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

[MidCenturyClegs]

uk.news.yahoo.com/don-t-bother-applying-job-162233187.html

The wonderful Kate Grimes expressed interest in a non-exec position at the Tavi this year and was told to not waste her time as she holds gender critical beliefs. Peter Daly has been employed. Wow!

[quote Ides]"@Ides why have you got "objective" in quotes? That implies that you don't believe there is an objective way to assess someone's sex."

It's because of what I learned, from Jurgen Habermas and others, about what Habermas called 'objectivism', over the years. This is the view, roughly, that while lots of knowledge is open to opinion, there remains a branch of knowledge that is 'scientific fact'. It 'is what it is', and that's that.

This 'objectivism' hit its nadir, many would say, under the Nazis' theories of race-differences. They asserted that races were plainly different - just as, indeed, vaginas were different to penises, one might say. It was easy, from that premise, to argue, for instance, that if you were Jewish, you were dangerous; if you were Aryan, you were peachy, fluffy, lovely and everything nice.

You can see where I'm going with this, no doubt ....

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.

It's about the focus, really. You may admit that other natal women - those who are rough, violent, pushy, prejudiced, etc, etc ... they could be a problem in a women's toilet or changing room ... but you don't focus on them. You focus on the people who have a dick and bollocks.

Anyway, to get back to that word "objective" .... No. There is no bias-free, comfy, clear-cut and simple distinction between 'objective' and 'ideological'. That distinction is simply drivel, unless it's utterly and completely free of value-judgement. In this debate about those born males and those born females, it really and clearly isn't. It's loaded to the gills with value judgements about those who have vaginas, versus those who have dicks and bollocks ... way, way beyond what Biology has to say about it. This debate isn't about objective fact versus ideology. It's no more than Philosophy 101 to show that it isn't.

Jeez, you know, also, and as a corollary: One of the major thrusts of feminism has always been that of a preference for nurture over nature. 'It doesn't matter', the earliest feminists said, 'that I've got a vagina - I can still work in a factory, do mathematics; fight in war, lead a country'. But now, with the GC case against transwomen ... all that has apparently gone out of the window. It's perverse. You're equipped with a dick and bollocks ... no, you can't ever be other than dangerous; you can't ever be better than a worry to natal women around you. Natal women will always be vulnerable to you, because they have a vagina and never had a dick and bollocks, and that's absolutely that.

And no amount of hormones you, the transwoman, might take ... no level of starving yourself, the better to keep yourself smaller and as dainty as you can manage ... none of it will change the fact that you are inherently an oppressor, because you have - or once had - a dick and bollocks. To the point that yes, just one of you, in a women's changing room, is a menace to all the women there.

Yep, that right there ... that is pathetic. Holy crap, if feminism's purpose was to give women self-belief and strength, it's utterly failed if all it takes is one transwoman in our toilets and changing rooms to turn us all into terrified, squawking chickens. Jesus. Really, are we that delicate and fragile? 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?

I have no time or respect for this version of 'feminism'. Its sole aim, it seems to me, is to reassert women as victims, in the horrified and outraged realisation that women - or some women - are now being called bullies - because that's exactly what they are. It's beneath us, as women with guts, as far as I'm concerned. It's a failure of the one, fundamental, thing that feminism was meant to give us.[/quote]
Ok then. Well done for bringing Nazis into this.
Because of course stating that men and women have different biology is exactly the same as nazi race theory rather than just biological fact. Objective as in real and measurable, not as in the philosophy of Ayn Rand...
Do you realise how utterly ridiculous and hysterical your post sounds?

In the same way, to me, the "TW must use female single-sex spaces" case is steeped in the tacit view that if a person has a "man" gender identity, 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 feels masculine feelings' ... But, if you're a full-on TRA, as I see it, you do. You really do. This person who identifies as male 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 gender that is somehow defined as 'man', mar your sense of dignity in some way.

Wondering if anyone's views align with the above?

Idk what masculine feelings are, for a start.

Ides ... ... to get back to that word "objective" ' : You claim 'There is no bias-free, comfy, clear-cut and simple distinction between 'objective' and 'ideological'.'

I wonder. Is this particular claim intended to be free of bias? If not, why should we accept it? If so, how does it escape the denial it itself expresses?

Is it clear-cut in its objectivity? If so, how does it escape the strictures it expresses? And if not, why should we countenance even the possibility of its truth, rather than denying it as a mere subjective expression of your own possibly warped ideology?

You seem to think, Ides, that it is, in short, simply objectively true that there is no simple objective truth. But of course this cannot be true; it asserts its own falsity.

And, in any case, common sense is often enough to enable a clear-cut distinction between objective fact and ideologically-driven (mere) belief. I have five fingers on each hand, for a total of ten digits altogether. (Objective fact.) You, Ides , have been poorly educated and illustrate in your opinions an adage about the dangers of a little knowledge. (Ideologically-driven belief?)

But, anyway, if your own admittedly biased, uncomfortable, cloudy and over-complicated ideology has any even putative tendency to harm those I love (which it does: cutting off a young girl's breasts or a young boy's penis does them harm (another objective fact)), be prepared for some fairly serious and well-motivated opposition from the other side of the distinction you are toying with so incoherently.

@Lekisa658 if you pop back, it was me asking you why you wouldn't support your mum's request in mature age for women carers in washing.

You called me a creep, yet I'm the one wanting women's rights to be upheld.

The kind of hyperbolic, meandering posts we see from anti women posters have a sentiment I see quite often on newspaper article comments by men - 'Well, you wanted equality!!!'.

Agree.

@FlibbertyGiblets

Idk what masculine feelings are, for a start.

No

And i do not think my daddy, husband and precious boys are wrong, nasty or dangerous

Or obviously my male acquaintances and friends husbands

FILs views inherently wrong to be fair 🤔

And I’m a bit bored of posters who have no fucking idea what i think telling me that I absolutely think such and such

They make a big play about tarring people with the same brush and then do it themselves !

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

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.

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?

@DomesticatedZombie

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?

Well you’d think so

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

We can’t all be nazis

@Ereshkigalangcleg

The kind of hyperbolic, meandering posts we see from anti women posters have a sentiment I see quite often on newspaper article comments by men - 'Well, you wanted equality!!!'.

Agree.

This thread has been enlightening in many ways.

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.

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.

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’!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

@DomesticatedZombie

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

And plain Weetabix with anything other than cold milk, we can say no to that as well, can't we?

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!!!

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?

@DomesticatedZombie

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.

Yes, and it's not just the dick, is it? It's the vastly superior body strength. That video of Angel Lynn being kidnapped by her ex boyfriend was all over the news a few weeks ago. She seemed a fit and healthy young woman, striding down the road in broad daylight. He didn't seem unusually well-built. Yet he picked her up and carried her off like a rag doll, put her in a van. Chilling.

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.

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.