It’s never too late…..

I am told it is never too late to be yourself…..I struggle with this as I have put off being myself for so many years, some would say procrastinated but hey I guess the time has finally come. Why now, because the pressure has become too much to bear. There have always been good reasons not to put myself first, not to be selfish.

Importantly, I have been empowered by an amazing couple who are supportive and only see me as the woman I am. They have enjoyed my small successes in taking, often only small steps, out of the closet; talked to me about it all, supported me at every turn, listened to my anxieties…and there are plenty of those.

So why a blog? Well as with so many blogs this is intended to be a record of my journey to womanhood. A record of the ups and downs on this journey. I hope that it may encourage other mature ladies to take the plunge, those who say it is too late now. There are blogs that have been really important to my understanding of the challenges I face. To name but a few My Road to Womanhood (My Road Redux), Cassidy’s Quest, Large Blooming Flower, Retrobassgirl and so many others. Lucy Melford, Lynn Jones of YATGB, Rhiannon Rambling, Upside down in a cloud, Paula’s Place, Hannah’s Thinking Again…the list goes on. People who have lives as well as being trans.,

It is not as if i have not known what i needed to do for some years now and in stealth i have worked quietly towards this point for nearly twenty years. I know that I have gender dysphoria, I know that I have to be myself and that I cannot continue to deny myself. For many years I did not know that there was such a thing as gender dysphoria. I grew up pre- internet so, along with many others, I just thought I was different. 

I knew when I was around three, I was a girl just like my best friend at preschool, Tess. As I grew up I was to be blunt quite effeminate looking though not in any way camp. I was an innocent looking choirboy in a cathedral school. I loved everything about girls, their dresses how they looked, make up their whole way of being. I remember vividly watching my mother and her friend refreshing their lipstick after meeting for coffee in town. I was absolutely fascinated. Seeing her in her slip getting dressed, watching her put on gloves before putting on her stockings so as not to ladder them. 

I needed to be part of that world, I hated having to be a boy and do boyish things, I was no good at them. I retreated into my music and books and lived in my own world.

As puberty came I endured years of confusion during which time I would, like so many others, buy my girly clothes and underwear and then purge them all because it was wrong, I was a freak, it wasn’t right. Yet all the time I would be yearning to be a girl. Girlfriends were forever disappointed that I wanted to hang out with them..I was not desperate to have my wicked way with them, affectionate cuddles were lovely.

Fast forward to the late seventies, I came across a book at the library. Conundrum by Jan Morris. She was writing about being transexual/transgender. This was the first time I had come across this. I read the book from cover to cover the first evening and I was stunned…..I understood, the jigsaw came together. I read the book several times, renewed it…..how could this be? She had undergone re-assignment surgery! 

Then the internet came into my life. Good grief, I was not alone. If I was a freak then there were lots of us.

Fast forward again to now, here I am, finally taking real steps towards transition. I have to be aware that I am never going to be that stunning model that I expect we all dream of being, but at the very least I can be me. Hopefully, I will achieve a level where I can pass or at the least blend in and be accepted as the mature woman I am. 

Being true

Bad habits are so hard to break. For the majority of my life I have hidden the true me and cultivated a false persona which to my mind made me more acceptable that the shameful unacceptable fact I knew about myself. That seems quite simple, straightforward even. However living a lie, in my case, made it easier to dissemble in all manner of ways.

I have been living the true me for some years now. In my business dealings, the real me has inherited situations that were in existence prior to my transition and which if I am honest had involved some manipulation to put together a jigsaw of interconnecting deals. The main one had not gone according to plan and after many delays there was now a real risk that it would fall apart causing substantial losses.

There is a possible rescue plan that potentially would save the day. To make it work the principal of the plan had assumed I would leave profits from a different scheme in place for it to work. The truth was I could not afford to do it. I have other obligations and requirements to meet with those funds. 

This is where the bad habits came in. I knew I had to have those funds, yet if I did not leave them in the rescue package might not happen. I wanted to be honest and straight about saying I could not leave those funds in, yet habits from my old self were raising their head “ you can’t blow it” etc, etc.

