To think that this NHS Trust hates women *[content warning: linked article concerns CSA]

Exactly. And let’s not forget the mysterious + that Stonewall, the self appointed champion and arbiter of ‘trans rights’ tacked onto the ‘LGBTQ’ acronym.

Despite repeated requests, they not only refused to clarify who they meant by the + but they refused to confirm that paedophiles, ‘furries’, nappy fetishists etc were not covered by the +.

They deliberately created a door for harmful fetishists and left it propped open.

Absolutely.

The fallacy is that there is a group of people who are 'truly transgender' (there are many terms for this group, this is just one). But who are they, why are they 'truly transgender' compared to another person with a transgender identity.

I mean, we are expected to believe that a person can in someway 'live' as if they are the opposite sex by simply stating they are. This is impossible. It relies on the postmodernist theory of something being the thing that someone has labelled it, or as someone believes that thing is.

No one of the opposite sex can ever accurately conceptualise how the other sex interacts with the world. They can only ever replicate what they perceive is how the other sex interacts with the world. OR perhaps worse, how they WANT the other sex to interact with the world.

So, include one, you have to include them all in the category. There is no biological or neurological marker that is common, so it is only belief.

It is actually really transphobic to arbitrate who is and isn't transgender based on your (general you) own personal criteria set to your own comfort level. It is remarkable just how many posters try to though. They can never accept that what they are doing with this arbitrating is dreadfully wrong.

'Acceptance without exception' is actually one of the more accurate mantras that extreme transgender activists and allies have coined. Because it is absolutely true.'

Stonewall were very clear on this.

Acceptance without exception includes men with fetishes, rapists, cross dressers and paedophiles.

Because that's what 'without exception' means.

This is what men like David Tennant endorse.

"It is not up to society or 'officials' really to judge which male is more authentic and deserving than others."

Following on from this.

When you consider the official current 'exceptions' to the authenticity of a claim to be a 'woman', it is a growing list.

First was the 'rapists' who society was allowed to misgender without punishment. Because they didn't not deserve the respect of pronouns and recognition of their chosen identity.

Then came the rejection of male people for the purpose of female sports categories. So... another aspect of life that these male people were excluded from.

Then came the rejection of male people such as Mridul Wadhwa in rape crisis counselling positions and male people being able to present themselves as female medical examiners under law.

Then came the court case where the claimants were allowed to keep referring to Dr Upton as male, a man and using accurate sex pronouns.

The list of times when society must comply with the demands to support a male person's philosophical belief about their identity that does not reflect material reality is getting shorter and shorter. But it only ever really needed one instance for the entire philosophical theory to fail completely. Because if a male is not to be treated as if their philosophical belief about their identity that does not reflect material reality even in one aspect of life, it shows that it was never fact in the first place.

It was all an emotionally manipulated support structure based on falsehoods from the start. The issue is, that so many people are heavily invested in being kind and their personal definition of respectful that they cannot change track without losing face. So they just double down.

Whether his declared belief is a true belief or not, it sadly does not matter.

'Acceptance without exception' is actually one of the more accurate mantras that extreme transgender activists and allies have coined. Because it is absolutely true.

There are people who will declare that only people that fit a criteria that they personally support should be considered 'transgender'. We see in these threads constantly. They may take the form of 'only if they have surgery' (which is actually a really cruel opinion to have because it creates a reward of being considered worthy of inclusion if someone undergoes horrific surgeries - who the fuck thinks that that is 'kind'? But they do think it is 'kind' and 'respectful'.).

Or it might take the form of 'they have to have lived for a long enough time as a 'woman' '. When this is a fallacy from the start! The only way for any person on this earth to 'live as a woman' is to have a female body and to have interacted with society while having that female body. Anything else is actually based in pseudo science or philosophical theory, but it completely lacks accuracy and material reality.

Or it might take the form of 'if they make enough effort to pass'. And that is just another cruelty. Because the reality is no male person will pass 100% of the time with 100% of female people. Along the way, there will be female people that will fully understand that the person in front of them is male and should not be included. Yet, there are so many posters who will declare that they cannot tell and they feel that their experience is the norm. When it is not. They obviously lack the ability to accurately interpret a male person's body cues as being male.

And the list goes on as to why 'acceptance without exception' may actually be the only fair and the kindest approach. Meaning, that not one male person should be accepted into female single sex provisions (not just spaces but all single sex provisions). Because it is discriminatory to accept some based on some personally set criteria, or even officially set criteria that uses fallacy to support the critieria, and to reject others.

It is not up to society or 'officials' really to judge which male is more authentic and deserving than others.

Both can be equally true!

Does he have a particular belief about himself though? Or is he just a scumbag who sees the opportunity to perv on women and make them feel uncomfortable?

@Ramblingnamechanger you can use the report option to report your own post and ask MN to amend the thread name and also the post

I don't understand feminists who support this. We've made so many strides towards equality, and then men found a loophole to put us back in our place, and some women are falling all over themselves to accept it.

You rarely hear about trans men doing things like this, and I believe it's because trans men were raised and socialized as women. Just like the rest of us, they were raised not to take up space and not to make waves, and so now they are just quietly trying to go about their lives not making all of these demands.

To anyone who is horrified by this and doesn't usually frequent the Feminism boards, this isn't a one off. Have a look at FWR here https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights - brace yourself if you have yet to dip a toe in though, some of it, like this one, beggars belief.

Poor Karen, she really has been treated appallingly by the NHS.

Yes, all men have to do is utter the magic words “I identify as” and they’ve been given access to women’s facilities, including rape crisis centres, secure psychiatric wards, women’s prisons and refuges.

women had to go to the Supreme Court to get confirmation that this isn’t lawful, but most public bodies THAT WE PAY FOR are ignoring the law and nobody is doing anything to hold them to account,

Please add a trigger warning for that article 😰

It's very male-socialised behaviour. Women aren't seen as actual full humans. You can see it in the behaviour of the trans identifying males who expect their wants to be prioritised, and in the behaviour of the institutions which allow it and call us bigots for objecting.

Our rights and our single sex spaces are only ours if no male happens to want them at the moment.

😂Not you Minnie, more for the poster that asked. You were only trying to be helpful.

Possibly the 5%who voted YABU

Has anyone actually said what they think is unreasonable yet? Is it just talking about it that's unreasonable?

Of course this should be in AIBU. Who would argue otherwise?

Oh well, at least I bumped it!
Consider myself chastised...

I hope people are starting to see this horrific situation for what it is.

Or does objecting to this make us all 'bigots'?

OP specifically said she was putting it in AIBU so people who may not be aware of this can see what has been going on.

From OP - 'Borrowed from FWR as think this is something we should all know about'

Probably "Rose", or similar.

I’m interested in hearing from the 5% who thinks the OP is being unreasonable and why as I can’t see it.

It's in the Naughty Corner otherwise known as Feminism, we have been aware of many cases like this for years, it's coming to,light since the Supreme Cout ruling, it was difficult to discuss previous to the ruling.