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

Women are so fragile and so delicate, it only takes one person, equipped with a dick and testicles, no matter how small and physically feeble that person may be, to be a menace to all the women around?

Jeez, really, sincerely - can you not see how pathetic that looks?

Women being aware of the threat of rape is 'pathetic'?

Nice. What do you think we should do about the threat of rape? Just 'man up' and get over it?

For entertainment, try rereading Ides' screed replacing all references to "transwomen" with "men called Keith".

It makes just as much sense - special pleading for a self-salami-sliced subset of men who deserve to be treated specially because they then become a minority via the artificial salami slicing.

(And we don't care whether they're called Keith or not, this is not Keithphobia...)

The point @ides has sailed merrily over your head. For your benefit let me say it again. The problem under self Id is MEN. Men who would abuse the system. Since 99% of sex crimes are committed by men this is the reason for keeping them out of single sex spaces. Unless of course you have evidence that male pattern behaviour changes after saying the magic words 'I am a woman'? (Hint: you do not)

Nothing new in that post from ides. It was like deja vu. Except the introduction of the ever so privileged ‘hasn’t happened to me so therefore is not an issue’.

I am sure readers will be enlightened seeing that little gem.

Anyway, anything to say that addresses the OP Ides. Or is this another merail?

Karen White's no shrinking violet!

"Small and physically feeble" - have you seen Lia Thomas? And Caitlyn Jenner? And Gabrielle Basketball-player?

And I'm sure the child attacked by Katie Dolatowski (for example) feels incredibly empowered by you laughing at their assault.
It didn't happen to you, and I'm sure if it had you'd have been so strong and cool with it, that it's no problem, yeah?

PS - you can't "notice" someone's gender. Bit offensive of you to say you have the power to notice whether someone is trans or not.

Hard to tell what you're quoting there and what's your post, Ides.
Lots of it isn't a genuine reflection of anything that's been said though - you could try actually quoting a piece of text and engaging directly with the words used, rather than pretending anyone's saying "will trash our fragile lives".

I'm sorry but, in the great debate about women versus transwomen ... women are not the victims.

This doesn't even parse.
What do you think the debate is?
Why do you think there needs to be a side labelled a 'victim' in a debate rather than just... engaging with what's said and the points raised?

Of all the challenges feminism has ever had, that of transwomen is the slightest.

How are you defining 'transwomen' here? Specifically?
As far as I can gather, it's a male person who feels a certain indefinable way.
I used to think it was a male person who wanted to be a woman, but that is no longer accurate.

Anyway, great to know that you think it's only if you personally feel threatened that women need to rise up and do something about it. Do let us know, won't you - we'll all be on standby.

Women are so fragile and so delicate, it only takes one person, equipped with a dick and testicles, no matter how small and physically feeble that person may be, to be a menace to all the women around?

Gosh it sounds like you think TW are all small and physically feeble. Bit nasty that...

"Is a dick and a pair of bollocks still that much of a menace to us poor little things

Yes. Rape can still cause pregnancy. That is an objective fact that has not changed."

Of course. But, with transwomen being such a tiny proportion of women in general, are women still so threatened by them? In one women's toilet or changing room, all it takes is just one transwoman to menace all the natal women around her?

Because, if so, I kind of despair of feminism. Women are so fragile and so delicate, it only takes one person, equipped with a dick and testicles, no matter how small and physically feeble that person may be, to be a menace to all the women around?

Jeez, really, sincerely - can you not see how pathetic that looks?

Gah. I don't know if I can stand being associated with the general vibe I see on this site. It's so paradoxical. It seems as though it's full of people arguing, with great, vehement and muscular vigour, that the tiniest presence of a dick-and-bollocks-equipped-person in their (hard fought and won etc) women-only space will be enough to trash their fragile lives.

Holy hell ... seriously, if I'd even once, in my entire 59 years, ever felt threatened by someone I'd even noticed as a transwoman in a women's toilet, or changing room, or PE class, or anything else ... I might be able to sympathise. But it's never happened. And, actually, it's only happened, once, that I've even suspected that a person who was with me in a 'women's-space' has been a transwoman. And that person looked way more nervous of me than I was of her. Of course.

I'm sorry but, in the great debate about women versus transwomen ... women are not the victims. They're just not. After the biggest demographic of all - that is, people - they're the next biggest demographic in society. Women are powerful - as indeed they should be, after so many years of feminism - which has been, for me, the most powerful progressive force the UK's ever seen.

Of all the challenges feminism has ever had, that of transwomen is the slightest. I hate seeing people at the bottom being encouraged to seeing other people at the bottom as 'the great enemy'. This has been a trick played by those at the top for an eternity. I do think we should dump it and move on. We're not fighting the patriarchy by continuing to be locked into this battle ... we're just being distracted from it. Again.

