are used to delay the onset of the changes associated with puberty to allow time for exploration of gender identity, and are also used in adults to suppress existing hormones.
Why did Gendered Intelligence, when challenged, delete this content? https://transpolicy.substack.com/p/gendered-intelligence-emails
Regarding puberty blockers, the Cass Review found “The rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health. The effect on cognitive and psychosexual development remains unknown.” (https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/)
Is it not accurate to say that Gendered Intelligence refused to engage with “Research presenting hypotheses that challenge[d] their definitions” (https://www.healthsense-uk.org/publications/newsletter/newsletter-127/420-127-orlando.html), encouraged children to identify as “trans”, and then advocated for them to receive medical treatments that were unsupported by evidence?
Why did the Charity Commission find that the issues I raised were "unsettled …subject to debate, interpretation and disagreement" (p. 187, https://transpolicy.substack.com/p/charity-commission-complaint-regarding-bba) yet nonetheless continued to allow charities target contested theories that reflected none of this debate, and to children?
Why did the Department for Education later issue advice that said that “gender identity” should not be being taught to children as a “contested theory”? (https://consult.education.gov.uk/rshe-team/review-of-the-rshe-statutory-guidance/supporting_documents/Draft%20RSE%20and%20Health%20Education%20statutory%20guidance.pdf) Doesn’t this show that the Charity Commission should have taken action earlier?
Did not the Charity Commission find it alarming, that it could not oversee what charities were teaching children about this issue, as it "lack[ed] the expertise and knowledge of complicated psychological and medical issues connected to gender identities [sic]"? (p. 187, https://transpolicy.substack.com/p/charity-commission-complaint-regarding-bba)
Why did the Charity Commission see no danger in presenting gender dysphoria as all one thing, when I raised this issue (https://transpolicy.substack.com/p/charity-commission-complaint-regarding-bba appeal), when the world experts on this topic say to do so is malpractice? (https://4thwavenow.com/2017/12/07/gender-dysphoria-is-not-one-thing/)
Why did the Charity Commission not see any contradiction between finding research matters "unsettled", yet saw no problem in the Conversation Trust (p. 12 https://transpolicy.substack.com/p/charity-commission-complaint-regarding) publishing an article that said the same research was "put to rest" and "discredited"? Why did it not find that by publishing partisan content, The Conversation Trust was not fulfilling its charitable objects?
Charity Commission complaint numbers
CRM:0467599 May 2022, CRM:0352077 January 2023, CRM:0049558 April 2024, CRM:0629067 April 2024, CRM:0629060 April 2024, CRM:0049118 April 2024, CRM:0049558 April 2024, CRM:0049643 May 2024, CRM:0049536 May 2024