Fortunately, I have a brilliant mentor of my new true self who made it quite clear what I should do and that living my truth covered all areas. I emailed the principle making it clear that I was not able to leave those funds in to assist the rescue plan. The world didn’t end, I had simply stated the truthful position. Anything that does happen will be based on solid facts and not end in my having to say in six months’ time, oh I can’t do that now. Nor do I have to worry that there will be a problem coming over the horizon.

So there has been a meeting today based on the reality of my position. Every bodies cards have been put on the table and whatever comes from it will be whatever it is. For me I have been truthful and have learnt again that living your truth is more than just being honest about my gender. I am so grateful to my mentor for holding me to that.

False hope

Maybe it was false hope last week that the tide is turning against Gender Critical Transphobia. I hope it is just a blip and in the longer term there really is progress being made. Certainly, I do see more vocal or social media support for trans people by the general population than recently. It is as if the strident abuse has reached a level were ordinary people are saying hang on a minute this is going too far.

Needless to say this has not filtered its way through to the media where the consistent one sided reporting has escalated with the situation over Dr Stocks at Sussex University.

This weekend there has been the tragic murder of Sir David Amess. Quite apart from any political considerations or leanings this level of violence against someone simply trying to perform his job is shocking. It has now been classed as a Terrorist incident.

Apart from this appalling act of violence, what has shocked me though is how the media have managed to weave into this appalling tragedy political point scoring. On the one hand there are discussions about improving security and what needs to be done to protect MPs, and others, going about their work and then on the other hand there is finger pointing saying such things as the language used by Angela Rayner incites and encourages violence. 

What I had noticed was how  some trans activists expected someone to pick up the narrative that somehow Sir David Amess’ tragic death could be linked to the trans war. My thoughts were don’t be silly. Today Joanna Cherry Q.C  has managed it! In an article in the Daily Record today she writes about “the rise in abuse towards politicians following the murder of Sir David Amess”. A reasonable stance to take. Many politicians have spoken about the level of abuse they have received.  Joanna Cherry goes on to make it clear that “some politicians, public bodies and institutions have been guilty of reinforcing intolerance. My experience is that a category of women in our public life has been created who can be bullied intimidated and threatened with impunity.”  That category of women are the Gender Critical. I just feel a bit of despair that everything has to be the fault of trans people. A day just focusing on the tragic death of a politician, it would seem by a radicalised terrorist, without bring in the culture wars would have been a change.

Time for a change

Following on from last weeks’ post I wonder whether now that everything is coming to a head, it is the catalyst for change. I have no sound basis or evidence that this is the case, just a feeling, which I hope isn’t wishful thinking, that enough is enough and some sanity will prevail in the coming months, or year.

I have seen that the Good Law Project is to bring proceedings against the NHS for its failure to deliver timely healthcare to Trans people. The basis of such a claim is that Trans people are properly entitled to healthcare and that a wait of some four years even to be referred for treatment is unacceptable. In addition, a recent report of 700 people showed that 29% of trans people are refused healthcare by their GPs simply because they are trans and out of those that do receive healthcare 70% experience transphobia while receiving treatment. The Welsh Government are actively training GPs in Trans healthcare which is a positive step. Maybe England could follow suit?

 At the same time the Medical Council Tribunal hearing into the work of Dr Helen Webberley  and Gender Care has been taking place and is now in its eleventh week. It has been patently obvious from the experts that trans people are being failed by the NHS causing suffering to many trans people. Even if Dr Webberley is found to have transgressed in respect of some technical point, which I fear may be the case as the Medical Council will be pushing for something to exonerate bringing the charges in the first place, the evidence has overwhelmingly and clearly shown the failings in the way that Trans people are treated by the NHS. The Defence experts have supported Dr Webberley’s approach wholeheartedly, including the head of WPATH. One would hope that such heavyweight support would carry some clout.

As far as the Government is concerned it was disappointing to read that the Conservative Whips had invited the Labour MP Rose Duffield to defect to the Conservatives. So far as I am aware this has not happened, yet. It does however show where their heart is along with their hosting a stand for the LGB Alliance at their conference.

