They're lying, as usual.
The original article didn't mention the word "deanonymized" (yes, I checked for British spelling as well). I checked because I was surprised they would do that, because most health data used in research is anonymized, not the other way around.
People's health data is used "without their consent" for research all the time. I am not sure where these nimrods think that population-level health statistics come from, the Delphic Oracle? But the way it works is that you have to apply for the data as a professional and then the data is given to you
with identifying details removed, and even then there are very strict rules about how you can use it. I was curious about whether it worked the same way in the UK, and it appears it does:
What the GRA revision seemingly refers to to is the fact that trans people were apparently given a new NHS number (and a new health record, I guess?) after their transition, and this revision allows researchers to get around that and access their old records (Britbongs correct me if I am wrong and am misinterpreting this). It's not "deanonymizing" as in having access to identifying information, it's "deanonymizing" as in not having your records sealed and inaccessible just because you're a special trans unicorn.
The Redditors are presenting it like the government is going to hand out lists of names of trans people to all and sundry, when in reality they are just aiming to look at health data the way they do for everyone else in the population. More hysteria. Don't they ever get tired of this shit?
