Miranda Yardley calls out the predator

Are you suggesting that people with a medical diagnosis should not be subject to the same safeguarding protocols as everyone else? Any other medical diagnoses you'd like to include? Or just the one?

Nice of you to jump down my throat because you dont agree. And there was me thinking this forum was an opportunity to discuss.

You are taking one of my statements and shoehorning it into something else.

If transsexualism is maintained as a medical issue this has a massive impact on safeguarding.

1. The 99% who are self identified get nothing. No free passes for their behaviour.
2. Those who are diagnosed are getting professional psychiatric and psychological support
3. All TS people are treated for a medical condition rather than making a lifestyle choice.

I find it very telling the huge number of people identifying as TG but have no desire whatsoever for hormones and blockers. Surely you would want to be rid of the hormones that define that hated maleness ?
There is some confusion over what I am saying here.

I am not saying that hormones define gender, what I'm saying is that if someone identifies as the opposite gender why would they not want to be rid of them. The absence of testosterone creates in effect chemical castration which if someone was dysphoric would be something you would want.

I'm not at all saying suppressing male hormones makes someone less male... simply that if someone was genuinely trans they would want to suppress something that is a factor in their behaviour.

I think maybe we have a similar point then apologies. That's my point also, no one can become less female by that happening or less male, they are merely suppressing what little male hormones they can that contribute to male biology, doesn't mean they aren't a male. It irritates me when people use women's medical conditions to validate trans women so I'm probably a bit quick to defend.

Scientistagainsttranscult

As someone who was diagnosed with gyny cancer I am not 'constructing' arguments (straw man or otherwise), I also know males who have had cancer treatments which have dramatically affected their testosterone levels.
Those women who have had their hormone levels dramatically affected due to neccessary surgical or medical interventions do not become less female any more than men become less male.

R0wantrees that argument of the hysterectomy is old and straw man like. No one is saying that anyone who has female sex chromosomes, who had the capacity of producing large gametes and dozens and dozens of other female exclusive biology is less of a woman due to a sensitive and often devastating medical issue. It's a completely separate issue to a man who has male sex chromosomes running through him with his male biology trying to eliminate what he can of that (which is very little in the grand scheme of it)

Transexualism is a medical issue.

Which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with safeguarding protocols.

It doesn't matter whether one is a man, a woman, a transsexual, a transgender person. It's not relevant to anything at all. Under safeguarding, all persons with access to vulnerable adults or children - including women in prison - should be subject to the same levels of scrutiny and scepticism and also to risk management. You, me and everyone else. Nobody is a special case. Nobody is taken on trust. Regardless of any medical diagnosis.

Are you suggesting that people with a medical diagnosis should not be subject to the same safeguarding protocols as everyone else? Any other medical diagnoses you'd like to include? Or just the one?

Johnny Yaniv

Jessica Yaniv

I find it very telling the huge number of people identifying as TG but have no desire whatsoever for hormones and blockers. Surely you would want to be rid of the hormones that define that hated maleness ?

Maleness is not defined by testosterone levels anymore than femaleness is defined by oestrogen levels.

Are you suggesting that when a younger woman has a a hysterectomy and surgical menopause they become less female?

Chemical castration is never enough. Only SRS should mean access to female spaces and then there should still be optional exemptions when it comes to intimate and personal care and bio male should mean no access to women's sports.

Do you mean Stephen Wood/Karen White or is there another Trans criminal calling himself Karen?

For example, there is pressing need for the thorough investigation into prison policy which led to vulnerable female prisoners being sexually assaulted by Karen Jones (male + serial sexual violent offender). Also that other females were locked in with Jones and are being locked in with male prisoners convicted of violent and / or sexual crimes, sometimes being required to share showers etc.

Transexualism is a medical issue. Therefore diagnosis requires psychological assessment and subsequent treatment. In the absence of any such diagnosis then frankly you're entitled to nothing. By diagnosis I dont mean some self affirming thing but proper assessment.

For any biological male diagnosed and seeking recognition as gender female I see testosterone blocking medication as a minimum requirement.