Then there is the fun down at Sussex University, where the students are protesting about Dr Stock. Dr Stock wrote a book called “Material Girls and what really matters for Feminism”.  Dr Stock takes the position that trans women are not women and supports the Gender Critical view of sex being immutable. A position she should be allowed to speak freely on without fear of harassment or threats of violence. Equally, so should trans activists be able to speak freely without fear of harassment or threats of violence. Dr Stock, however, complains that she is being labelled as transphobic and says that journalists “now see a familiar and ‘marketable woman’ aggressed angle” which distracts from “the main story: how for six years, our national institutions- including media- have colluded”. A Mere solicitor comments on Twitter that “the lie has been those who seek to excuse a campaign against trans people’s existing human rights and legal protections (can) be (seen as) anything other than transphobic. 

To put Dr Stock’s book into some kind of perspective it has been reviewed with that other Gender Critical best seller by Helen Joyce “Trans When Ideology Meets Reality”. The review is by Alex Sharpe, a Professor of Law at the University of Warwick and can be found on:- 


It is a devastating and convincing deconstruction of the arguments put forward by Dr Stock as well as by Helen Joyce. It is a substantial and detailed review and concludes that “both books fall considerable short of claims made on their behalf. Rather they contribute to the toxicity surrounding trans people and they make it more difficult for us to live our lives. Moreover they provide comfort to right wing political forces who both solicit and deploy their rhetoric in ways antithetical to the interest of women and LGBQ, and especially T people.”

I may well be being naïve that matters will improve, yet I do feel that there is now more resistance to the Gender Critical transphobic views than there has been before with reasoned argument, pointing out that trans people already have legal protections which the gender critics are consistently ignoring and are currently trying to erode. Therefore I live in hope


This feels a bit like the silly season, all the political parties are trying to set out their positions in relation to Trans rights as it conference time. It seems to be quite hard for any party to get everyone to sing from the same hymn sheet.

The Liberal Democrats went first and by their Leader, Ed Davey, made a very clear statement that Trans rights are human rights.  No problem there really except they are very unlikely to have any power.

Next came Labour. Now this really is not that simple, the party want to please all possible outcomes. The Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer made a statement saying that the Labour position had not changed from their 2019 manifesto and that they supported the Equality Act and the provision of single sex spaces. Basically that is fine. It was meant to imply, so Sir Keir says, that the Equality Act already provides for single sex spaces by providing exceptions and that is what he is supporting. However, Rose Duffield, one of his MPs who felt unable to attend the conference because she suggested it would not be safe for her to do so for fear of reprisals takes the view that “only women have a cervix” and is carrying the banner for the exclusion of trans woman from single sex spaces. Interestingly, she also did not want attend as she did not want to be the centre of attraction which of course she was by making a point of not attending. Emily Thornbury promptly responded to a question to say that “only women have a cervix” is just wrong.

Sir Keir did not clarify his position and rebut that proposal and confirming that the Equality Act already contains sufficient provisions by way of exemptions. 

The Deputy Leader, Angela Rayner in her forthright manner simply said that Women’s rights are not in conflict with trans rights and that our fight is your fight.  She went on to point out how the present Government was running a campaign of hate and that Ministers were looking at vulnerable people, that they are looking at the trans community and they see it as an opportunity to divide people”. The Labour LGBT+ group and official affiliate of the party has taken a public stance against the views of Rose Duffield and voiced support for the inclusion of trans women in all women spaces, saying “we will stand with our trans siblings”.

The Green Party although not having a conference have been electing a new leader and have elected joint leaders who support the trans community. One of the candidates for the leadership, who lost, has proposed that it should not be possible for anybody to join the party without the signing up to the view that women’s spaces should be single sex spaces. It is thought that proposal is unlikely to be carried.

Then we have the Government. The Conservative Party conference. At the conference they allowed the transphobic group, LGB Alliance to have a stand. That says it all really and at the moment there do not seem to be any MPs willing to put their head above the parapet and make a clear statement in support of trans rights. The conference has not yet concluded but with the Equality Ministers being opposed to changes in legislation and in regular contact with LGB Alliance and being critical of and misrepresenting the Stonewall policies I am not expecting any supportive statements from them.


This is not something I had come across as a recognised behaviour before, however having read an article in Metro News by Ellen Scott it has made sense of so much of what is happening around the current date over trans rights. DARVO is an anacronym for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. According to the article, the acronym was coined in 1997 by Dr Freyd, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Oregon.

