Charity rejects disabled child for mother's GC views

Nobody would say that unless they believed in gender identity.

If someone was referring to me and said "he said", it would be fine for me to say that those aren't my pronouns because I am a woman.

Nobody would say that unless they been never in gender identity. Any ordinary, rational woman would simply say "I'm a woman" without any of the 'my pronouns' nonsense.

'My pronouns' - what complete and utter nonsense. My pronouns are the ones I utter about myself. Telling other people what pronouns to use, particularly telling others to deny the evidence of their senses and use incorrect, wrong-sex pronouns, is nothing more than coercive control.

Those two are the exceptions to the rule, 98% of sexual crimes are carried out by men.

It’s just another way of isolating women and children and stripping away their rights, just be nice, kind, don’t upset people etc etc. It’s a gift to every predatory man out there.

Equity for female people.

The clue's in the name.

She was making it about her child’s safety, which is what any parent would and should do. Imagine believing that there are acceptable circumstances when you would allow and validate strangers either lying to your child, or telling your child to lie. Unbelievable. This ideology rots people’s brains.

This is a quote from an exact case that happened. It's not an illogical leap. It was a real life example of how a woman was gaslit into believing she couldn't have been raped on a hospital ward as there no men present. She was raped by a trans woman aka a trans identifying male which they established after watching the CCTV footage.

‘Especially today, in the ways we communicate, it may not always be clear whether someone is male or female. Such as right now online.’

It funny, because right now, I’m not actually finding it unclear at all. It seems pretty obvious.

There are so many red flags with that poster, it must be a wind up.

You think the medical staff didn’t know there was a man on the ward? Sure. Absolutely. Definitely. I mean, there’s just no way to tell is there?

Do we all "have pronouns"? The pronouns that you use about me are your pronouns as far as I'm concerned - they will normally be used by you automatically without conscious thought, based on what you know and have observed. As you haven't seen me and probably haven't seen my (too) many previous posts, I'm guessing you don't have any information about my sex or any gender identity I might have. So if you were to say to a friend "that ROGC on Mumsnet is talking rubbish, [insert pronoun here] is really annoying", you would either guess "she" or "he", or use the singular "they" that people tend to use when they don't know which pronoun to use. In my opinion, any of those choices would be perfectly reasonable.

If you saw me or a photo of me, you would undoubtedly use "he" as in my case that is totally obvious. You would not use "he" because my pronouns are "he/him", but as a convenient usage of language; if you consciously thought which pronoun to use, it would be entirely your choice - unless I put pressure on you to use what I would like you to use. But your pronouns to refer to me do not belong to me, they belong to you. You are not borrowing "my" pronouns, you are using your pronouns, your words, your language.

I’ve just filled in three bingo cards reading this post, it’s exhausting. The amount of emotional blackmail on display leads me to believe you must be about 15. I have no interest in discovering someone’s gender, as it’s a social construct designed to elevate boring people to interesting, and failing incidentally. I have however, never failed to correctly sex someone, and I do that by using my eyes. You should try it, it’s really easy.

yep. They segregate by 'gender', which means that they acknowledge the need for single sex spaces and the risks of mixed sex spaces, but pretend that those needs and risks are negated if somebody decides to identify out of being a risk.

I think we can guess can't we given their attitude.

If you believe men can be women it's perfectly reasonable for a male member of staff to help little girls in the toilet or to undress. No need to be chaperoned even because "he told us he feels quite feminine and he has make-up on which proves it"

And of course a 17yo boy who asks nicely if he can shower with 8yo girls must be allowed to.

The one broken part in the mental mechanism that makes decisions makes every decision problematic and should disqualify people who are broken in this way from any position of responsibility.

If you don't like it, cool, move along - you don't need to. Just keep your opinions to yourself! Simple.

Hmmm...

Man declares his pronouns are she/her.

If you don't like it, cool, move along - you don't need to. Just keep your opinions to yourself! Simple.

She/her follows you into the women's changing room.

If you don't like it, cool, move along - you don't need to. Just keep your opinions to yourself! Simple.

