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

As I am Australian, I could believe that Ides was taking the piss with the use of ‘Strewth’, ‘crikey’ and commenting on my grammar.

'Phenomena' is plural. I think you meant 'phenomenon'. Hope that helps'

If it happens more than once it can be plural.

Plural means more than one. Or once.

Hope that helps.

By crackey do you know how to do rhetoric!

And am I to assume that you meant ‘By crikey’?

Hello gang.
An interesting and yes, illuminating set of exchanges this afternoon.
I am popping this down for another look, would you all care to peer through your lorgnettes with me? Okay here we go.

"
Today 17:18Lekisa658

[bishophaha

We always say that TRAs don't see women as human, beings, people. Now we have proof.]

Actually it's more that WE see everyone as human beings first, regardless of sex or gender, whereas you only see everyone through the lens of whether they're "male" or "female". "

So. My bolding and italicising and capitalising. Interested in the italicised and capitalised we presented here. Who is the WE do you think, please? Please do scroll to the post of 17.18 to see it in context.

Thoughts most welcome, thank you, from the poster in question would be handy dandy, too.

Hi Hellofabore,

I'll get back to you soon, I promise. But can I just say, for now, re

"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. "

'Phenomena' is plural. I think you meant 'phenomenon'. Hope that helps! :)

However, that line 'One male', as a para all of its own, and repeated: punchy. By crackey do you know how to do rhetoric! Credit where it's due! :)

Lekisa...

So the stat about 97% of sexual crimes are committed by men...that means pretty much all of them. And now that we have recategoried men as women, the 3% (that's the other bit of the 97% that makes up 'all') could well be males as well.

Stats eh?

To be fair, our visitor has already announced on another thread that they don't understand percentages like "13/50". So I imagine statistical evidence and peer reviewed papers would be beyond his ken.

Right, so you're just going with plain denial, despite you and others stating it in pretty clear terms you do in fact just see trans women as a "male" threat.

I am sorry. I am still laughing at the incredulous tone this seems to be written to convey.

Outrageous isn't it? When women say 'no' to males? No. I don't believe that a male who says they are a woman is female and should be treated as a female when it matters. (Which is actually, a lot of the time!)

Shocking isn't it!!

However, I don't give a flying fuck what they look like. At all. They are still male!

I do however, give many cares about ALL females. Even the ones who try to deny that they are female.

Shocking that too!!!

INCREDIBLE!!!

Right, so you're just going with plain denial, despite you and others stating it in pretty clear terms you do in fact just see trans women as a "male" threat.

Well yes! Like every other male

Go ahead, I guess.

Don't guess, know

Transwomen are male bodied. Have male life experiences. Are not female.

Incontravertible science

Males are male and always will be. It's not rocket science. It's wild we're in the position anyone thinks it feasible to argue that a male is or can become female. Wild.

Right, so you're just going with plain denial, despite you and others stating it in pretty clear terms you do in fact just see trans women as a "male" threat.

Go ahead, I guess.

I don't deny that I consider all males a threat at the same level of risk.

It is YOU who has failed to provide any evidence that they are not. And to be fair, we know that there is no evidence of any kind that shows that. We know that UK crime statistics show that transitioned males seem to have a higher risk of committing sex crime.

The fact is, they may be higher risk, they may not. But they are most certainly not a LOWER risk.

Your lack of ability to grasp this has been pointed out repeatedly. You even admitted that statistics mean nothing to you.

By advocating for any reduction in safeguarding measures for a subset of adult males, YOU are advocating for females to be placed in harmful situations.

You may come to recognise that some time in the future. But I doubt it. And I don't care. Because I have a stake in the future for females to be kept safe, even if you don't.

So, no.

I don't deny that I will discriminate against all males where sex matters.

You seem to really not have a grasp on how discrimination works either.

Sorry, I got distracted by this thread where nobody can tell whether the OP's post is a mouse or a rat, but nobody is in the slightest doubt what the 'socially constructed identity' of this particular rat is:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4494190-Please-identify-this-rodent-for-me?pg=4

(you'll need to scroll down, but you can't miss it!)

Obviously you'd be able to say what one thing is that all women have in common, that people who aren't women don't, right? Just to clear that up?

Yes, could you do that please, Lekisa? Otherwise I think we can agree that most people won't see the need to change the definition they've always used, and has been used since humans first sat around a campfire, to whatever you think it is, without some parameters?

you do in fact just see trans women as a "male" threat.

Well, yes. Obviously. Do you not understand the criteria for being a transwoman?

Do you want to have another go with that definition, then, Lekisa? To include the fact that women are people?

You could start with "a woman is a person who/which/that....." (can never remember which is the correct grammar, so any will do).

Right, so you're just going with plain denial, despite you and others stating it in pretty clear terms you do in fact just see trans women as a "male" threat

No more or less a male threat than any other individual male person. People have been very clear. What is it you don't get?

"There's even an automated bot on Twitter to provide this information on demand"

Absolutely crying with laughter at this. Oh, the depths of my wilful ignorance, ungratefully closing my eyes to the wisdom of the Great Twitter Bot!

Does anyone else have a vision of a post-apocalyptic landscape where survivors have cobbled together a religion based on random flotsam and jetsam? Like there's an old smoke alarm in a tree that randomly beeps now and then, and they've set up a priesthood to interpret the divine beeps of the tree god? "Why do you need to Have Thoughts? Are the beeps not good enough for you, oh sinful child?"

It is quite hilarious Lekisa that you really cannot grasp that you are very much the hypocrite on these threads. Because you believed that everyone holds the extreme views that reflect the opposite of yours.

And just to repeat - we have trans posters on this board who would disagree with much of what you have said and tried to tell everyone that ALL trans people believe.

If you believed yourself some avenging crusader for trans people, I think you failed in that respect too.

Not "dropped off" yet then?

It's written all over your treatment of others? The way you clearly regard trans women not as human beings like you, but rather a "male" threat to "females" first and foremost, and little besides?

Have you any evidence that transitioning from a male to a 'trans woman' decreases the risk to females from these males? If the statistics are correct, the 20% of men in prison for sexual offences actually increases in the case of 'trans women' to 50%? So the risk seems to be higher? Or have I misunderstood that 50% is now less than 20?% these days?

I mean we know they are human beings, but they are male human beings. They know they are male human beings. I cannot fathom what the problem is with all of us being able to discuss this like adults?

Go ahead, I guess.

Actually it's more that we see everyone as human beings first, regardless of sex or gender, whereas you only see everyone through the lens of whether they're "male" or "female".

It's not though, if your definition of the word literally excludes the term "human"?

I don't "only see" things like that at all, so that's another thing you're wrong about.