This seems to me to be the ploy used by so many of the Gender Critical protagonists, and in particular celebrities and politicians whose views are challenged. What is troubling is that the article comes to the conclusion that this behaviour is effective. How does DARVO work? As it suggests there are consecutive stages. First the behaviour complained about is denied. This is done in several ways, a flat denial “it didn’t happen”, I do not hold those views,  you are making it up”. However it is said by simply denying it is undermining someone’s actual lived reality.

The next stage is the Attack element. At this point the person who has been accused will turn the situation onto the accuser to focus blame on them for having called them out. This is apparent with people of some standing such as a celebrity where they attack by calling someone a liar and that they are calling them out just to be spiteful or jealous. 

These leads on to the Reverse Victim and Offender stage when the person who has been called out  turns the tables and claim that they are the one who is being badly treated and bullied. To reinforce this not unfrequently they will support their claim that they have had trauma in their life too. They then focus on the fact that they feel bullied by these accusations about their alleged wrongdoing ( which has already denied) and that they are the victim who is receiving online abuse and threats. It ends with the person calling them out as the Offender. Ellen Scott suggests the argument will run along the lines of “I am receiving so much online abuse because I am a woman and we live in a sexist society”. She goes on to say that “Now as a critic, you’re stuck. If you continue to call that person out. You’re cruel hateful md want to cause division…..You’re piling on the online abuse”.

What the research carried out by Dr Freyd  has shown is that the result of a DARVO response is that the original victim is less likely to be believed and is more likely to be blamed for the bad situation, making it effective for the original perpetrators of the abuse. As Ellen Scott says “ The dangerous thing is that DARVO works”.

This is a behavioural response that is used very frequently by the Gender Critical movement where they deny they are transphobic in any way and that the trans activists are the  abusers.

The Transgender Issue

An Instant Bestseller in the Sunday Times Non Fiction List in its first week of publication. The Transgender Issue written by Shon Faye. I had pre-ordered the book  and have found it to be a really refreshing and compelling read. Shon Faye talks about Trans Liberation rather than Trans rights  and indeed the whole polemic is that Trans Liberation will benefit all society. The basic concept is political and a call for “solidarity between all marginalised people and minorities”. 

The book quite simply is a thorough examination of  what it means to be transgender in society from childhood, adolescence right through to old age. Shon Faye does this by analysing the effect in the workplace, in housing, healthcare as well as how being trans fits in, or not, with the LGBTQ+ and feminist communities.

Dealing with the current debate over trans matters in the press which has become increasingly polarised Shon Faye says we are having the wrong conversation. It is not about trans rights are human rights, trans people are not joining in a conversation but have rather become “a talking point and are denied a meaningful voice”. 

The book was being written at a time when society was changing. People were beginning to think there was a possibility of change, maybe not everyone needed to go into an office every day, there was a growing disconnect with politicians, the black lives matters movement developed, a growing feeling against racism, that climate change is a reality. 

Shon Faye argues that seeking equality in a corrupt society is not a desired outcome. Society needs to change and it is with a left wing agenda where all minorities and marginalised groups are able to come together and create genuine social freedom and equality for all by using “conceptual tools of structured politics and collective action’ with a shared hope for a better world”. 

I was particularly moved by her final sentences in the book:-

“Hope is part of the Human condition and trans people’s hope is our proof that we are fully human. We are not an issue to b debated and derided. We are symbols of hope for many non-trans people too , who see in our lives the possibility of living more fully and freely. That is why some people hate us they are frightened by the gleaming opulence of our freedom. Our existence enriches this world”.

For now this seems to be something which is not yet possible to grasp, that right now is out of reach. However, it also feels that the time is now and the time is right for such a radical approach to challenge the cynical capitalist world in which we live.

Judith Butler endorses the book by saying “This is a monumental work and utterly convincing- crystal clear in its understanding of how the world should be”. 

Unlike many books written about transgender “issues” this impeccably researched and annotated and I recommend it as a must read by anyone, trans or not, who believes there has to be a better way and change is necessary. 


