Trans-identifying people seeking extra rights

So, yes! There are ways to ‘force’ a transitioned male onto traumatised women in many situations.

Perhaps stop pushing your belief that all transitioned males are not going to be the ones ‘forcing’ their presence onto posters who already have read and disseminated the too many discussions of males doing just that.

I suggest you read the threads about Mridul Wadhwa as a start.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4471645-mridul-wadwha-and-the-thought-police?reply=114796737

And threads about medical examiners for rape victims in Scotland.

They are a logical place to start.

There was (presumably still is) a transitioned male doctor in the UK, London I think, who declared they would not disclose their sex to anyone. I remember the outrage when I read this person’s statements.

This is happening already, this is not make believe.

about to give me an ultra sound that I could ask for someone else

And of course, I am referring to an internal ultrasound here. Legs spread and everyone watching having had the situation sprung on me at the appointment. No warning.

I don't see why this has to have anything to do with what trans people are allowed to do with their BCs.

Its everything to do with that, the transpersons right to privacy and the organisations attitude to sex as declared or sex as reality, and the consequences of declining a hcp.

If I wanted a female to perform my smear test, what language do I use? I can't say woman if TWAW, I can't say female if men can change their sex to female. If someone is not aware if these issues and asks for a women HCP, the first clue would be when the meet the HCP for the first time.

In reality I'm relying on the organisations and the TW to understand but it's obvious given that they put TW on female wards that either we don't speak the same language or they think not believing TWAW is bigoted.

If its no big deal what sex is on someone's birth certificate, why have a law allowing people to change it?

When I joined my teen child up for sport, we had to provide ID. A passport or birth certificate. Imagine if that was for the under 18 and in Scotland, how would that club deal with a post pubertal male transitioner when their ID all says ‘female’ and they have signed that they are female, but they suspect or can see that this is a male.

What is the club to do? They don’t demand testing at that level or age.

What about at sixth form, one that is single sex? ID still needs to be provided with a sex mentioned for new enrollment. If there is no passport, and just a changed birth certificate, how does the school know.

What about at university? If the student Union chooses (don’t I wish all Student Unions would!) to ask for a birth certificate to prove sex of a Women’s officer role candidate under the exemption of the law, how will they be able to assess the candidate’s validity when the sex has been changed.

What do they do then? They rely on honesty? Do you think all transitioned males with legal fiction behind them is going to admit they are male?

We already know of one male who doesn’t have a GRC but successfully gained employment in a role supposedly using the exemption clause. A male with a history of not admitting they were male until they started their activist career. And was in a role caring for traumatised women.

Not sure why the importance of maintaining the factualness of a birth certificate is so hard to understand.

I don't see why this has to have anything to do with what trans people are allowed to do with their BCs.

Perhaps I can help join the dots for you?

• Male people are allowed to create a legal fiction on the BC of being in fact female

• This raises expectations of being able to be treated in all situations as if they were in fact biologically female when they are not.

• The few barriers created for the protection of actual biological females automatically become the next target for removal as they present boundaries to the absolute validation and recognition of this created female status

• This forcibly brings into conflict the right of males to encounter no boundaries in their identity and the right of females to have accessible female only services which by definition should not include any biological male - any biological male, regardless of how that male person identifies or what cosmetic body art and changes have been made, or what legal illusions have been created on paper.

• As male people are politically more powerful and are coming from a very well funded political lobby and females are not, this has resulted in the following direct harms to female rights: (we can no longer say women's rights as due to the above, women now means nothing more than anyone of any sex who wants to use the word)

1. As male people do not like being questioned as to their legal status all above privileges are now extended without a GRC/BC change needed to avoid the situation of needing to ask or gatekeep female spaces
2. Hence not a tiny number who have gone through multiple checks (which still present all the issues for females, just in smaller amounts) but any male at any time in any form of presentation or identity who chooses to use female spaces and services
3. Many females, particularly from vulnerable groups, cannot access a mixed sex space.
4. This brings characteristics of the equality act into conflict with pressure from the TQ+ political lobby who are interested only in the furthering of the male TQ+ people's interests to create a hierarchy in which TQ+ male interests are always prioritised
5. This is raising a situation in which it is being framed as 'acceptable' (and in fact righteous) to have female single sex services which are in fact fully known to be inaccessible to many females so that males can encounter no boundaries, and the answer to those female people having no services at all so that male people can have their preferred best Me Choice of all the services is .... shrug. This would be male supremacism.
6. This is also raising a situation in which females who cannot or do not wish to use mixed sex services presented under a male-centred, male-pleasing illusion of being single sex female, have the option of walking quietly away, refusing care, or accepting unwanted and distressing care they do not consent to but have been co erced into having no option but to take or go without (for male benefit).
7. Females unable to accept mixed sex provision and further the pretence of it being single sex female for male benefit (not theirs and against their own interests) are forced to either disclose highly personal and distressing information to try to plead for an accessible equal service to the service people are falling over themselves to sensitively provide for male service users, and in saying anything as opposed to quietly leaving, risk being called prejudiced, and punished by scolding, shaming, exclusion from the service or even reporting to the police for 'hate'. This has been pushed to the point of requiring a rape victim, in the acute stages of trauma post rape who has requested a female only examiner, having to pretend to believe that a male examiner is female if the male examiner wishes this, and to submit to that male person's examination if they want any care at all. This is flat out enabled abuse of the female.
8. NO SUCH EQUALITY OF CARE AND SUCKING UP OF DISTRESS IS AT ANY TIME EXPECTED OF ANYONE BORN MALE IN THIS SITUATION.
9. All the above is expected to be carried out in the ongoing pretence (everybody play the game) that sex isn't a thing, that sex is complicated and there aren't two sexes where one sex has all the power and makes all the choices, and the other sex exists as a subhuman service provision unit for the other sex. Females are required to go on pretending regardless of the suffering this causes them because apparently only the ones born with penises matter.

