The British Fertility Society wants the NHS to provide egg storage for women transitioning to men. It says that although the number of people choosing to change sex has rocketed in the last decade, many Clinical Commissioning Groups do not fund fertility preservation for them, even though NHS-provided hormone therapy and surgery prevents them having children. (Telegraph, January 4, 2017).

Most people would presume that women who think they are men would not wish to become mothers. Now we have the NHS making healthy women infertile, and then being pressed on equality grounds to help them become ‘male mothers’.

A record 202 sex change operations were carried out last year, costing taxpayers £9million, but the eventual lifelong costs are mind-bogglingly unsustainable, because although science says you cannot change a woman into a man or vice versa, ‘trans treatment’ is open to every man and woman.

Frail elderly patients are being sent home and operations cancelled because of a threatened flu epidemic, while others are having healthy organs removed and being pumped full of artificial hormones so that what they feel inside their heads can be reflected in the mirror. But since fact never measures up to fantasy, the rest of the world is forced to acquiesce in the fantasy or be charged with hate crime for pointing out the facts.

Some responsible psychologists have pointed out that many people become ‘trans’ fixated because they have unexplored psychological problems; a disproportionate number are on the autistic spectrum. However, their plight has been ‘weaponised’ by cultural Marxists, and psychologists are being bullied into silence.

Nonetheless, Dr James Barrett, lead clinician at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust’s Gender Identity Clinic, insists that this is a medical problem, and that despite NHS ‘treatment’ impairing the fertility of a growing number of individuals, funding for fertility preservation for this ‘well-established condition’ is yet to catch up. Yet it is the Tavistoc k, seen as a ‘trusted brand’ in medicine but with a long history of ‘progressive’ social engineering masquerading as healthcare, that has helped increase this demand. Furthermore, thanks to their ‘treatment’, many already vulnerable people may face cancer (see here and here) as well as problems accessing the subsequent psychological care may they need – if they do not kill themselves, that is – for it is much easier to surgically remove healthy reproductive organs than to remove the resultant regrets.

Most worrying of all, perhaps, is that the ‘right to be helped to reproduce’ is being brought into disrepute by taxpayer-funded fertility treatment for those who are not infertile but perversely deny their sex as defined by its very reproductive ability.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Our contributors and editors are unpaid but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We receive no independent funding and depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.