I find it really difficult to accept that there is a real movement to destabilise opinion in relation to trans people. I have come across an academic article published in the International Journal of Sociology written by Craig McLean entitled the “The Growth of the Anti-Transgender Movement in the United Kingdom. The Silent Radicalization of the British Electorate”.   The heading of the article states:- “The article examines the development of anti-transgender debates within the UK which have gained traction due to proposed amendments to the Gender Recognition Act. A group of determined lobby groups, taking their lead from like-minded organisations in the United States, has protested vigorously against the proposed changes to the GRA, especially with respect to single-sex spaces. As a result of the furore, the lives of transgender people have become the subject of open debate. Trans people now see their legitimacy questioned, and their ability to access services increasingly being placed under the microscope. This article argues that the literature on radicalization- developed in response to terrorism- can explain these developments. UK Lobby Groups are successfully pushing a radical agenda to deny the basic rights of trans people and are doing so under the cover of “free speech- a sacrosanct element of Anglo Saxon Countries.”

A Trans activist, Katy Montgomerie, has challenged Gender Critical people to state what they consider will be the result of the proposed changes as it would appear that in reality there is little understanding of what the proposed changes would have meant. She has written an article  for medium.com “Gender Critical People don’t even know what the GRA is “. She has also produced a “fun chart” showing what the proposed reforms would do.  In it she shows that the main points of contention to allow trans women to use women’s toilets and changing rooms, to allow trans women access to women’s shelters, to allow trans women to compete in women’s sports, to determine which prison trans women goes to are all already legislated for. These are all already covered by the Equality Act 2010.  

The Gender Critical are mounting Judicial Reviews to try and reinterpret the Equality Act. So far their efforts have all failed catastrophically with judges saying their arguments have no basis in law and are completely without merit.

The Green Party (England and Wales) have got themselves in a twist having published their position which contained transphobic content only to have the Scottish Greens denouncing it  and then the Green Party (England and Wales) to come out and say that what was published had been published before it had been considered and approved by the appropriate sub-committee.

As the Young Greens said they “stand in unwavering solidarity with trans and non-binary people, and celebrates that trans men are men and that trans women are women and non-binary identities are valid. There is no debate about people’s identity, or human rights”. As it should be.

A Surprise

Another surprise this week. At the Manchester Pride event a gay person was escorted away from the event by the police. As you would expect this has caused some consternation and opinions have been flying back and forth.

The person in question was simply wearing a LGB Alliance T shirt. So what is wrong with that it is gay pride after all? The pride events grew out of the Stonewall fight against homophobia so surely a gay person should have every right to be there. Sadly, the LGB Alliance is transphobic and is campaigning against trans people on the basis that it is not part of and its inclusion is damaging the gay community. In fact the person ejected, a gay man, is complaining that he feels excluded from Pride despite his rather “limp” protest as Pink News reported it.

In truth being gay does not mean you are entitled to be transphobic. The crowd that made their presence felt and expressed their view that he was not welcome because of his transphobic stance was a majority gay crowd. It was not a transgender event. LGBT is a Lesbian Gay and Bi event which includes trans people. Yet the LGB Alliance supporters are up in arms that a gay person was escorted away from the event by the police. 

There are many theories about the LGB Alliance, whether it should hold its charitable status, whether it is funded by right wing evangelistic groups. Whether any of that is relevant I do not know. It is clearly anti trans in its stance and Pride is an inclusive event, include trans people.

It seems to me it was provocative to attend a Pride event wearing a LGB Alliance T shirt, it is also concerning that a majority of gay people present were hostile to someone being present wearing such a shirt. It has been asked how come a gay person can attend a Pride event and be harassed by gay people to the extent that they needed police protection and to be escorted a way? The answer would seem to be that the majority of gay people accept that Trans people are going through the hostility that gay people did when Stonewall was set up and the original Pride events began.

I have no time for the kind of protest and hostility that was seen in Manchester, the way forward has to be by talking and education. Resorting to “bashing” any minority, gay or trans is just totally unacceptable although I fear it is becoming more prevalent. I would prefer Trans activists not to resort to the aggressive tactics that often surface as such aggression fuels and polarises the debate. I am also aware that unless people stand up for trans rights they will be rolled back and disappear. It is a hard balancing act.

A chink of light?

I had my annual review with my Consultant Psychologist a few days ago which was an empowering experience as I realised how far I have come in relation to my transition and that, as he confirmed, I have transitioned. One of the topics we discussed was that of transphobia and I had explained that the lockdown had meant I had developed some anxiety which had not really been there, or at least I was dealing with it, by being out and about which of course I had not been able to do in the same way.

