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!

risefromyourgrave

Im so pleased he is happy and settled (and enjoying himself)

@DomesticatedZombie

they believe that trans women are women and trans men are men.

It's a view that the NHS and Tavistock share

Good god, is this true? Can you show me where the NHS says that males are females and females are males, please?

You've just conflated sex and gender identity.

No one in the NHS denies the reality of primary and secondary sexual characteristics, but they also acknowledge that gender identity, like sexuality, is established. There's even a code for it in the NHS database.

Code Description
1 Male (including trans man)
2 Female (including trans woman)
3 Non-binary
4 Other (not listed)
Z

Not Stated (PERSON asked but declined to provide a response)

www.datadictionary.nhs.uk/attributes/gender_identity_code.html

the science of gender identity is well-established and accepted by psychiatric and medical bodies.

No. It is not.

The science of gender dysphoria may have been getting some solid foundations.

You keep talking about gender identity. If you cannot provide the evidence to support it, and you have not in the past either, readers can see that all you have is repeating the same thing over and over. But each repetition doesn’t change the fact that what you say is false.

Just like any statement that affirming only treatment is the best trans care. That is an out and out lie and papers from clinicians active in the field are stating that it is not appropriate as a blanket treatment.

We can keep refuting your repetitions with our own. That is how unsubstantiated arguments that are not based on science work.

If you would like, we can post the evidence. I know you have had them posted for your review before. But we will keep pointing out that you are advocating discrimination in the work place based on an extremist ideological position that NOT ALL trans people share.

And ignoring that senior positions around the world are already held in gender clinics by both clinicians and other staff that hold the views that YOU say are not worthy of employment.

And you have not defined what you consider‘conversion therapy’. Yet accuse this person of it.

No one in the NHS denies the reality of primary and secondary sexual characteristics, but they also acknowledge that gender identity, like sexuality, is established.

They "acknowledge" that because they are Stonewall members and have been lobbied hard at all levels.

"Just like any statement that affirming only treatment is the best trans care. That is an out and out lie and papers from clinicians active in the field are stating that it is not appropriate as a blanket treatment. "

This appears to be a reference to Tavistock, so I will take it. No, "affirming only" is absolutely not their approach. Read.

"

Whilst we would never attempt to change a child or young person’s gender identity or sexual orientation, we acknowledge that a child or young person’s perceived gender identity or sexual orientation may change or develop during the time that they are with our service. This may be so even when at any one time they feel very sure that their identity or orientation is fixed.

For this reason we discuss collaboratively with young people and families the many possible identities and outcomes that their futures may hold in store. We think carefully with young people and parents about informed consent and we see our role in helping young people to make their own sense of who they are and what their priorities might be. This can sometimes include sensitively asking constructively challenging questions. Our supportive and neutral stance is affirmative towards however a young person has come to understand themselves (and however they will do so in the future) without seeking to confirm, reject, or impose upon them any of the options which are available."

Someone with gender critical views who doesn't even believe gender identity is a real thing is an entire inappropriate person to do this.

gids.nhs.uk/gender-identity-and-sexuality

Someone with gender critical views who doesn't even believe gender identity is a real thing is an entire inappropriate person to do this.

So is a TRA. Who have criticised the Tavistock on numerous occasions for their approach. As have organisations like Mermaids.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Someone with gender critical views who doesn't even believe gender identity is a real thing is an entire inappropriate person to do this.

So is a TRA. Who have criticised the Tavistock on numerous occasions for their approach. As have organisations like Mermaids.

So, I think we agree that it's reasonable for Tavistock not to employ her?

As for whether a "TRA" isn't appropriate, are you thinking of anyone in particular?

@Ereshkigalangcleg

No one in the NHS denies the reality of primary and secondary sexual characteristics, but they also acknowledge that gender identity, like sexuality, is established.

They "acknowledge" that because they are Stonewall members and have been lobbied hard at all levels.

Your suggestion is that the NHS doesn't believe that gender identity is real, but the whole body is pretending it's real when treating people because they are members of Stonewall? That's a hell of a conspiracy.

