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!

My first thought was 'Audacious! But of course the Tavi don't want someone GC on their board - it's all about transitioning'

And then with a jolt I remembered that the Tavi is an NHS medical service. It's aim isn't to transitioning people! It's aim is to provide the best possible care to people with gender dysphoria. And the best care possible can certainly be provided by GC staff, whether management or clinical. In fact assuming that one particular treatment is always right is terrible care!

I'm kind of shocked that the gas-lighting had me associating the Tavi with affirmation and transition. It absolutely shouldn't be about that - and that's exactly why they need more GC leaders ensuring balance.

[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]
If my memory serves me correctly, knowing that sex exists and is immutable is a fact, believing that it is important is the belief that is protected.

I think it was stated in the Westminster debate the other day (can’t remember who) that the WHO no longer consider gender dysphoria as and illness. If that is true, why are the Tavi continuing to believe it is and treat it?

I mean, if the Tavistock wants to transition(!) into being a "gender affirmation service", then sure, having people who believe in "affirming gender" in charge makes sense.

But they can't have it both ways. If they're a "gender affirmation service", then it's not medicine, and the NHS should withdraw funding.

If they want NHS funding, then being able to work within the evidence is a prerequisite - and previous behaviour and investigations and lawsuits show that they have a current leadership incapable of doing that. They're closing their eyes and ears to anything that upsets their "customers".

So they need GC people on the board (or at the very least people prepared to listen to GC voices) to restore balance, and ask the difficult questions that need to be asked. It's in their own best interests to do that now, before the malpractice scandal gets any worse.

A Tavistock with Baroness Nicholson on the board asking questions would be a hell of a lot stronger.

If my memory serves me correctly, knowing that sex exists and is immutable is a fact, believing that it is important is the belief that is protected

And, in some circumstances that have yet to be fully circumscribed, manifesting that belief may be an offence or even a crime. The perception of the offence or crime lies with other people at times—including the CoP who have been erring in this but not that you'd know give the recent activities of some Police services.

So, that's perfectly straightforward to explain to people who haven't been keeping up to date with this.

Just reading the maternity service scandal thread and I thought this segment in the OP was relevant here as there seems to be parallels between the poor care there and at Tavistock:

"In the evidence session, seen by Panorama, the then clinical director of the Royal Shrewsbury told MPs: "The culture of our organisation is that we have low intervention rates and once that is known we attract both midwives and obstetricians who like to practise in that way."

"His colleague, the manager of women's service at the time, added that midwives who had worked elsewhere "almost need retraining to be able to work in Shropshire. We have recruited people who are like minded. If you want to keep something going and you believe in it, you do not want to employ people who do not believe in what you believe in."

"His colleague, the manager of women's service at the time, added that midwives who had worked elsewhere "almost need retraining to be able to work in Shropshire. We have recruited people who are like minded. If you want to keep something going and you believe in it, you do not want to employ people who do not believe in what you believe in."

This reads like such a plain example of believing so firmly that you're on the right side of history that you're unwilling to scrutinise the reality of what you're doing or consider the well understood dangers of groupthink.

@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."

Maybe the Good Law Project could have a look at this and crowdfund for a judicial review with the Runnymeade Trust - after all they won the last discrimination employment case.

This shows to me that the Tavistock haven’t learnt anything, think they are operating correctly and don’t need non executives who challenge them. This is appalling and shows they don’t think they need to change.

Cailleach1 - you got there before me

In case people have not seen this before. One reason why there will be so much pressure for the Tavi to support gender affirmation rather than investigate non medical approaches to alleviate gender dysphoria.

www.thelondontransgenderclinic.uk/price-list/

If you can't get the surgery you think you might want, you might have to go private. One heck of a gofundme. And indeed a huge potential burden on the NHS.

@Needmoresleep

In case people have not seen this before. One reason why there will be so much pressure for the Tavi to support gender affirmation rather than investigate non medical approaches to alleviate gender dysphoria.

www.thelondontransgenderclinic.uk/price-list/

If you can't get the surgery you think you might want, you might have to go private. One heck of a gofundme. And indeed a huge potential burden on the NHS.