His practice is almost solely involved with trans care both privately and within the NHS and his take was that although transphobia had reached alarming levels he felt that it was starting to slow down a bit and be seen as the extreme minority fringe it really was. He brought up the recent Gender Critical arguments saying that women were in as bad a situation with the woke trans activists in the UK as the Afghan women were with the Taliban which he saw as the most ridiculous view and beyond belief showing the stupid extremes that the gender critics were prepared to go to but did them no favours.

He also told me how he has experience with the Welsh Government and that they had made a position statement saying they aimed to be the most friendly LBQT country in Europe and that all of their GPs in the Welsh NHS were to be trained and brought up to speed in relation to trans healthcare. At the weekend the SNP and the Green Party agreed a form of co-operation in which Trans rights and Self ID reform were at the top of the agenda. Their proposal there would no longer be a need for a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Needless to say that the gender critical have raised their concerns saying the Scottish Government should follow the Westminster Government’s decision to drop such legislation.

We also discussed the question of Gender Recognition Certificates. I had raised this as I needed the required letter from him to submit, in my case, to the Scottish Government. I was interested that it was his view that anyone who wants a GRC should get on with it before Westminster become more difficult. On a couple of instances recently, he had had to amplify and change the information he had previously supplied for  a GRC certificate recently. He felt that there had been a hardening of the position and that the goal posts may be moving. I was pleased that mine will be going to Scotland.

So hopefully I will have a GRC in the not too distant future and all of the appropriate paperwork will be done and completed. The fact that the two devolved governments seem willing to move forward however I do see as sign of progress and just perhaps there is a chink of light on the horizon.

Dr Webberley

I have been following the GMC Tribunal with interest. From what I can gather the interest in Dr Webberley’s practice came entirely from other professionals who disagreed with the way in which Dr Webberley, as part of her work, gave affirmative care to young people. It seems that these colleagues did not have anything against her provision of care for adult trans people when this process was instigated. There have been no complaints about the provision of care from her patients.

The type of affirmative care that Dr Webberley was providing was an approach that was accepted treatment in the U.S. and other forward thinking countries but was not the orthodox treatment in the United Kingdom. What the real difference is that there is a difference of ideology as to how young trans people are treated and that this difference of ideology comes from differences between experts and what they consider is the right approach.

What the GMC wanted Dr Webberley to do was to close her clinic until the GMC had carried out and concluded their investigation.  The difficulty in doing that was that if she did that then there was nowhere for her patients to go to receive care. I understand that it was not just a handful of patients, I have seen a figure of 2000 or so patients who would have been left without care. The GMC suggested these patients should wait until they could be seen by the NHS. Such a comment is just ludicrous, the waiting lists are horrendous often four or five years and if affirmative treatment was the treatment best suited to assist the young patients then it would have been too late by the time they were even given their first appointment. So far it has taken four years for the case to be considered irrespective of whether any of her patients would have got so far as a first appointment.

When I first looked for treatment for my dysphoria I approached my GP who looked aghast and actually totally blanked what I had said. I had been self medicating with phyto-estrogens and I knew I had to try and get my treatment regularised. I found Dr Webberleys service online and registered with Gender GP. I had no concerns with the level of care I received going through detailed questionnaires and providing information so I could be given the correct prescriptions. I was and am extremely grateful for the support which I could not get anywhere else. However, none of the GPs I registered with in that period would enter into a joint care agreement with Gender GP. The more the GMC pursued Dr Webberley the harder it came to be able to use their services. When I tried to book an appointment for surgery I needed the two referral letters. I got one from Gender GP and one from Dr Lorimer, (through his private practice). My surgeon made it clear that the referral from Gender GP was not as acceptable as that from Dr Lorimer. It was suggested I should get another referral letter from a more regular body. In fact they did take the letter in the end. I had no option but to consult privately as although referred two years ago I have heard nothing form anyone (in fact you begin to wonder whether a referral has even been made) and with my advanced years I do not feel I have the luxury of time.

There is simply completely inadequate support for Trans health care in the UK and I hope that Dr Webberley will be exonerated for any criticism in relation to the actual health care she has provided. No doubt there may be irregularities in relation to registrations which may allow the GMC to save some face for having conducted this tribunal, however Dr Webberley through her dedication and suppor of trans people has without doubt saved lives and I hope the Tribunal decision will reflect that and allow her to practise again.