While you're in the women's toilets she/her asks you for a tampon.

If you don't like it, cool, move along - you don't need to. Just keep your opinions to yourself! Simple.

A few months later, police contact you because explicit videos of you peeing have been found on she/her's hard drive. Or perhaps you're a nurse and the police are contacting you because a woman on your ward has been raped, and the only penis around at that time was the one attached to the she/her's body.

If you don't like it, cool, move along - you don't need to. Just keep your opinions to yourself! Simple.

At what point is it appropriate to say "No. Stop."?

How about those of us actually concerned with safeguarding and women's rights tell you If you don't like it, cool, move along - you don't need to. Just keep your opinions to yourself! Simple.

This is an ironic post surely?! 😂😂

’She's essentially telling her son that her views on sex and gender supersede anyone else's reality’ There is no reality involved in GI, people can’t change sex, it is immutable and binary.

’Then, instead of not answering the question, she found it appropriate to voice her socio-political views on a form’ The charity voiced their socio political views on a form, which are not based on truth or facts, and just bully anyone who has a grasp on reality to go along with it.

’When you try and weaponise your child into being your little political parrot, it is highly unfair on them and can even become abusive.’ How can it be weaponising your child when what you are teaching them is factual, reality based biological truth?

There is huge social contagion, online grooming is massive, and schools and organisations working with children and young people have been infiltrated by those pushing gender ideology.

Including charities whose aim is to support severely disabled children.

This charity is part of this problem. The people in the charity pushing this agenda need to be stopped.

You seem to think that only young people from families with rigid ideas of appropriate dress or interests for males and females ID as trans. Like for instance, Susie Greens child, who was transed because he liked playing with dolls and his father was afraid he would be gay.

That is not the case, at all. There is huge social contagion, online grooming is massive, and schools and organisations working with children and young people have been infiltrated by those pushing gender ideology.

You seem to think that family/parents are the biggest influence on children but once they're of school age, that's not the case. That's part of why parents asking about the so-called 'inclusive' policies of organisations dealing with children, like this mother has, is so important.

Feminism is about equity for women - not about spouting hate

Are Feminists allowed to hate sexism?

Genderism - the belief that gendered personalities are the real distinction between men and women, and physical sex and the differences in risks and outcomes that it brings has no significance to our lives - is simply Neo-sexism.

Of course as a Feminist I reject that.

I don't dismiss that gender in the sense of social constructs and myths around sex exists, nor ignore the significance it has on our lives. I simply do not see it as a good thing, and certainly not as something that should be considered more real and meaningful than sex. It's like saying that because slaves traditonally wore chains, slaves must be people who chose to wear chains. I think it's better to get rid of the chains.

And all deaths of under 18s are reviewed by the child death panel , even those whose death was expected from a terminal illness.

It is a complete lie that transIDing young people are dying and the government is covering it up.

The number of professionals working within CAMHS, social work and education actively pushing this agenda is truly horrifying. The lack of understanding around safeguarding is staggering.

I worked with a LA Safeguarding consultant with pronouns in her email signature.

This is the second case of discrimination on the basis of gender-critical beliefs in a week - first the gay men thrown out of a pub, now this poor disabled child denied a holiday.

I hope both the gay men and the child's mother sue the organisations responsible. In each instance, the case seems clear-cut: since Forstater, it's been the law that you cannot legally discriminate against someone because they believe in the reality of biological sex.

There have been numerous cases now where the application of the Forstater ruling has resulted in a victory for gender-critical people who have been discriminated against. It seems remarkable that so many people seem unaware of the ruling and therefore that they are breaking the law.

These people are slow learners - some may use the word "stupid". So we have to keep hammering away at it until they finally grasp the law. It will take time, but let's hope we get there eventually. Not everyone has time or money to expend on taking legal action against morons.

It was importantly enough to the organisers that the clinical director choose to phone the mum to lecture her on preferred pronouns. The charity made this a big thing, not the mum.

Should have gone to spec savers it’s obviously a man

Are people who cant understand safeguarding actually allowed to have access to children within the UK mental health system?