The alternative is, it's not a conspiracy, they really do believe it, and they are following the science.

So, I think we agree that it's reasonable for Tavistock not to employ her?

No.

And they already do employ people who believe that transitioned males are not women and transitioned females are not men, but are transitioned males and transitioned females.

GC belief doesn’t deny that “gender identity is real”, simply that it is a belief, subjective and mutable, unlike sex.
Depression is real.
Happiness is real.
Neither are immutable.
No one who believes that a belief is immutable has any business working with vulnerable people in any capacity, just as no one who actually believes that sex IS mutable has any business being employed by the NHS or any other sensible organisation

And again. It is you pushing that trans people only have one set of beliefs. Whereas we know that trans people have a multitude of beliefs including believing well established science on sex, and that it cannot change, and that transitioned males/females are not women/men.

So are you also going to insist on any trans person who was hired by the Tavistock also only ever thinking as YOU do?

Your suggestion is that the NHS doesn't believe that gender identity is real, but the whole body is pretending it's real when treating people because they are members of Stonewall? That's a hell of a conspiracy.

The alternative is, it's not a conspiracy, they really do believe it, and they are following the science.

It is possible for someone (or the NHS) to acknowledge that some people believe they have a gender identity without believing in gender identity themselves. In this respect it is just like religion. I don't have to believe in God myself in order to acknowledge that some people do.

Can you post some links to the 'science' about gender identity?

I’ll be honest but i think someone who believes that humans can change sex is the LAST person the NHS should employ

Is "gender identity", broadly speaking, the belief that your mind/ personality/soul has something that is akin to the physical sex a human body has, but isn't quite that?

Or is it the belief that your mind/ personality/soul is somewhere on some sort of masculine->-->feminine spectrum? I'm never quite sure.

If it's "the feeling that you are a man/woman/ neither" i can't understand it without a definition of man or woman.

I genuinely don't know if I have one or not, and, if I do or don't, whether I'm an exception compared to most people by feeling that way.

I'd like to see some clarification from DadJoke on those points bishophaha.

Your suggestion is that the NHS doesn't believe that gender identity is real, but the whole body is pretending it's real when treating people because they are members of Stonewall? That's a hell of a conspiracy.

The alternative is, it's not a conspiracy, they really do believe it, and they are following the science.

A vanishingly small amount of people actually believe MTF trans people are exactly the same as women. People don't feel free to say this though. You can see it when you say, do a yougov poll and ask questions about legal self ID, males in female sports or non op MTF trans people in women's toilets and changing rooms. And the proportion of "the NHS" who feel the same is likely to reflect that.

It's all political posturing.

In this respect it is just like religion. I don't have to believe in God myself in order to acknowledge that some people do.

Exactly. It's pandering to this particularly vocal special interest group. I meet medical doctors through my tangentially relevant work and in my experience they have been pretty dismissive of all this, and yes it has come up before in meetings.

whole body is pretending it's real when treating people because they are members of Stonewall?

Many people in the NHS don't "treat people". This is a largely top down imposition from woke central departments who set policy. And yes, are chasing Stonewall points. Listen to Stephen Nolan's BBC podcast, there is no conspiracy.

Hi Ho hi Ho. Off to tribunal we go...

So, no definition of conversion therapy? No proof that Kate Grimes supports conversion therapy either.

Almost like some posters which to post false claims in amongst legitimate claims.

And yes, her believe that transitioned males are not women, that they should not access single spaces is actually not controversial at all. It reflects the majority of the public.

But it is just another way to try to build a case for discrimination that is bonkers.

If you said she should not apply for a public facing representational role with Mermaids, I would likely agree.

An NHS role, where balance and objectivity needs to be applied as well as empathy (but not blind compliance), no. You still have not produced anything to justify it.

Just your own prejudice.

Haven't seen this come up for a while, so going to do one of my periodic reposts for the (relative) newcomers.

