Skip to main content

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.

reshared this

in reply to Christine Burns MBE 🏳️‍⚧️📚⧖

Lisa DiFalco
Lisa DiFalco
• •
Health is a devolved matter to the Scottish Government but I don’t know if the Westminster Minister’s powers have a special exemption for emergency orders or whether the Scottish Government would have to issue an order themselves.
in reply to Lisa DiFalco

Christine Burns MBE 🏳️‍⚧️📚⧖
Christine Burns MBE 🏳️‍⚧️📚⧖
• •
@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.
@Lisa DiFalco
in reply to Christine Burns MBE 🏳️‍⚧️📚⧖

Axel Foley
Axel Foley
• •
I will rejoice when Atkins gets her P45, another useless, incompetent waste of skin.
in reply to Axel Foley

Steve Woods
Steve Woods
• •
Another Oxbridge graduate (law, Corpus Christi, Cambridge).
This entry was edited (5 months ago)

Axel Foley reshared this.

in reply to Steve Woods

Axel Foley
Axel Foley
• •
@wood5y She's utterly useless and her brain to speech centre delay is about five minutes, she always looks stoned.
@Steve Woods
Unknown parent

Christine Burns MBE 🏳️‍⚧️📚⧖
Christine Burns MBE 🏳️‍⚧️📚⧖
• •
@iaruffell @grayface_ghost @LisaDiFalco1 That would be difficult. The Scotland Act certainly gives Westminster the power to stop legislation enacted by Holyrood but, in this case, the issue would be that the Scottish Government had OMITTED to make a regulation. I’m not sure that’s covered.
@Lisa DiFalco @Isabel Ruffell @Ghost of Hope
in reply to Lisa DiFalco

Isabel Ruffell
Isabel Ruffell
• •
@LisaDiFalco1 @grayface_ghost
I would not bet on it: they have form on ignoring lawyers' advice in this area. I suspect a challenge could be made in terms of the Scotland Act, but IANAL and the current SNP govt won't.
@Lisa DiFalco @Ghost of Hope
This entry was edited (5 months ago)
in reply to Christine Burns MBE 🏳️‍⚧️📚⧖

Isabel Ruffell
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.

@Lisa DiFalco @Ghost of Hope
in reply to Christine Burns MBE 🏳️‍⚧️📚⧖

Isabel Ruffell
Isabel Ruffell
• •

@LisaDiFalco1 @grayface_ghost

My NHS informant suggests to me that pharmaceuticals nay be reserved, while healthcare is devolved, and they may be using that to justify it.

But what you say is true.

But if Streeting undoes this, I'll eat my bra.

@Lisa DiFalco @Ghost of Hope
in reply to Christine Burns MBE 🏳️‍⚧️📚⧖

Jae
Jae
• •
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
in reply to Jae

Christine Burns MBE 🏳️‍⚧️📚⧖
Christine Burns MBE 🏳️‍⚧️📚⧖
• •
@considermycat There is that danger, yes. However the list starts getting embarrassingly long and harder to pass off as clinically justified.
@Jae
⇧