Offline for a few days, checking back and went to have a look at the link you posted. Those £ numbers are mind-boggling.

So for the ''full monty', for a man thinking he is a woman and wanting to look like one, (whatever that means) you are probably looking at around £200K, a lifetime of pain (physical and mental) in surgery costs, yet everyone can tell straight away looking at a male physique that he's, well, a man.

I would think that overseeing a clinic treating children with gender dysphoria is a job for which understanding that sex is immutable is an essential requirement.
If you don't understand that, you don't understand what the clinic is actually doing.

@Needmoresleep

That link is staggering. Horrifying. I don’t understand most of the procedures - “eye feminisation”? What exactly is this ?

Huge money spinner, too.

It is astonishing. Someone posted it on another forum and I was waiting to find a suitable place here. It probably deserves a thread of its own.

One difficult question would be whether our health service can afford such treatments. The full Monty is equivalent to treating a rare childhood cancer. And….gender dysphoria is not an illness.

Reason enough for the Tories to stay well away…I hope.

Dining etiquette? What do they mean - which knife and fork to use? Watch You Tube. FFS.

There is not one human being on this planet that doesn't know that sex is immutable and unchangeable.
There are people who SAY they don't know it or agree with it.
There are people who try to get OTHER people to believe it.
There are people who try really really hard to believe it because their ideology depends on it.
But there is not one person who actually thinks deep down that men can become women, or women become men.
They know it. We know it.
We know they know it.

"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."

Actually, yes, GC is a belief. It's grounded in the ideology of scientism - the belief in an obectivism, yielded by 'objective' science. Feminists used to be against it, arguing for nurture over nature, saying such things as 'just because I have a vagina, that doesn't mean I'm weak and easily oppressed'. Now, though, they - or rather the GC ones - are saying precisely the opposite: that if there's a person in the room equipped with a penis and testicles, that person will, ipso facto, be able to oppress me!

Even just one person in a bathroom with sixty, a hundred not-so-equipped persons (I don't know what the ratio of natal women to transwomen is) - the one with the penis and goolies (or who even once had a penis and goolies) will oppress all those natal women!

Strewth it's utterly pathetic.

@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.

One difficult question would be whether our health service can afford such treatments. The full Monty is equivalent to treating a rare childhood cancer. And….gender dysphoria is not an illness.

I do find this quite puzzling. The NHS is really stretched. Does the NHS really pay for these cosmetic treatments?

Money is usually found for immediately, physically life-saving treatments.

• but not for mental health, and sadly young people are left unsupported during serious mental health crises.

• and not non-urgent surgeries like breast-reduction for women suffering backache and inconvenience

How is this different?

saying such things as 'just because I have a vagina, that doesn't mean I'm weak and easily oppressed'. Now, though, they - or rather the GC ones - are saying precisely the opposite: that if there's a person in the room equipped with a penis and testicles, that person will, ipso facto, be able to oppress me!

What a load of bollocks!

From what I have read, Feminists have always known the axis of women’s oppression. Always.

And they are still saying ‘just because I have a vagina, that doesn't mean I'm weak and easily oppressed’. However, they also recognise that because they have a vagina, they are at much higher risk of attack. Of assault, of rape. Of even being used indirectly to prop up someone’s fetish, unwillingly.

Only a fool believes that females are not at risk from males, and that an all too high percentage of us have already been victims of such attacks. So, I take it you are not such a fool Ides, but instead pushing a political agenda.

the one with the penis and goolies (or who even once had a penis and goolies) will oppress all those natal women!

Let’s break this down. For a start, there are women who have religious needs requiring that male not to be in that space.

The presence of that ‘penis and goodies’ means that those females are indeed oppressed. Because in that instance they cannot enter or stay in that space. And will most likely self exclude from using that facility. That is oppression. Funny how ides cannot see that as oppression.

