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!

How is such ridiculous thinking gaining such traction? People who are supposedly intelligent believing this nonsense is so worrying for the future.

I am genuinely astonished. I am beginning to think no more patients should be admitted to the Tavistock.

I hope, however, that this will start the process of bringing this incredible situation to the attention of the medical world, which must surely share our incredulity that an extremist view has taken so strong a hold.

From The Telegraph:

"Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, a Tory peer who has also expressed gender-critical views and campaigned on issues such as single sex NHS wards, applied for the role of chair but was told that there were candidates whose “background and experience were more relevant”.

Tavistock did not offer an interview to Lady Nicholson, who is profoundly deaf and has impaired sight, despite Government rules stating that disabled people who meet the essential criteria for the post should be guaranteed an interview."

@Somanysocks

How is such ridiculous thinking gaining such traction? People who are supposedly intelligent believing this nonsense is so worrying for the future.

They're not actually believing it - it's performative abeisance to an orthodoxy.

I mean, that's also worrying.

Being willing to mouth untruths in the service of an ideology is not good practise.

it will be one of the questions I will be asking candidates at first stage interview.”

Go on Melanie, you do that. Not kept up to date with cases recently in this area?

They're not actually believing it - it's performative abeisance to an orthodoxy.

It is. They are just going along with it, so they never actually interrogate the absurdity of what they are saying.

@Apollo441

No comments allowed by the Times, AGAIN. Have they hired a new TRA moderator? I have never seen rude or abusive comments on this topic, just a tidal wave of support for the GC position. Is someone uncomfortable?

As a subscriber I have written to them to complain. Like you I enjoyed reading the readers who as you say were mostly polite, on topic and Gender Critical.

@DomesticatedZombie

'your view on sex being immutable is not a view point that the trust would wish any of their non-executives to hold'

What's utterly amazing is that anyone would commit this kind of view to writing.

Where would she get this from though. Was it in the instructions given to her by the Tavi. Some journo ought to do some digging.

'your view on sex being immutable is not a view point that the trust would wish any of their non-executives to hold'

Does this mean that all current non-executives on the board are completely on message with gender ideology? This seems quite a statement to make on their behalf?

@Dreamprincess

From The Telegraph:

"Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, a Tory peer who has also expressed gender-critical views and campaigned on issues such as single sex NHS wards, applied for the role of chair but was told that there were candidates whose “background and experience were more relevant”.

Tavistock did not offer an interview to Lady Nicholson, who is profoundly deaf and has impaired sight, despite Government rules stating that disabled people who meet the essential criteria for the post should be guaranteed an interview."

Is the Fox killer not biting at the bit to take that case on then? Even worse in this case of an organisation not doing their best to include and encourage people with disabilities, as it is not an emergency situation.

It could be concluded by some that the old same old exclusion, based on sex and disability, is the rebranded and pretend 'inclusion' for these jolly types.

Plus ca change, with a big old sleight of hand.

@OneEpisode

Baroness Nicholson applied and wasn’t given a first interview, despite government policy to removed barriers to disabled people saying she should be interviewed.

It think what's interesting there is if the Trust now argues that it was an invisible essential criterion. I've seen that argument before. People have met the essential criteria listed but there were implicit ones that weren't listed but people should have second-guessed.

I expect the Baroness to see this through, however.

@highame

Apollo I have written to the Times to ask about No Comments. I do think this is more than TRA's moderating. I think they had problems going through all the comments before posting due to the amount that were abusive, discriminatory etc. They can't risk, otherwise they get sued and give they are members of IPSOS they have to review all on such a contentious issue.

They do recognised the feeling of Times readers and therefore still publish lots of articles that are clearly GC. I also assume journos are wanting comments rather than debate. I see that a few posters are getting in GC comments where they can on other articles

The Daily Telegraph allows comments on gender related articles. If they manage why can't The Times?

There are over 500 comments on this by Suzanne Moore

www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2022/02/01/inclusive-world-anything-excludes-women-renames-us-disappears/

and this by Celia Walden

www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2021/12/06/school-loos-changing-rooms-female-only-spaces-disappeared/

and this by Judith Woods

www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2022/02/24/thanks-ant-dec-woman-just-got-even-harder/

the comments are very mixed - different views getting an airing.

How such a newspaper should be surely? what is The Times playing at?

Where would she get this from though. Was it in the instructions given to her by the Tavi. Some journo ought to do some digging.

Would a FOI turn anything up, I wonder?

I'm delighted to report that Baroness Nicholson has now advised on Twitter:

"Glad to say that I now have a preliminary recruitment meeting agreed."

As another contributor said, its amazing what a little daylight can do .....

Oh, my word, I didn't think the Baroness could go further upwards in my estimation. Bravo.

She's amazing.

Weirdly the Mail article on this only has one, not very useful, comment. They are normally good at allowing comments.

Is there any reason MSM are being cautious about a story covering the Tavi.

Media caution could be because there's a reasonable likelihood of a lawsuit?

The Baroness is a .

@Apollo441

No comments allowed by the Times, AGAIN. Have they hired a new TRA moderator? I have never seen rude or abusive comments on this topic, just a tidal wave of support for the GC position. Is someone uncomfortable?

If someone tries to silence you, it's because they fear what you might say.

That's why MRAs (Men's Rights Activists - the new term for TRAs) try to silence women but women don't try to silence MRAs.

One speaks the truth, the other fears the truth.

@CarbonelCat

'your view on sex being immutable is not a view point that the trust would wish any of their non-executives to hold'

Does this mean that all current non-executives on the board are completely on message with gender ideology? This seems quite a statement to make on their behalf?

This is a VERY dangerous thing for them to say.

They might as well say "no pregnant women, no Christians, no homosexuals and nobody over 40".

It is the exact same principle, unlawful discrimination based on a protected characteristic.

@MidCenturyClegs "But it's Christian and gender critical beliefs which are protected, whereas gender woo woo beliefs are not."

Gender Critical is NOT a belief as it is grounded in science.GC accepts that gender is socially constructed and therefore can be regarded as a belief but that sex is a biological fact so therefore is immutable.

[quote DontLikeCrumpets]@MidCenturyClegs "But it's Christian and gender critical beliefs which are protected, whereas gender woo woo beliefs are not."

Gender Critical is NOT a belief as it is grounded in science.GC accepts that gender is socially constructed and therefore can be regarded as a belief but that sex is a biological fact so therefore is immutable.[/quote]
Yes, being gender critical is based on science and the obvious, but the Forstater case set out the thinking these normal things is a protected belief.

twitter.com/Sexnotgender_/status/1497264555097010183

Top thread. It really explains in detail how the Tavi and Melanie have broken the law.

@DontLikeCrumpets

www.doyleclayton.co.uk/resources/news/Gender-critical-beliefs-case-win/

Apologies if you've seen this before. It is gob-smackingly ridiculous that having an understanding that the human race is composed of males and female has to be a protected belief - in much the same way as Jehovah Witness or Scientology beliefs - but, here we are.