I can’t help feeling that it would be incredibly ironic if Victoria Atkins’ outrageous step of outlawing the prescription and possession of a narrow range of GnRH agonists (so-called ‘puberty blockers’) led to desperate families either obtaining old-style anti-androgens with actual documented risks or — shock — going straight to the cross-sex hormones which blockers were supposed to buy time from. Literally ‘unintended consequences on steroids’. Welcome to prohibition.

Verity Allan reshared this.

in reply to Lisa DiFalco

@LisaDiFalco1 This is a government that took the exceptional step of freezing a democratically made decision by the Scottish Government to stop the Gender Recognition (Reform) Act from receiving Royal Assent so I think you can safely conclude no trashing of norms is off the table where trans people are concerned.
Unknown parent

mastodon - Link to source

Isabel Ruffell

@grayface_ghost @LisaDiFalco1

Yes, S35 relates to legislation originating in Holyrood, on grounds of supposed encroachment on reserved matters.

But on devolved matters, my understanding is that it has to go through Holyrood, and can't be arbitrarily overridden by UK Govt.

It wouldn't surprise me if they were trying to provoke the SNP, or just seeing how much they can push the envelope in undermining devolution. Or just don't care.

in reply to Christine Burns MBE 🏳️‍⚧️📚⧖

I suspect they won’t mind that. Then they can move onto saying that *any* form of hormonal treatment for u-18s (and then u-25s) is “dangerous” (and that even social transition is dangerous because it “sets children on the path” to hormonal treatment). Iow this is an eliminationist policy – as literally this dying government’s final act