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

DadJoke

Is it actually beyond a trans activist's understanding that a high standard of trans health does not have to involve a person in a leadership position believing that people can change sex?

That delivering the best health care involves making sure that balance is sought and that safeguarding is maintained?

That many people can do a job without fully believing an ideological stance that the organisation takes and that their very presence means that it is a better organisation for it?

or is it simply that trans activists can only support 'pure' organisations.

Do you realise that currently clinicians and other staff already hold the view that a person does not change sex? And that transitioned males are not females and are not women, but are transitioned males who deserve the best health care to assist them with their dysphoria?

But transwomen aren't women.

She doesn't think trans women are women, and trots out the usual gender critical screed. It's entirely understandable why Tavistock wouldn't employ someone like this.

This thread turned very, very weird.

They asserted that races were plainly different - just as, indeed, vaginas were different to penises, one might say.

Penises and vaginas are different though. So are men and women. Are you saying they are not?

I agree viv

I really wish the Scottish Government would consider some science tomorrow, @Helleofabore.

Let’s consider the ‘cock off’ situation.

It had been pointed out that removal of the testicles, cutting of the supply of testosterone is incredibly harmful to males. They need to be placed on artificial testosterone or risk life shortening health issues.

But. Removing testosterone completely simply doesn’t remove the physical advantages the body has from being male.

It really is important to remember the science, isn’t it.

Removing genitals does not make much difference at all to the physical differences needed to cause more harm to a female than a female body.

Yet he picked her up and carried her off like a rag doll, put her in a van. Chilling

Exactly, @HelloCrocus. That's why I get so cross about "let them in if they have their cock off". It's not the few ounces of genital flesh that's a problem, it's the whole bigger, faster, stronger body with it's hormonal influence of testosterone and belief that women don't have the right to say "no" that makes them dangerous.

qua the standard Mumsnet definition

Wait helleofabore all is not lost for me, there is actually a definition ala mumsnet

Now if only ides would show me where the definition is…or maybe Justine?

The hatred of women that was apparent in those words zombie is chilling.

Is a dick and a pair of bollocks still that much of a menace to us poor little things - even if they're attached to some poor sod who's as bullied, traumatised, desperate and miserable as most transwomen are

The degree of mocking infantilising women, especially traumatised women, was off the scale. That is true hate for women and girls.

While the portrayal of males, transitioned males, is based in an equally false and this time also fantastical generalisation.

Err! No. Shall we post photos of transitioned males standing beside or in groups of women? We can, but it would be considered cruel and deleted. Rightly so.

I will instead point readers to the Hilton & Lundberg review and readers can also find links to the Harper review (led by a transitioned male) and the USAF study on the break it down thread.

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

Transitioned males may be bullied, they may be miserable and they may be desperate. That wording was intended to convey weakness. Yet, the proof is in the science. They are still, on average, stronger and more able to cause more harm than any female.

And there is no evidence that in the UK those males are any more bullied, miserable or desperate than the women needing single sex spaces!

But… Ides don’t let truth get in the way of your posting at all!!!

Women have the right to say 'no' to men, even if it makes those men very, very sad.

Also for those who bang on about how sex segregation is discrimination - I presume you wish no sex-segregation at all, yes? Mixed sex spaces in all cases, universally. No differentiation, ever, between the sexes.

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.

For men who want to access everywhere, women saying no IS apparently as bad as being starved, beaten and mass murdered. According to them.

I do wonder if they ever see this?

The difference in races was obvious and irrefutable.

And here Ides misses something quite obvious.

Males of any race are consistently committing sex crimes against women and children at a rate higher than females of any race.

In the UK, that rate has been consistently above 98%. Look it up, it really isn’t hard to find.

Countries with a completely different racial mix have single sex spaces! I know! Hard to believe, right?

So, this is just another false basis for this argument.

You have to grasp that for the Nazis, such racist thinking was absolute, undeniable, in-your-eyes objective fact. The difference in races was obvious and irrefutable.

You say this as though only Nazis thought this way but the Jim Crow laws of segregation in USA only went on the 1960s. And even now TRAs demonstrate their racism by declaring 'transwomen are women in the same way black women are women' - as though black women are somehow different from other women.

I think rufus you are far too logical and based in reality.

Of course, women can be whatever someone else believes them to be!!! Nazis. Fuckholes. Wondrous saints. Even people with ‘dicks and goolies/balls’!

if you're a full-on GCer, qua the standard Mumsnet definition, as I see it, you do. You really do

as I see it is doing a lot of heavy lifting there as is your assertion of your perspective of the 'standard definition'.

I'd be surprised if this thread is the first time in your life that people with whom you've shared your thinking and processes have pointed out the cliché that your map is definitely not the territory.

However, not one poster who has stated that someone who believes sex to be immutable has articulated clearly why that person would not be suitable to be in a leadership role at the Tavistock.

