Read on Twitter
So 30 hours after its original tweet the Royal College of Obs and Gyn publish a statement 
But they only tweet it as a reply, so not many people have seen it
I wonder which came first - was this policymaking by twitter? https://twitter.com/RCObsGyn/status/1354469972299427841
But they only tweet it as a reply, so not many people have seen it
I wonder which came first - was this policymaking by twitter? https://twitter.com/RCObsGyn/status/1354469972299427841
This was the original tweet
But it is not what they say in their policy position.
The policy position just says the court of appeal should consider Gillick.
We can all agree with that.
The High Court considered Gillick. That is what the judgment was based on.
The policy position just says the court of appeal should consider Gillick.
We can all agree with that.
The High Court considered Gillick. That is what the judgment was based on.
Oddly the position statement doesn't mention Stonewall or the Goodlaw Project - the two organisations that were specifically tagged in the tweet.
@RCObsGyn seems to have rowed back from saying it supports this intervention @_KateLancaster @morris_ep ?
Can you clarify?
Was the original tweet sent in error?
Does the RCOG specifically support this intervention?
Or just the principle of Gillick competence?
Can you clarify?
Was the original tweet sent in error?
Does the RCOG specifically support this intervention?
Or just the principle of Gillick competence?
The position paper mentions 'numerous cases' ...but the RCOG does not put out other position papers on individual cases, or talk about them specifically here.
https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/news/campaigns-and-opinions/
https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/news/campaigns-and-opinions/
RCOG don't put out a lot of position papers, but when they do they are referenced.
This one doesn't link to any legal analysis of the case.
This one doesn't link to any legal analysis of the case.
The position paper is coy about what it is it is taking a position on
The name of the case: Bell v Tavistock
The prescription of puberty blocking drugs to children
Stonewall and Goodlaw project
All missing
(its like reverse SEO: don't mention the keywords!)
The name of the case: Bell v Tavistock
The prescription of puberty blocking drugs to children
Stonewall and Goodlaw project
All missing
(its like reverse SEO: don't mention the keywords!)
What is going on here?
Could it be anything to do with Stonewall Trans Advisory Group member coopted onto the RCOG Women's Network as a Lay Member?
https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/about-us/governance/committees/rcog-womens-network/
Could it be anything to do with Stonewall Trans Advisory Group member coopted onto the RCOG Women's Network as a Lay Member?
https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/about-us/governance/committees/rcog-womens-network/
Lay members are people who have personal experience of obstetric and/or gynaecological services.
Of course this could include a transman or a female person who identifies as non-binary
Of course this could include a transman or a female person who identifies as non-binary
What possible reason is there to co-opt a male person to take up one of the spaces for women to talk to powerful decision makers their experience and needs related to pregnancy and birth?
What on earth made @RCObsGyn think this was appropriate?
What on earth made @RCObsGyn think this was appropriate?
Women's Network https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/about-us/governance/committees/rcog-womens-network/
Stonewall Trans Advisory Group https://www.stonewall.org.uk/trans-advisory-group
Stonewall Trans Advisory Group https://www.stonewall.org.uk/trans-advisory-group
