The attempt failed, with the coroner recommending funding to reduce the public waiting times for trans care & training for GPs wishing to provide care.
It is utterly ghoulish for an anti-trans organisation to push their conspiracy theories in an inquest into suicides of trans people.
For this to appear in the judgement raises questions about process and transparency.
Should a late submission have been even considered by the Coroner? Did the coroner consider adding more witnesses after the hearings had concluded? Why did this submission end up in the report?
I think on balance it was okay to dedicate a few paragraphs in 500 pages of findings about the suicide cluster, specifically for the purposes of counteracting the idea that the coronial inquest somehow failed to include a "valid" viewpoint.
At no point did the coroner suggest Genspect's viewpoint was valid, it just raised that there was a submission that sought to attempt to undermine the validity of trans care, and that the coroner did not deem it relevant as "the Inquest did not identify any issues with the approach of RCH Gender Service or the gender-affirming care given to young TGD people".
It’s like a “Penny Bequest”; if they were left out entirely, they could argue that they were overlooked or forgotten. By including them and giving them essentially nothing, it’s clear that their input was noted, and dismissed intentionally.
It is utterly ghoulish for an anti-trans organisation to push their conspiracy theories in an inquest into suicides of trans people.
For this to appear in the judgement raises questions about process and transparency.
Should a late submission have been even considered by the Coroner? Did the coroner consider adding more witnesses after the hearings had concluded? Why did this submission end up in the report?
I think on balance it was okay to dedicate a few paragraphs in 500 pages of findings about the suicide cluster, specifically for the purposes of counteracting the idea that the coronial inquest somehow failed to include a "valid" viewpoint.
At no point did the coroner suggest Genspect's viewpoint was valid, it just raised that there was a submission that sought to attempt to undermine the validity of trans care, and that the coroner did not deem it relevant as "the Inquest did not identify any issues with the approach of RCH Gender Service or the gender-affirming care given to young TGD people".
It’s like a “Penny Bequest”; if they were left out entirely, they could argue that they were overlooked or forgotten. By including them and giving them essentially nothing, it’s clear that their input was noted, and dismissed intentionally.