For thinking it is odd for trans men to give birth

The point you're missing is regardless of how unlikely or not it would be to have a trans identifying male present himself for a female patient's intimate examination, there are women who are self excluding from necessary healthcare because the NHS cannot guarantee that the patient will be seen by a female HCP, and in fact male HCP with trans identities have and would present themselves to do the exam.

A PP said that a woman in that scenario could say no (ignoring all the issues with that I covered in my last post), and then rebook. Sometimes that is not possible. In one woman's case she refused the trans identifying male for her intimate exam was then refused health care solely for that reason, refusing a male bodied person's presence and touch during an intimate examination.

You also missed the point of the chocolate analogy. All the chocolates in that analogy are trans identifying men, but only some of them are poisoned chocolates. The point was you know some are poisoned, but they are indistinguishable from the totally non-harmful other chocolates until it is too late.

I assume you are missing those easy to understand points on purpose.

A PP asked why trans identifying men are seen as more of a danger than other men and asked for stats, the attached image is for rates of sexual offending by sex from HMS data 2023 which clearly shows that of the male prison population, trans identifying males are 5 times more likely to be incarcerated for sexual offences than other males.

Yes.

share.google/aimode/pBwLFSPm1lLsZah9H

Well if the percentages are so small, insisting on female care is unlikely to make any difference to how early someone is seen.

However if the poster is alluding to the fact that she couldn't trust her medical providers to adhere to her request, then that's a huge problem.

Yes ive never said it shouldn't. That isn't the conversation.

I'm just pointing out that avoiding a smear test at your local GP because you are worried that there may suddenly be a trans woman employed to give smear tests is extreme. The chances of a trans woman being in that specific role is very small because there are so few trans women.

Ive also pointed out that comparing trans woman to a sweet that is definitely poisonous is misleading. Trans women arent definitely dangerous like a poisonous sweet is, and nor are there 1 trans women for every 400 women. Especially working as HCPs. So the idea that you may get the one nurse out of 400 that is a trans woman, and that trans woman definitely harming you is just not apt.

It's more like 1% of people are trans
0.5% of thos people are trans women.
0.05% of those trans women are nurses
0.005% of those trans women who are nurses give smears as part of their role

That puts a totally different spin on avoiding a smear test in case the HCP is a trans woman. Especially given most are done at a GP.surgery by a staff member who is a long term employee in my experience. So I know for a fact my GP has 3 nurses, all female and that's who will do my smear if I book. Not just some random person who has been assigned there for the day.

That's the same point made upthread about how lies beget lies.

But we all know that men can't give birth. We all know that by entertaining that idea, we're getting embroiled in utter nonsense.

It's not relevant how low or high the probability is. If a woman specifies she wants female only care for an intimate procedure, that should be respected, yes?

I have said why I think that is a bad analogy and even shifted it to one that makes more sense.

I dont need to eat a chocolate. I do need a smear test. If the chocolate could highlight bowel cancer, but there was a 1/400 risk that it might harm me, I may well take those risks because my life is precious to me.

I also highlighted that there is a much lower chance than 1/400 of me getting a trans woman for my smear test. There is a much, much lower risk that if I did get a trans woman, they'd be out to assault me. So this analogy you've made up yourself isn't actually reflective of the situation. I have ran with it anyway and tried to bring some sense of rationality to it.

When you are presented with a bowl of 400 chocolates containing 1 poisoned chocolate can you tell which one is poisonous just by looking at them?

But isn’t the train of thought of the TRA’s that men can give birth? 🙄

So it’s not seen as an activity specific to women…. So therefore it wouldn’t be classed as a female act and therefore not triggering to a trans-man…. 🙄

They are simply doing something that both ‘men’ and women can do? 🙄

(I completely agree with you OP)

No i think there are non harmful trans women and so that's why I dont view all trans women as poison because all poisons are inherently harmful. I dont view all trans women as predators. Do you?

Please read properly if you want to be taken seriously by me. I am saying all poisons are harmful. Unless you are arguing that trans women (or men) are all harmful like poisons, so they are all predatory, then you can't describe them as poisons (which you admitted are all dangerous).

If you think all men (or perhaps only men who transition) are definitely dangerous predators, then just say all trans women are predatory sex offenders who will assault and rape women so that is clear.

Poison - all dangerous and harmful that's why they are called poisons. They will harm anyone who ingests them.

Is this what you are saying about trans woman? That they inherently harm anyone they interact with?

What maths? I mean, you think theres such a Thing as a non harmful poison. It’s ok if you didn’t get the anology. Honest. No judgement here.

You know of a non harmful poison? Really? So what makes it a poison then? And anyone who insists on lying to people about something as important as their sex is not really a very trustworthy person are they? I mean, if they’re lying about their sex, maybe they’re lying about their qualifications? Who knows?

Show us this article so we can read it.

I read it all. Read it again and you might understand. There is some tricky parts where you have to understsnd maths though.

Oh and to be doubly completely clear, the poison is definitely likely to harm you. A trans woman may have an increased risk of harming you because they are male and males harm, but being male doesnt mean you are definitely harmful like a poison is. So again, the analogy isnt a very good one.

Unless you are arguing that every single trans woman is a predator like every single poison is harmful?

Er…. Did you not read the word poisonous? Bless you, you tried.

Indeed. There was some batshit article about how questioning the use of testosterone while pregnant was ablesist as it was offensive to want to do your best in trying to ensure the most healthy outcome for your pregnancy.
There's also the fact that women are discouraged from taking the most basic of meds while breastfeeding but it's somehow fine and progressive for men to take a cocktail of drugs to produce some sort of liquid from their nipples to feed an infant.

No because at best, chocolate will make me fat. It will be about 2 seconds of pleasure. I don't need chocolate.

What i do need it to be around for my kids. If there was some potentially life saving benefit to eating the chocolate, like say it could almost definitely highlight any bowel cancer, but one of the 400 might be poisonous (let's state clearly here that the number of transwomen performing mammograms or smears is far less than 1/400), then I may take the risk, have a chocolate to potentially save my life.

But let's be absolutely clear, the number of trans women as HCPs is way less than 1/400. So yes you are more likely to be harmed in your analogy because of those odds, but they aren't realistic odds.

Oh noooo… how absolutely awful of me. How dare I? I mean, I could have used the snakes analogy I suppose. So no answer to the actual question?

Using a metaphor that compared Trans to poisoned sweets… ?

if you're a trans man in a relationship with a cis man

you're a female in a heterosexual relationship. HTH

So if I had a bowl of 400 chocolates, and told you a tiny percentage were poisonous, would you eat one? If not, why not? It’s only a tiny percentage after all

What is your source for this?