There are the large percentage of women who have been the victim of male violence. It is clear, because women tell us this constantly, that being in a space knowing there is a ‘penis and goalies’ in that space where the woman is in a state of undress or vulnerable is distressing and triggering. They will also self exclude from that space that they require for their participation in public life. Maybe Ides has a different interpretation of oppression. But that, to me, is oppression

So, we have a small group of males who would have had to be living without any media, social or otherwise, to not know that females are distressed at their presence in single sex spaces. You see, women know that ‘NAMALT’. It doesn’t make any difference though until there is a reliable way to tell us which males are intent on harming us (even indirectly) and which are not. There is no magic sign, so all males in a space meant to be single sex are a potential risk. And their very action of ignoring female boundaries are actually a magic sign that they have the high potential to cause us harm. Even simply by our unwilling involvement in their fantasy. Sexual or not.

Strewth, it’s utterly pathetic that any male adult will continue to oppress females knowingly. All because they ignore the millennia of sexist discrimination that women have lived with due to their sexed bodies. Just so they can prioritise their own needs, whatever those needs are.

All because some women think that they have the right to give away the rights based on the safety needs of other women. Maybe because they have had the privilege to never need them.

Utterly pathetic, isn’t it?

Why would a gender critical person apply to work at Tavistock, exactly?

And it seems that my autocorrect simply cannot leave ‘goolies’ as is. Quite funny to see it changed to goodies and goalies even after I changed it back both times.

Anyway, I have noticed that Ides has posted in this direction of thinking before - that it is ridiculous to think that just one male can oppress many women just through their presence. Even in jails it seems that Ides believes this phenomena cannot happen.

It is the ‘scale’ argument. How can one transitioned male oppress women? But it seems some posters also think women are pathetic for having an understanding of how this happens.

One male.

Let’s look at ‘one male’. Lia Thomas. How many women’s lives did this male affect? Even to start with, by exposing their ‘penis and goolies’ in the dressing room. Then by taking women’s places in the events they have trained for, trained for much of their lives for. Then by creating a hostile environment for those team mates and competitors who disagree that Thomas should be able to compete ‘as a woman’. Then by breaking records and setting new ones that may never be broken in that league, because Thomas is a male.

Yeah…. Just one male.

One male.

Shall we consider the harm one male can do in a prison. We have the court evidence and now a study, that show that even without physical contact, males cause great harm in female prison estates. I am happy to post links and discuss, but from what I have known of ides it won’t matter.

One male in a female prison estate will cause harm to many female prisoners, and to female prison guards and staff. Including the females who have to search that body with a ‘penis and goolies’. And there are documented instances of those ‘penises and goolies’ being deliberately exposed while showering.

Just one male can cause that wide spread harm in one prison.

One male.

So let’s revisit the toilet situation. One male can be the one that causes multiple women to self exclude. Or just one woman. How many women being harmed by one visit to the toilets by a transitioned male is enough for ides to say.. yeah ok. That is a knock effect that is harmful.

Is it one for one? If the effect of one transitioned male having access causes one woman to self-exclude from ever using that toilet, visiting that store, that theatre, that work place again, is that ok with ides? Because that male has now got the freedom to use female AND male toilets of their choosing, whenever they want. And the woman doesn’t have that choice so doesn’t come back. Or would the knock on effect be considered too. A workplace situation, meaning that potentially a whole family is now without a much needed wage.

Still pathetic, ides.

I know what comes next. That I will be accused of manufacturing a situation that will ‘never happen’. Except it is. Women are telling us they are self excluding all the time. It is just that some people will always ignore those stories because they are ‘kind’ to who they think are the only marginalised and ‘most vulnerable’ … the owner of that ‘penis and goolies’.

Pathetic. Isn’t it.

To help the patients I imagine Lekisa. If you are gc you might be concerned that distressed young people are not necessarily getting the best care there, and you might want to make the service better?

Though I accept it might be a challenge, some people are very committed to doing right by others they believe are being ill-served