Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

UK Physios

935 replies

Calyx72 · 11/02/2022 20:56

Please sign into CSP and look at the new iCSP discussion "Stonewall and the CSP"

A great thread beginning and agreement that stonewall are problematic and women's rights are being overlapped by male rights

Then a HUGE ESSAY by a TRA

Sad
OP posts:
Thread gallery
84
Anklesprainssuck · 06/05/2024 06:45

( defo adorable VenusEnvyXX)

VenusEnvyXX · 06/05/2024 02:04

It's been a busy few days, hasn't it?

I'm not sure what the outcome of all of this is going to be, but, I'm running out of reasons to not stand for election onto the council. I've been told it might be difficult to team build if I'm there because I'm "divisive". Which is silly, I'm adorable. Everyone who's spoken to me sez so.

stealtheatingtunnocks · 05/05/2024 10:13

The comments are brutal. I’m wondering which of us are commenting?

im surprised it took so long to get into the press.

UK Physios
Bosky · 05/05/2024 04:42

FrothyCothy · 02/05/2024 21:26

Did the CSP provide you with representation when you were under investigation by HCPC @VenusEnvyXX ? Could they potentially refuse to provide representation to a member with GC views? Seems barmy to me that one part of CSP could be robustly defending a GC member citing Maya, Meade et al, while other parts of the CSP are potentially reporting members to the regulator for being GC 🤯

"Could they potentially refuse to provide representation to a member with GC views?"

(Retired SaLT Union Rep chipping in here)

If they do then they would be in breach of Section 57 of the Equality Act.

57 Trade organisations

(1) A trade organisation (A) must not discriminate against a person (B)—

(a) in the arrangements A makes for deciding to whom to offer membership of the organisation;

(b) as to the terms on which it is prepared to admit B as a member;

(c) by not accepting B's application for membership.

(2) A trade organisation (A) must not discriminate against a member (B)—

(a) in the way it affords B access, or by not affording B access, to opportunities for receiving a benefit, facility or service;

(b) by depriving B of membership;

(c) by varying the terms on which B is a member;

(d) by subjecting B to any other detriment.

(3) A trade organisation must not, in relation to membership of it, harass—

(a) a member, or

(b) an applicant for membership.

(4) A trade organisation (A) must not victimise a person (B)—

(a) in the arrangements A makes for deciding to whom to offer membership of the organisation;

(b) as to the terms on which it is prepared to admit B as a member;

(c) by not accepting B's application for membership.

(5) A trade organisation (A) must not victimise a member (B)—

(a) in the way it affords B access, or by not affording B access, to opportunities for receiving a benefit, facility or service;

(b) by depriving B of membership;

(c) by varying the terms on which B is a member;

(d) by subjecting B to any other detriment.

(6) A duty to make reasonable adjustments applies to a trade organisation.

(7) A trade organisation is—

(a) an organisation of workers,

(b) an organisation of employers, or

(c) any other organisation whose members carry on a particular trade or profession for the purposes of which the organisation exists.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/57

Explanatory Notes to Section 57:

  1. This section makes it unlawful for a trade organisation to discriminate against, harass or victimise a person who is, or is applying to be, a member. It also requires trade organisations to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people.

  2. A trade organisation is an organisation of workers (such as a trade union) or employers (such as the Chambers of Commerce); or an organisation whose members carry out a particular trade or profession (such as the British Medical Association, the Institute of Civil Engineers and the Law Society).

  3. This section is designed to replicate the effect of similar provisions in previous legislation. It also extends the protection to cover discrimination in the arrangements made for determining to whom membership should be offered.

Examples

A trade union restricts its membership to men. This would be direct discrimination.

An organisation of employers varies membership subscriptions or access to conferences because of a person’s race. This would be direct discrimination.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/5/1/19

-----

They might already be in breach of Section 57 if they are conflating gender critical views with "transphobia" as per the CSP definition, eg.

by deleting comments so that members with gender critical views are prevented from enjoying the benefit of services provided by the CSP and participation in CSP activities and discussion;

by encouraging CSP members to harass other members with gender critical views by reporting them for "hate".

CSP should take legal advice about the statement it has issued.

It might consider avoiding legal action by amending the Statement, clarifying:

that gender critical views are not transphobic

that all the protections it wishes to provide for people who believe in the existence of gender identities must also be provided for people who do not believe in the existence of gender identities

same sort of thing re "Conversion Practices" (you get the picture).