Is this helping yet?

But surely the solution to this is making sure women are made aware that they have the right to refuse care from anyone they like in these types of circumstance, free from shame.

And if a female asks and is then told that it indeed is a woman who is doing the procedure? Because by law the truth of sex of that person cannot be disclosed.

I don't see why this has to have anything to do with what trans people are allowed to do with their BCs.

Because it perpetuates a legal fiction. Because the trans status of a person can be hidden from employers who then have a responsibility to ensure the safeguarding of others.

I have had to provide ID to an employer. Is that not standard? Birth certificate information then allows all other ID to be changed. A nurse, for example, may not even realize they are lying to a patient who asks for confirmation that that person doing the procedure is not female.

So, your point about ‘refusing care’ again hinges on the patient being told a legal fiction by a person in a position of trust, either deliberately or through lack of knowledge.

Do you seriously not understand the % of women who will accept that and damp down their discomfort? Your ‘just make sure they all know’ sounds willfully naive and may be victim blaming them for trusting others too much and/or for not wanting to cause issues as well.

Having been 30 years old and being told directly by the male about to give me an ultra sound that I could ask for someone else, I was flustered and uncomfortable and still said ok because I didn’t know what to do. I even then agreed to have two other male (students) present. All the time I was so uncomfortable the ultrasound was very painful. And I did nothing. Knowing I had been given the option of saying no.

So, I know how it can and does happen.

That you continue to say ‘I don’t see how birth certificates being changed then effects x’ seems to be more your own determination to ignore the use of a birth certificate.

MN deleted my post about trans identifying [redacted] when the title of the thread is trans identifying people. Adult people consist of [redacted] and women. How odd.

So I'll say again without using the word [redacted].

A woman who refused a [redacted] [who identified as a woman] to give her medical assistance and in return, they USED HER in TEACHING DOCUMENTATION to show how HER behaviour was bigotry.

So yes it has happened. This was a few years back.

The fact that it is happening and has happened is collected in the 'this never happens' thread here on Mumsnet.

If a patient is perceived to be refusing the care of a particular HCP due prejudice/discrimination on the part of the patient the policy is to tell the patient that prejudice/discrimination against staff is not tolerated and the patient must receive care from the allocated care provider or go without care as I understand it. It seems to me that refusing care on the basis of sex might be perceived as discrimination or transphobia depending on staff making that judgement.

I don’t think that those of the male sex should ever be allocated to intimate care of women. Women should not have to find the courage to defend their boundaries and ask for a different carer when they are vulnerable.

They may have the right ri to refuse care but they don't have the right to single sex sleeping accommodation in Greater Gkasgiw and Clyde Health Board.
Extract from Training Case Study
Scenario
"A nurse is summoned to a patient’s bed in a female ward. The patient appears to be agitated. When asked what’s concerning her, the woman explains she didn’t expect to be sharing the ward with a man and points to the bed opposite. She states it’s inappropriate to have ‘him’ in the ward with theother women. She tells the nurse she can’t relax and wants ‘him’ removed from the ward. If this doesn’t happen she’ll make a formal complaint – the hospital has a duty of care to look after her and they’re not taking this seriously by putting her in this situation.

The nurse listens and tells the woman she’ll see what she can do. She says that she understands having a Trans person on the ward will be upsetting to other women and leaves to talk with a senior colleague about the matter."

.
The response to the patient’s concern isn’t appropriate and may breach legislative protection afforded to Trans people. Someone’s Trans status should not be disclosed to a third party without the express

permission of the Trans person and the assumption that others in the ward will feel uncomfortable is unfounded. In this instance there is no need to either disclose or seek permission to disclose gender identity. The nurse should work to allay the patient’s concerns – it would be appropriate to re-iterate that the ward is indeed female only and that there are no men present. Duty of care extends to protect all patients from harassment and should the patient continue to make demands about the removal of the other patient and be vocal in the ward it would be appropriate to remind her of this.

