Don’t bother applying for a job if you think people can’t change sex, NHS trust tells health official

I am old enough to remember this, or think I remember this, but didn’t it used to be the case that it was a core part of the counselling before a sex change that the patient had to show they knew that whilst they could modify their body, they would never actually change sex? I think I am thinking back to reading April Ashley’s autobiography? Or have I muddled this with something else?

It's like putting an anti-vaxer in charge of distributing vaccines.

Feminists used to be against it, arguing for nurture over nature, saying such things as 'just because I have a vagina, that doesn't mean I'm weak and easily oppressed'. Now, though, they - or rather the GC ones - are saying precisely the opposite: that if there's a person in the room equipped with a penis and testicles, that person will, ipso facto, be able to oppress me!

Feminists have always recognised that women are oppressed by their reproductive role and the physiology that goes with it. What do you, Ides, think is the source of their oppression? Long hair, skirts and womanly 'feelz'?

Justwaking, the price list includes costs for hormone treatment and surgery. Neither is cosmetic

Both are cosmetic.

why would you deny a patient

I mean a general ‘you’ here, by the way.

B) because people who believe that sex is immutable are currently providing excellent trans health care around the world right now. It is your mistaken understanding of what ‘gender critical’ means that makes you question why they would apply.

C) why would you deny a patient the highest standard of care because you believe in ideological thinking that only someone who believes in ‘gender’ can provide the best care? There are now high profile transitioned male surgeons and health practitioners even questioning ‘affirming only’ care.

There are more and more studies released that show that balance is vital. That ensuring that underlying health and mental health issues are treated properly before any irreversible treatment is started. And having a practitioner or a CEO that believes that sex cannot change should hopefully mean our children going through these treatments, or any loved one, will receive treatment that they need not what ideologically driven groups insist on as had been happening.

If ‘gender critical’ clinicians, safeguarding and other staff have been working in the Tavistock for decades, why is it an issue now?

Is it because they call out safeguarding issues (Appleby, Kirsty Entewhistle), or lack of quality care (Marcus and Sue Evans or David Bell) while doing the best job they can to provide relief to those suffering debilitating dysphoria? Or is it because there is a group who want these drugs and surgeries on the NHS even though they don’t have debilitating dysphoria? Or is it that a group want to continue to deny that even Dr Steensma, an author of the Dutch protocol is saying that affirming only may not be appropriate as a treatment for the majority of the current cohort of young transitioners.

Who would wish for an unbalanced team in charge of the Tavistock?

Justwaking, the price list includes costs for hormone treatment and surgery. Neither is cosmetic and there is an expectation by many that it should be provided on the NHS, often by patients who have entered the system via the Tavistock. Charities like Mermaids have complained about gate keeping and waitlists.

It is very important that the Tavistock retains its impartiality. I understand that Mermaids started as a group of Tavistock parents and morphed into a lobby group to press for more affirmation and quicker medical intervention. Alternative approaches and diagnoses need to be looked at. Not only because medical interventions are non reversible and sometimes under researched. But also because medical life time costs to the NHS for a ‘sex charge’ can be huge. We don’t want individuals, especially children, to later regret. We, as a society, probably don’t want to pick up the bill in anything other than very clear and properly diagnosed cases of gender dysphoria.

One reason why the Tavistock should not be pre screening applicants according to beliefs.

Though I accept it might be a challenge, some people are very committed to doing right by others they believe are being ill-served

To help the patients I imagine Lekisa. If you are gc you might be concerned that distressed young people are not necessarily getting the best care there, and you might want to make the service better?

And it seems that my autocorrect simply cannot leave ‘goolies’ as is. Quite funny to see it changed to goodies and goalies even after I changed it back both times.

Anyway, I have noticed that Ides has posted in this direction of thinking before - that it is ridiculous to think that just one male can oppress many women just through their presence. Even in jails it seems that Ides believes this phenomena cannot happen.

It is the ‘scale’ argument. How can one transitioned male oppress women? But it seems some posters also think women are pathetic for having an understanding of how this happens.

One male.

Let’s look at ‘one male’. Lia Thomas. How many women’s lives did this male affect? Even to start with, by exposing their ‘penis and goolies’ in the dressing room. Then by taking women’s places in the events they have trained for, trained for much of their lives for. Then by creating a hostile environment for those team mates and competitors who disagree that Thomas should be able to compete ‘as a woman’. Then by breaking records and setting new ones that may never be broken in that league, because Thomas is a male.

Yeah…. Just one male.

One male.

Shall we consider the harm one male can do in a prison. We have the court evidence and now a study, that show that even without physical contact, males cause great harm in female prison estates. I am happy to post links and discuss, but from what I have known of ides it won’t matter.

One male in a female prison estate will cause harm to many female prisoners, and to female prison guards and staff. Including the females who have to search that body with a ‘penis and goolies’. And there are documented instances of those ‘penises and goolies’ being deliberately exposed while showering.

Just one male can cause that wide spread harm in one prison.

One male.

So let’s revisit the toilet situation. One male can be the one that causes multiple women to self exclude. Or just one woman. How many women being harmed by one visit to the toilets by a transitioned male is enough for ides to say.. yeah ok. That is a knock effect that is harmful.

Is it one for one? If the effect of one transitioned male having access causes one woman to self-exclude from ever using that toilet, visiting that store, that theatre, that work place again, is that ok with ides? Because that male has now got the freedom to use female AND male toilets of their choosing, whenever they want. And the woman doesn’t have that choice so doesn’t come back. Or would the knock on effect be considered too. A workplace situation, meaning that potentially a whole family is now without a much needed wage.

Still pathetic, ides.