As much as I resent the idea of Karen Jones being in a womans prison I think the situation would have been a little better had they been on blockers and were therefore chemically castrated in effect.

I find it very telling the huge number of people identifying as TG but have no desire whatsoever for hormones and blockers. Surely you would want to be rid of the hormones that define that hated maleness ?

Start arresting and charging more "transgender" people !

The law applies to everyone. Nobody should be treated more harshly simply for being transgender. At the same time no one should be exempt from the law for being transgender.
Safeguarding applies to everyone.
ID matching applies to everyone
Airport security applies to everyone.

What we are seeing at the moment is people requesting special treatment/ exemptions simply because they are transgender and that opens up huge loopholes. Because if there’s no gatekeeping and we simply allow anyone to self ID, then anyone can abuse this.

And people already are.

What recognition should transgender people have? The same rights and responsibilities as everyone else. No more, and no less.

I can’t imagine this applied to other areas - we accept safeguarding measures against terrorism & hijacking in airport security for the good of everyone, security is tight and there are no exeptions.

There do seem to be a number of possible airport security issues which may come about inadvertently with trans-rights being asserted. What were standard practices with regards id, searching of passengers are being challenged. This could be exploited.

current thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463255-Female-security-staff-should-be-compelled-to-search-trans-women

Canadian transgender woman flying home 'outed' in front of other passengers'
15/08/2018

(extract)
"A Canadian woman says she was outed and humiliated in front of other passengers while flying home to visit her parents.

Lenore Herrem was boarding a WestJet flight from Calgary to Saskatoon on Wednesday (local time) when the airline agent questioned her ID at the gate.

The five-year-old photo on Ms Herrem's Quebec healthcare card was taken when she still presented as male, and the ID's gender marking is also ticked as male.

She says the agent became "upset and confused" when the ID didn't seem to align with Ms Herrem's feminine appearance, repeatedly saying "They don't match".

"I gently and discreetly expressed to her, 'It's because I'm transgender, that's why they don't match up'. But my face is the same and my ID matches the name on my boarding pass."

The agent's colleague said it was fine and waved Ms Herrem through to take her seat on the plane.

But she says 10 minutes after she sat down, both gate agents boarded the aircraft and the one who had refused her earlier demanded to see her ID again.

"She said something like 'Oh, that's not the name I remember seeing on the computer when I looked at it,' and she started spouting off different, other women's names that were not mine," she told CBC.

It was the agent's next comment that Ms Herrem found most humiliating.

"She rolled her eyes at me and said 'Are you sure it wasn't your girl name that was on the computer?' She outed me in front of the whole airplane."

Ms Herrem said the experience made her feel "unsafe, vulnerable and belittled", and that no one else has ever had a problem with her ID." (continues)
www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2018/08/canadian-transgender-woman-flying-home-outed-in-front-of-other-passengers.html

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3465241-New-York-legalises-changing-birth-certs-to-M-F-or-X

The problem is that safeguarding for women is being torn down as trans women are claiming that the risk they pose is negligible on the whole.
I can’t imagine this applied to other areas - we accept safeguarding measures against terrorism & hijacking in airport security for the good of everyone, security is tight and there are no exeptions.
Before this there was the ‘golden age of hijacking’ ‘61-‘73.There were no safeguards against terrorists i.e against violent men.
Would anyone like to return to airport security as it was then ? That is what women are being told will happen now, and there are already victims of this policy.

you are under

Soz.

Policies which have evolved and resulted in Safeguarding framework failures must be scrutinised & re-evaluated.

Exactly. It's not about sections of the umbrella. It's about not creating loopholes. It doesn't matter where you fall under the umbrella - or, indeed if you even under the umbrella or not - it's about safeguarding protocols being inviolable.

By "recognition" do you mean "unfettered access".

If so, no. Just no

Just for your information, it's not just about transsexual people but trans-genders. Big diff

I agree wholeheartedly.....what I disagree with is the retrospective "and because another slice has been asked for we are taking back the first slice".

Policies which have evolved and resulted in Safeguarding framework failures must be scrutinised & re-evaluated.

