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

"His colleague, the manager of women's service at the time, added that midwives who had worked elsewhere "almost need retraining to be able to work in Shropshire. We have recruited people who are like minded. If you want to keep something going and you believe in it, you do not want to employ people who do not believe in what you believe in."

This reads like such a plain example of believing so firmly that you're on the right side of history that you're unwilling to scrutinise the reality of what you're doing or consider the well understood dangers of groupthink.

Just reading the maternity service scandal thread and I thought this segment in the OP was relevant here as there seems to be parallels between the poor care there and at Tavistock:

"In the evidence session, seen by Panorama, the then clinical director of the Royal Shrewsbury told MPs: "The culture of our organisation is that we have low intervention rates and once that is known we attract both midwives and obstetricians who like to practise in that way."

"His colleague, the manager of women's service at the time, added that midwives who had worked elsewhere "almost need retraining to be able to work in Shropshire. We have recruited people who are like minded. If you want to keep something going and you believe in it, you do not want to employ people who do not believe in what you believe in."

If my memory serves me correctly, knowing that sex exists and is immutable is a fact, believing that it is important is the belief that is protected

And, in some circumstances that have yet to be fully circumscribed, manifesting that belief may be an offence or even a crime. The perception of the offence or crime lies with other people at times—including the CoP who have been erring in this but not that you'd know give the recent activities of some Police services.

So, that's perfectly straightforward to explain to people who haven't been keeping up to date with this.

I mean, if the Tavistock wants to transition(!) into being a "gender affirmation service", then sure, having people who believe in "affirming gender" in charge makes sense.

But they can't have it both ways. If they're a "gender affirmation service", then it's not medicine, and the NHS should withdraw funding.

If they want NHS funding, then being able to work within the evidence is a prerequisite - and previous behaviour and investigations and lawsuits show that they have a current leadership incapable of doing that. They're closing their eyes and ears to anything that upsets their "customers".

So they need GC people on the board (or at the very least people prepared to listen to GC voices) to restore balance, and ask the difficult questions that need to be asked. It's in their own best interests to do that now, before the malpractice scandal gets any worse.

A Tavistock with Baroness Nicholson on the board asking questions would be a hell of a lot stronger.

I think it was stated in the Westminster debate the other day (can’t remember who) that the WHO no longer consider gender dysphoria as and illness. If that is true, why are the Tavi continuing to believe it is and treat it?

[quote DontLikeCrumpets]@MidCenturyClegs "But it's Christian and gender critical beliefs which are protected, whereas gender woo woo beliefs are not."

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.[/quote]
If my memory serves me correctly, knowing that sex exists and is immutable is a fact, believing that it is important is the belief that is protected.

My first thought was 'Audacious! But of course the Tavi don't want someone GC on their board - it's all about transitioning'

And then with a jolt I remembered that the Tavi is an NHS medical service. It's aim isn't to transitioning people! It's aim is to provide the best possible care to people with gender dysphoria. And the best care possible can certainly be provided by GC staff, whether management or clinical. In fact assuming that one particular treatment is always right is terrible care!

I'm kind of shocked that the gas-lighting had me associating the Tavi with affirmation and transition. It absolutely shouldn't be about that - and that's exactly why they need more GC leaders ensuring balance.

@MidCenturyClegs "But it's Christian and gender critical beliefs which are protected, whereas gender woo woo beliefs are not."

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.

They might as well say "no pregnant women, no Christians, no homosexuals and nobody over 40".

It is the exact same principle, unlawful discrimination based on a protected characteristic.

That's why MRAs (Men's Rights Activists - the new term for TRAs) try to silence women but women don't try to silence MRAs.

One speaks the truth, the other fears the truth.

The Baroness is a .

Media caution could be because there's a reasonable likelihood of a lawsuit?

Weirdly the Mail article on this only has one, not very useful, comment. They are normally good at allowing comments.

Is there any reason MSM are being cautious about a story covering the Tavi.

She's amazing.

Oh, my word, I didn't think the Baroness could go further upwards in my estimation. Bravo.

I'm delighted to report that Baroness Nicholson has now advised on Twitter:

"Glad to say that I now have a preliminary recruitment meeting agreed."

As another contributor said, its amazing what a little daylight can do .....

Where would she get this from though. Was it in the instructions given to her by the Tavi. Some journo ought to do some digging.

Would a FOI turn anything up, I wonder?

There are over 500 comments on this by Suzanne Moore

www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2022/02/01/inclusive-world-anything-excludes-women-renames-us-disappears/

and this by Celia Walden

www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2021/12/06/school-loos-changing-rooms-female-only-spaces-disappeared/

and this by Judith Woods

www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2022/02/24/thanks-ant-dec-woman-just-got-even-harder/

the comments are very mixed - different views getting an airing.

How such a newspaper should be surely? what is The Times playing at?

I expect the Baroness to see this through, however.

It could be concluded by some that the old same old exclusion, based on sex and disability, is the rebranded and pretend 'inclusion' for these jolly types.

Plus ca change, with a big old sleight of hand.

'your view on sex being immutable is not a view point that the trust would wish any of their non-executives to hold'

Does this mean that all current non-executives on the board are completely on message with gender ideology? This seems quite a statement to make on their behalf?