DadJoke, a person posting here on MN has said, amongst other things, this: 'the science of gender identity is well-established'

Alex Byrne , Professor of Philosophy at MIT has said, amongst other things, this: 'If there is some kind of “gender identity” that is universal in humans, and which causes dysphoria when mismatched with sex, it remains elusive. No one has yet found a way of detecting its presence ...'

These two claims are contradictory.

Byrne backs up his claim, see Byrne on gender identity, for example. (More relevant material can be found on his MIT pages.)

I wonder if DadJoke would like to back up his contrary claim?

If not, we would be foolish to conclude otherwise than that DadJoke is either ignorant, possibly mistaken, or out-and-out simply lying in his/her teeth.

We might simplify matters, perhaps, with reference to the implied challenge, 'No one has yet found a way of detecting its [sc. gender identity's] presence.' If DadJoke is right and Byrne wrong, someone has found a way: Who, DadJoke ? And how? -- What way has been found of detecting the presence of gender identity?

Without such a way of detecting its presence, far from the science of gender identity being well established, such science has yet to begin. No?

Haven't seen this come up for a while, so going to do one of my periodic reposts for the (relative) newcomers.

It's a comprehensive breakdown of "gender identity" and all its logical flaws by Rebecca Reilly-Cooper:

So, no definition of conversion therapy? No proof that Kate Grimes supports conversion therapy either.

Almost like some posters which to post false claims in amongst legitimate claims.

And yes, her believe that transitioned males are not women, that they should not access single spaces is actually not controversial at all. It reflects the majority of the public.

But it is just another way to try to build a case for discrimination that is bonkers.

If you said she should not apply for a public facing representational role with Mermaids, I would likely agree.

An NHS role, where balance and objectivity needs to be applied as well as empathy (but not blind compliance), no. You still have not produced anything to justify it.

Just your own prejudice.

Hi Ho hi Ho. Off to tribunal we go...

whole body is pretending it's real when treating people because they are members of Stonewall?

Many people in the NHS don't "treat people". This is a largely top down imposition from woke central departments who set policy. And yes, are chasing Stonewall points. Listen to Stephen Nolan's BBC podcast, there is no conspiracy.

In this respect it is just like religion. I don't have to believe in God myself in order to acknowledge that some people do.

Exactly. It's pandering to this particularly vocal special interest group. I meet medical doctors through my tangentially relevant work and in my experience they have been pretty dismissive of all this, and yes it has come up before in meetings.

Your suggestion is that the NHS doesn't believe that gender identity is real, but the whole body is pretending it's real when treating people because they are members of Stonewall? That's a hell of a conspiracy.

The alternative is, it's not a conspiracy, they really do believe it, and they are following the science.

A vanishingly small amount of people actually believe MTF trans people are exactly the same as women. People don't feel free to say this though. You can see it when you say, do a yougov poll and ask questions about legal self ID, males in female sports or non op MTF trans people in women's toilets and changing rooms. And the proportion of "the NHS" who feel the same is likely to reflect that.

It's all political posturing.

I'd like to see some clarification from DadJoke on those points bishophaha.

Is "gender identity", broadly speaking, the belief that your mind/ personality/soul has something that is akin to the physical sex a human body has, but isn't quite that?

Or is it the belief that your mind/ personality/soul is somewhere on some sort of masculine->-->feminine spectrum? I'm never quite sure.

If it's "the feeling that you are a man/woman/ neither" i can't understand it without a definition of man or woman.

I genuinely don't know if I have one or not, and, if I do or don't, whether I'm an exception compared to most people by feeling that way.

I’ll be honest but i think someone who believes that humans can change sex is the LAST person the NHS should employ

Your suggestion is that the NHS doesn't believe that gender identity is real, but the whole body is pretending it's real when treating people because they are members of Stonewall? That's a hell of a conspiracy.

The alternative is, it's not a conspiracy, they really do believe it, and they are following the science.

It is possible for someone (or the NHS) to acknowledge that some people believe they have a gender identity without believing in gender identity themselves. In this respect it is just like religion. I don't have to believe in God myself in order to acknowledge that some people do.

Can you post some links to the 'science' about gender identity?

And again. It is you pushing that trans people only have one set of beliefs. Whereas we know that trans people have a multitude of beliefs including believing well established science on sex, and that it cannot change, and that transitioned males/females are not women/men.

So are you also going to insist on any trans person who was hired by the Tavistock also only ever thinking as YOU do?

GC belief doesn’t deny that “gender identity is real”, simply that it is a belief, subjective and mutable, unlike sex.
Depression is real.
Happiness is real.
Neither are immutable.
No one who believes that a belief is immutable has any business working with vulnerable people in any capacity, just as no one who actually believes that sex IS mutable has any business being employed by the NHS or any other sensible organisation

So, I think we agree that it's reasonable for Tavistock not to employ her?

No.

And they already do employ people who believe that transitioned males are not women and transitioned females are not men, but are transitioned males and transitioned females.

The alternative is, it's not a conspiracy, they really do believe it, and they are following the science.