For example, there is pressing need for the thorough investigation into prison policy which led to vulnerable female prisoners being sexually assaulted by Karen Jones (male + serial sexual violent offender). Also that other females were locked in with Jones and are being locked in with male prisoners convicted of violent and / or sexual crimes, sometimes being required to share showers etc.

September 2018 James Kirkup, Spectator:
'If MPs can’t debate a rapist in a woman’s jail, politics has failed'

(extract)
Last week, it was confirmed that the State put a rapist and paedophile in a women’s prison. That rapist, who uses the name Karen White, then sexually assaulted four women in that prison.

This is, of course, an outrage, a failure of public administration of the first order. Many people are angry, among them members of the Government that oversaw this failure. Many people have questions about how that failure came about. How did the Prison Service come to decide that Karen White, a person with a male body and a history of violent sexual crimes, should be put in New Hall prison? (New Hall, incidentally, also has a ‘mother and baby unit.’ The State did not just put a rapist in a women’s jail, they put a convicted paedophile in prison with children).

Was this just a catastrophic failure of judgement? Was it the result of flawed policy on the handling of transgender inmates? Did a climate of unthinking acquiescence to the demands of a highly effective transgender rights lobby contribute to this horrible mistake?

These are all legitimate questions, questions that should be debated and answered by the ministers responsible. These are the questions that Parliament exists to debate: questions about the conduct of public policy.

As I and others have noted repeatedly, a lot of politicians privately ask such questions about transgender issues, but many keep quiet about it – for fear of being labelled ‘transphobic’ or worse. I know serving ministers who have real doubts about some of these things, but dare not speak publicly.

Fortunately, a few MPs are willing to speak out. The obvious seriousness of the Karen White case persuaded more than one MP that the Commons should call a minister to explain and account for the incident.

David Davies, Tory MP for Monmouth, thus tabled an Urgent Question, a parliamentary request for the House to summon a minister to discuss the issues raised by the Karen White case, and of other transgender sex offenders in the prison estate. (Yes, there are others. There is at least one male-born rapist in a women’s prison today.) continues

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/the-state-has-failed-karen-whites-victims/

also demonstrated frequently that once one small slice is achieved, the focus immediately shifts to the next small step that pushes further.

I agree wholeheartedly.....what I disagree with is the retrospective "and because another slice has been asked for we are taking back the first slice".

transsexual people deserve some recognition but I doubt we could ever agree what that should be.

People of either sex and any gender identity should be held to the same standards by laws & safeguarding policies.

The protection of children and vulnerable adults should never be compromised by adults' identity claims and needs.

Hear, hear. Libertarian individual rights should end where safeguarding begins. Internal identities of individuals - or any other characteristic of individuals - do not trump protection frameworks. Safeguarding is supposed to be sceptical. If you are offended by that, the problem is with you.

Start arresting and charging more "transgender" people !

People of either sex and any gender identity should be held to the same standards by laws & safeguarding policies.

The protection of children and vulnerable adults should never be compromised by adults' identity claims and needs.

Long thread collating examples of the failings / failures of Child Protection and Safeguarding frameworks:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3301266-Safeguarding-girls-and-protecting-women-post-Jimmy-Saville-metoo

Why on earth is self ID becoming a free pass for criminality and paraphilia. It has become an ace card to play that seems to trump any other situation

The issues go back a long way and are not solely to do with current gender self-id policies and proposals.
current thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

Why on earth is self ID becoming a free pass for criminality and paraphilia. It has become an ace card to play that seems to trump any other situation.

Start arresting and charging more "transgender" people !

It’s a wedge argument

I wrote a long post about this on a thread not long ago. The long and short being that women's spaces are already owned - by women. It's not a new thing where it's all up for grabs and we're just being greedy.

If we choose to allow some people some access some of the time, it is within our favour, and can be revoked or changed at any time for any reason. There is no right, no entitlement, no negotiation starting point.

It's this muddying - the characterisation of women as greedy meanies and taking all the pie for ourselves - which is a huge issue. But it is our pie, always has been. And no, men cant have any, end of discussion. (Most men don't want any, because they have their own!)