All they have done is shown their complete lack of understanding on the stance of those who believe sex is immutable. And subsequently, their, the poster’s, own deep prejudices that seem to be based on falsity.

But bearing in mind 99% of people think that, how come we are all now nazis

We can’t all be nazis

Oh and ‘GC people think ABC’ i still haven’t seen a definition of GC that goes any further than ‘believes sex is immutable’

That's about it, really, I think?

You have to grasp that for the Nazis, such racist thinking was absolute, undeniable, in-your-eyes objective fact. The difference in races was obvious and irrefutable. The only problem was that they pushed the reasoning beyond that to ... well, as we all know, such things as 'Jews are dangerous and evil' and 'Negroes are primitive'.

In the same way, to me, the GC case is steeped in the tacit view that if a person has a dick and bollocks, that person is inherently wrong, nasty, dangerous ... or at best, 'other'. Now, you may protest, 'No, I see nothing inherently wrong, nasty and dangerous about a person who has a dick and bollocks' ... But, if you're a full-on GCer, qua the standard Mumsnet definition, as I see it, you do. You really do. This person who has a dick and bollocks is a 'worry' to you, if you see said person in your toilet or dressing room. This person could, theoretically, hurt you. At best, this person could, by virtue of having a dick and bollocks, mar your sense of dignity in some way.

I am sure that everyone who read this was completely convinced. I mean really, really convinced. No? Yeah, it is not the most coherent of arguments, was it?

There is also an issue of proportionality here. It is a tactic that is regularly used on MN FWR to attempt to silence women who defend their boundaries, whatever the motivation of that person attempting to silence women.

Ides is stating clearly that women not wanting males in their single sex spaces are like nazis. You can’t get much more extreme than that. And of course, the power differential between nazis and women is incomparable too. But hey… why ruin a ‘hot’ take that is so old and tropish it should be embarrassing to post.

It completely ignores that females have had single sex spaces for generations before those horrific events perpetuated by that group. Were those single sex spaces always ‘abhorrent’? Has the need for single sex spaces today changed from the need for single sex spaces before the Nazi’s came into power?

And how fucking offensive is that comparison for a multitude of reasons. I mean, fucking offensive.

I think not. But we are told by some that it is abhorrent and it always was.

So, not only do women not wanting males in their single sex spaces NOT want the male population eradicated, but also no woman I know believes that all males have the intent to harm.

Shall we just cut the crap and state that FACTS relating to prior behaviour have shaped the safeguarding processes of today? Would Ides care to refute that?

Those facts, and most other facts about the world around us, shape many policies. In fact, facts also shape policies set to care for and protect children, people with disabilities, vulnerable men, ethnic groups, religious groups. Would Ides care to refute that this also happens?

Would Ides like to tell us why it is only women’s needs for single sex spaces that is so deserving of being compared to the beliefs of nazi’s? Or….does Ides also believe that all those other policies are worthy of such comparisons as well?

’Now, you may protest, 'No, I see nothing inherently wrong, nasty and dangerous about a person who has a dick and bollocks' ... But, if you're a full-on GCer, qua the standard Mumsnet definition, as I see it, you do. You really do.‘

And this statement is also pretty clear in its deep prejudice that Ides holds about GCers (also easily observed in the use of ‘GCers) It also tries to ascribe a polarised view. An obvious cognitive distortion that is constantly being deployed to discredit women who wish to keep single sex spaces single sex.

It is a very weak argument. And I doubt that Ides even believes it.

It is very interesting though to note that it is Ides who keeps talking about genitals. But can’t seem to use the words penis and testicles in their posts on this thread. Of course, it could be just a literary device used by Ides to show how ridiculous women are for wanting to maintain single sex spaces, but the way it has been used does highlight the potential for other reasons for the avoidance as well.

So to encapsulate Ides post:

Women wanting to maintain single sex spaces are like genocidal, ideological driven, power hungry, political extremists. (a falsity on so many levels)

Women wanting to maintain single sex spaces are all believe that all males are inherently dangerous and intent on harm. (a polarising cognitive distortion)

A false regurgitation and interpretation of feminism in history and in present times followed.

And back to the ‘scale’ argument.

I have no time or respect for this version of 'feminism'

I couldn’t give a fuck for whatever you think ‘feminism’ is. Because it seems your version of feminism centres males. And your version of feminism involves mocking other female’s needs. And your version of feminism seems incredibly selective about the actions of feminists in history. It seems to ignore those feminists who actively set up those single sex spaces in the first place.

And it ignores that the conditions in history where feminists set up those single sex spaces and only improved in some aspects, yet worsened in other aspects.

But I am glad you feel comfortable to remonstrate other women for needing single sex spaces.

Because that really says everything any reader needs to know.