The nurse should check with the other patient and sensitively ask if everything is ok. If the other patient has heard any of the discussions it is imperative that she is given every assurance that the matter will be resolved

Gaslighting on the NHS

But surely the solution to this is making sure women are made aware that they have the right to refuse care from anyone they like in these types of circumstance, free from shame.

I don't see why this has to have anything to do with what trans people are allowed to do with their BCs.

At the end of the day I’ve never received a death threat just for being a woman. But I know that happens to trans people.

um @sashh younwere saying you had never received a death threat just for being a woman. I was congratulating you as many women had, including me. Try reading the quote history in order. I think it helps

What the hell? Lucky for being threatened? Are you on glue or just nasty?

And as far as I'm aware anyone can still refuse care from anybody for whatever reason they like so nobody can be forced to accept intimate care from a TW. (Happy to be corrected on this but cant imagine otherwise).

what about those women who feel pressured or coerced into not rejecting transitioned males? Or do you believe every female will react honestly and that not one female will feel they have no option but to agree? Either through shame, need to not cause a fuss, desperation for assistance or not knowing they have a choice.

Have you seen a clearly stated clause accompanying all the inclusion advertising or editorializing (including in service provider communications) about the complete, shame free freedom to say no to care from someone you don’t want care from? Because I would very much like to see that please.

Do you think all oppressed people should be allowed to change the data on their birthday certificate?

It's how and when that conversation takes place, and if everyone- the patient, the organisation and the HCP understands the same thing with the language used.

It's true that no one is forced to accept treatment from any HCP. But if that isn't clear in advance, the patient could be left without any care. Or may feel obliged to stay quiet in fear of not getting any care at all or been labelled transphobic.

A tiniest minority because of thorough, careful safeguarding in recruitment and supervision, and even then there are predators deceitful and conniving enough to slip through the gaps. There isn't an acceptable collateral damage rate.

Safeguarding cannot be loosened and removed merely because it presents an inconvenient boundary to male TQ+ people. And any TQ+ people within those professions should be patient focused and the first to be protecting safeguards and advocating for the best interests of all their patients. Somewhere there is an excellent article by a TM who explained to their employers that they would not be acting as a same sex worker for some of their male clients in vulnerable situations because it was not in their best interests or the right thing to do in providing the best care for them. Interestingly, the TM's ethics and good practice ran up against the idealism and fervency of non TQ+ managers who wished to pressure them to provide same sex care. The managers thereby enforcing their own political theory over the interests and wishes of both the TQ+ person involved and the clients involved.

Which tells you really all you need to know about many of those shouting most loudly about same sex care is transphobic.

Okay, obviously there are a couple of cases where HCPs have abused their position of trust (the current one in the news springs to mind) but of the thousands these are very much in the minority. And as far as I'm aware anyone can still refuse care from anybody for whatever reason they like so nobody can be forced to accept intimate care from a TW. (Happy to be corrected on this but cant imagine otherwise).

As far as self ID goes, I'm not in favour of this. I still think people need a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and be pursuing treatment to be able to change their birth certificate. I don't think anyone should just randomly be able to do it. But for those individuals I have no issue with them changing it.

Surely a TW wouldn't be forced on them and I cant even imagine someone who is caring enough to be in that line of work to want to be forced on them. It just seems like a bit of a reach

@TheSmallestOneWasMadeline didn’t you say that? You seem to be implying that no one opinion a caring profession would ever do anything against a person in their care. shipman and Allitt are two people who did.
So are you of the opinion that no TW would ever abuse self ID? I mean, TW have abused self ID to get into womens prisons, shelters, rape crisis groups, hospital wards and changing rooms, so what is the difference in this scenario? We already have TW claiming to be female. And one even claiming to have a cervix. If you were a traumatised woman who had asked for a female HCP and a male turned up, would you risk being called a transphobe and abused for refusing that person?

I'm not sure of your point as neither of those were trans women and a cases like these make up the tiniest minority of those in caring professions.

Huge amount of cognitive dissonance around people who opt into oppressed groups only to then moan about being oppressed. Like, you could literally opt out of your oppression by changing your clothes.

The rules seem to have been enforced, e.g. Erik Schinegger was banned in 1968 when it was discovered he was male, not female as he had believed (he had a DSD).

You'd think so. But no.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4641046-new-report-from-kpss-on-dbs-checks-where-name-gender-are-changed-the-safeguarding-loopholes-that-creates?page=1

And the rules were even stricter previously where any participant of questionable gender was required to have a genetic test.

And that didn't stop them allowing male athletes to compete in women's events.

We know that in sports this didn't happen before 2016. Why? Because rules were changed from demanding that men had to have had full SRS before competing to just having lower testosterone levels. And the rules were even stricter previously where any participant of questionable gender was required to have a genetic test.