Hope this is helpful xx

ps. VenusEnvyXX I am eternally grateful for your pelvic floor exercises - how are you getting on with those voice exercises? 😘

Anklesprainssuck · 02/05/2024 23:15

https://www.csp.org.uk/icsp/discussion/new-support-after-pregnancy-or-baby-loss-24-weeks?network-id=225997
FYI, this is the link to the discussion thread, this has the same heading as the statement so looked like a duplicate initially then searching icsp.
this has been posted on the Pelvic Obs Gyn network.

Am really pi**ed off with the CSP now, the original statement was by a H and S rep which concerns me as to how far this erosion of women’s rights goes.

Log in

https://www.csp.org.uk/icsp/discussion/new-support-after-pregnancy-or-baby-loss-24-weeks?network-id=225997

FrothyCothy · 02/05/2024 21:26

Did the CSP provide you with representation when you were under investigation by HCPC @VenusEnvyXX ? Could they potentially refuse to provide representation to a member with GC views? Seems barmy to me that one part of CSP could be robustly defending a GC member citing Maya, Meade et al, while other parts of the CSP are potentially reporting members to the regulator for being GC 🤯

RadFiz · 02/05/2024 19:56

VenusEnvyXX · 02/05/2024 19:17

Yes, I now see one comment, and, interestingly, it's not the comment which was messaged to me.

Curiouser and curiouser

Someone has started a separate discussion about the article on the pelvic/gynae icsp network page. Is that the comment you were referring to? Refers to the article as “dystopian”.

Calyx72 · 02/05/2024 19:39

VenusEnvyXX · 02/05/2024 19:17

Yes, I now see one comment, and, interestingly, it's not the comment which was messaged to me.

Curiouser and curiouser

That's not sinister at alllll

<sarcasm>

OP posts:
stealtheatingtunnocks · 02/05/2024 19:28

The iCSP is a GDPR hot mess, I reckon. It says anonymous and it’s not

LouisaGuy · 02/05/2024 19:23

Yes the only comment visible is the on clarifying the terminology in the National framework

VenusEnvyXX · 02/05/2024 19:17

Yes, I now see one comment, and, interestingly, it's not the comment which was messaged to me.

Curiouser and curiouser

RadFiz · 02/05/2024 18:10

VenusEnvyXX · 02/05/2024 17:28

Can anyone see a comment on this batshit article?

A member messaged me with what she'd posted under it, but my account says there are 0 comments on it. She showed me a screenshot, it's definitely there for her and I'm curious about whether there is some sort of shadow banning on iCSP.

I can see a comment under there now.

VenusEnvyXX · 02/05/2024 17:30

I see some interesting parallels in language and approach between the CSP and RCN.

https://archive.ph/voiD9

VenusEnvyXX · 02/05/2024 17:28

Can anyone see a comment on this batshit article?

A member messaged me with what she'd posted under it, but my account says there are 0 comments on it. She showed me a screenshot, it's definitely there for her and I'm curious about whether there is some sort of shadow banning on iCSP.

New support after pregnancy or baby loss before 24 weeks gestation

https://www.csp.org.uk/frontline/article/new-support-after-pregnancy-or-baby-loss-24-weeks-gestation

Calyx72 · 01/05/2024 22:11

Thanks Smile yes Elaine shared on X, I have retweeted and will have a think

OP posts:
Calyx72 · 01/05/2024 21:43

Seen what? (Sorry if I am missing a link, am on the app)

OP posts:
VenusEnvyXX · 01/05/2024 15:27

Has everyone seen this?

https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1785613746171191627

VenusEnvyXX · 01/05/2024 15:24

It's very worrying indeed. It seems like wilful ignorance of the law - which, as any fule kno, is no defence.

Calyx72 · 28/04/2024 13:13

archive.ph/2024.04.28-101713/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/27/nhs-to-limit-trans-ideology-with-new-constitution/

Hope this comes to Scotland's NHS and the CSP asap

OP posts:
VenusEnvyXX · 20/04/2024 17:40

Amazing, thank you!

I'll work it out and DM you. I really appreciate the help.

I'm perhaps being Pollyanna but I think that this is fixable with a bit of staff training and conversation.

I wrote a substack thing too https://open.substack.com/pub/venusenvyxx/p/what-happens-if-we-gobblefunk-around?r=3mkmwi&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

What happens if we gobblefunk around with words?

harms, hubris and honesty

https://open.substack.com/pub/venusenvyxx/p/what-happens-if-we-gobblefunk-around?r=3mkmwi&showWelcomeOnShare=true

Anklesprainssuck · 20/04/2024 16:28

Me to