I know what comes next. That I will be accused of manufacturing a situation that will ‘never happen’. Except it is. Women are telling us they are self excluding all the time. It is just that some people will always ignore those stories because they are ‘kind’ to who they think are the only marginalised and ‘most vulnerable’ … the owner of that ‘penis and goolies’.

Pathetic. Isn’t it.

Why would a gender critical person apply to work at Tavistock, exactly?

saying such things as 'just because I have a vagina, that doesn't mean I'm weak and easily oppressed'. Now, though, they - or rather the GC ones - are saying precisely the opposite: that if there's a person in the room equipped with a penis and testicles, that person will, ipso facto, be able to oppress me!

What a load of bollocks!

From what I have read, Feminists have always known the axis of women’s oppression. Always.

And they are still saying ‘just because I have a vagina, that doesn't mean I'm weak and easily oppressed’. However, they also recognise that because they have a vagina, they are at much higher risk of attack. Of assault, of rape. Of even being used indirectly to prop up someone’s fetish, unwillingly.

Only a fool believes that females are not at risk from males, and that an all too high percentage of us have already been victims of such attacks. So, I take it you are not such a fool Ides, but instead pushing a political agenda.

the one with the penis and goolies (or who even once had a penis and goolies) will oppress all those natal women!

Let’s break this down. For a start, there are women who have religious needs requiring that male not to be in that space.

The presence of that ‘penis and goodies’ means that those females are indeed oppressed. Because in that instance they cannot enter or stay in that space. And will most likely self exclude from using that facility. That is oppression. Funny how ides cannot see that as oppression.

There are the large percentage of women who have been the victim of male violence. It is clear, because women tell us this constantly, that being in a space knowing there is a ‘penis and goalies’ in that space where the woman is in a state of undress or vulnerable is distressing and triggering. They will also self exclude from that space that they require for their participation in public life. Maybe Ides has a different interpretation of oppression. But that, to me, is oppression

So, we have a small group of males who would have had to be living without any media, social or otherwise, to not know that females are distressed at their presence in single sex spaces. You see, women know that ‘NAMALT’. It doesn’t make any difference though until there is a reliable way to tell us which males are intent on harming us (even indirectly) and which are not. There is no magic sign, so all males in a space meant to be single sex are a potential risk. And their very action of ignoring female boundaries are actually a magic sign that they have the high potential to cause us harm. Even simply by our unwilling involvement in their fantasy. Sexual or not.

Strewth, it’s utterly pathetic that any male adult will continue to oppress females knowingly. All because they ignore the millennia of sexist discrimination that women have lived with due to their sexed bodies. Just so they can prioritise their own needs, whatever those needs are.

All because some women think that they have the right to give away the rights based on the safety needs of other women. Maybe because they have had the privilege to never need them.

Utterly pathetic, isn’t it?

One difficult question would be whether our health service can afford such treatments. The full Monty is equivalent to treating a rare childhood cancer. And….gender dysphoria is not an illness.

I do find this quite puzzling. The NHS is really stretched. Does the NHS really pay for these cosmetic treatments?

Money is usually found for immediately, physically life-saving treatments.

• but not for mental health, and sadly young people are left unsupported during serious mental health crises.

• and not non-urgent surgeries like breast-reduction for women suffering backache and inconvenience

How is this different?

@Ides why have you got "objective" in quotes? That implies that you don't believe there is an objective way to assess someone's sex.

"Gender Critical is NOT a belief as it is grounded in science.GC accepts that gender is socially constructed and therefore can be regarded as a belief but that sex is a biological fact so therefore is immutable."

Actually, yes, GC is a belief. It's grounded in the ideology of scientism - the belief in an obectivism, yielded by 'objective' science. Feminists used to be against it, arguing for nurture over nature, saying such things as 'just because I have a vagina, that doesn't mean I'm weak and easily oppressed'. Now, though, they - or rather the GC ones - are saying precisely the opposite: that if there's a person in the room equipped with a penis and testicles, that person will, ipso facto, be able to oppress me!

Even just one person in a bathroom with sixty, a hundred not-so-equipped persons (I don't know what the ratio of natal women to transwomen is) - the one with the penis and goolies (or who even once had a penis and goolies) will oppress all those natal women!

Strewth it's utterly pathetic.

There is not one human being on this planet that doesn't know that sex is immutable and unchangeable.
There are people who SAY they don't know it or agree with it.
There are people who try to get OTHER people to believe it.
There are people who try really really hard to believe it because their ideology depends on it.
But there is not one person who actually thinks deep down that men can become women, or women become men.
They know it. We know it.
We know they know it.

Dining etiquette? What do they mean - which knife and fork to use? Watch You Tube. FFS.

It is astonishing. Someone posted it on another forum and I was waiting to find a suitable place here. It probably deserves a thread of its own.

One difficult question would be whether our health service can afford such treatments. The full Monty is equivalent to treating a rare childhood cancer. And….gender dysphoria is not an illness.

Reason enough for the Tories to stay well away…I hope.

@Needmoresleep

That link is staggering. Horrifying. I don’t understand most of the procedures - “eye feminisation”? What exactly is this ?

Huge money spinner, too.

I would think that overseeing a clinic treating children with gender dysphoria is a job for which understanding that sex is immutable is an essential requirement.
If you don't understand that, you don't understand what the clinic is actually doing.

In case people have not seen this before. One reason why there will be so much pressure for the Tavi to support gender affirmation rather than investigate non medical approaches to alleviate gender dysphoria.

www.thelondontransgenderclinic.uk/price-list/

If you can't get the surgery you think you might want, you might have to go private. One heck of a gofundme. And indeed a huge potential burden on the NHS.

Cailleach1 - you got there before me

This shows to me that the Tavistock haven’t learnt anything, think they are operating correctly and don’t need non executives who challenge them. This is appalling and shows they don’t think they need to change.