It's a comprehensive breakdown of "gender identity" and all its logical flaws by Rebecca Reilly-Cooper:

DadJoke, a person posting here on MN has said, amongst other things, this: 'the science of gender identity is well-established'

Alex Byrne , Professor of Philosophy at MIT has said, amongst other things, this: 'If there is some kind of “gender identity” that is universal in humans, and which causes dysphoria when mismatched with sex, it remains elusive. No one has yet found a way of detecting its presence ...'

These two claims are contradictory.

Byrne backs up his claim, see Byrne on gender identity, for example. (More relevant material can be found on his MIT pages.)

I wonder if DadJoke would like to back up his contrary claim?

If not, we would be foolish to conclude otherwise than that DadJoke is either ignorant, possibly mistaken, or out-and-out simply lying in his/her teeth.

We might simplify matters, perhaps, with reference to the implied challenge, 'No one has yet found a way of detecting its [sc. gender identity's] presence.' If DadJoke is right and Byrne wrong, someone has found a way: Who, DadJoke ? And how? -- What way has been found of detecting the presence of gender identity?

Without such a way of detecting its presence, far from the science of gender identity being well established, such science has yet to begin. No?

"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."

Of course. But, with transwomen being such a tiny proportion of women in general, are women still so threatened by them? In one women's toilet or changing room, all it takes is just one transwoman to menace all the natal women around her?

Because, if so, I kind of despair of feminism. Women are so fragile and so delicate, it only takes one person, equipped with a dick and testicles, no matter how small and physically feeble that person may be, to be a menace to all the women around?

Jeez, really, sincerely - can you not see how pathetic that looks?

Gah. I don't know if I can stand being associated with the general vibe I see on this site. It's so paradoxical. It seems as though it's full of people arguing, with great, vehement and muscular vigour, that the tiniest presence of a dick-and-bollocks-equipped-person in their (hard fought and won etc) women-only space will be enough to trash their fragile lives.

Holy hell ... seriously, if I'd even once, in my entire 59 years, ever felt threatened by someone I'd even noticed as a transwoman in a women's toilet, or changing room, or PE class, or anything else ... I might be able to sympathise. But it's never happened. And, actually, it's only happened, once, that I've even suspected that a person who was with me in a 'women's-space' has been a transwoman. And that person looked way more nervous of me than I was of her. Of course.

I'm sorry but, in the great debate about women versus transwomen ... women are not the victims. They're just not. After the biggest demographic of all - that is, people - they're the next biggest demographic in society. Women are powerful - as indeed they should be, after so many years of feminism - which has been, for me, the most powerful progressive force the UK's ever seen.

Of all the challenges feminism has ever had, that of transwomen is the slightest. I hate seeing people at the bottom being encouraged to seeing other people at the bottom as 'the great enemy'. This has been a trick played by those at the top for an eternity. I do think we should dump it and move on. We're not fighting the patriarchy by continuing to be locked into this battle ... we're just being distracted from it. Again.

Women are so fragile and so delicate, it only takes one person, equipped with a dick and testicles, no matter how small and physically feeble that person may be, to be a menace to all the women around?

Gosh it sounds like you think TW are all small and physically feeble. Bit nasty that...

Hard to tell what you're quoting there and what's your post, Ides.
Lots of it isn't a genuine reflection of anything that's been said though - you could try actually quoting a piece of text and engaging directly with the words used, rather than pretending anyone's saying "will trash our fragile lives".

I'm sorry but, in the great debate about women versus transwomen ... women are not the victims.

This doesn't even parse.
What do you think the debate is?
Why do you think there needs to be a side labelled a 'victim' in a debate rather than just... engaging with what's said and the points raised?

Of all the challenges feminism has ever had, that of transwomen is the slightest.

How are you defining 'transwomen' here? Specifically?
As far as I can gather, it's a male person who feels a certain indefinable way.
I used to think it was a male person who wanted to be a woman, but that is no longer accurate.

Anyway, great to know that you think it's only if you personally feel threatened that women need to rise up and do something about it. Do let us know, won't you - we'll all be on standby.