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!

Justwaking, the price list includes costs for hormone treatment and surgery. Neither is cosmetic and there is an expectation by many that it should be provided on the NHS, often by patients who have entered the system via the Tavistock. Charities like Mermaids have complained about gate keeping and waitlists.

It is very important that the Tavistock retains its impartiality. I understand that Mermaids started as a group of Tavistock parents and morphed into a lobby group to press for more affirmation and quicker medical intervention. Alternative approaches and diagnoses need to be looked at. Not only because medical interventions are non reversible and sometimes under researched. But also because medical life time costs to the NHS for a ‘sex charge’ can be huge. We don’t want individuals, especially children, to later regret. We, as a society, probably don’t want to pick up the bill in anything other than very clear and properly diagnosed cases of gender dysphoria.

One reason why the Tavistock should not be pre screening applicants according to beliefs.

@Lekisa658

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

A) because the Tavistock needs to be improved in decreasing waiting lists, and in their administration, their record keeping and in safeguarding (See Sonia Appleby). The best person should get the job because even a ‘gender critical’ person believes that trans people should have the very best care.

B) because people who believe that sex is immutable are currently providing excellent trans health care around the world right now. It is your mistaken understanding of what ‘gender critical’ means that makes you question why they would apply.

C) why would you deny a patient the highest standard of care because you believe in ideological thinking that only someone who believes in ‘gender’ can provide the best care? There are now high profile transitioned male surgeons and health practitioners even questioning ‘affirming only’ care.

There are more and more studies released that show that balance is vital. That ensuring that underlying health and mental health issues are treated properly before any irreversible treatment is started. And having a practitioner or a CEO that believes that sex cannot change should hopefully mean our children going through these treatments, or any loved one, will receive treatment that they need not what ideologically driven groups insist on as had been happening.

If ‘gender critical’ clinicians, safeguarding and other staff have been working in the Tavistock for decades, why is it an issue now?

Is it because they call out safeguarding issues (Appleby, Kirsty Entewhistle), or lack of quality care (Marcus and Sue Evans or David Bell) while doing the best job they can to provide relief to those suffering debilitating dysphoria? Or is it because there is a group who want these drugs and surgeries on the NHS even though they don’t have debilitating dysphoria? Or is it that a group want to continue to deny that even Dr Steensma, an author of the Dutch protocol is saying that affirming only may not be appropriate as a treatment for the majority of the current cohort of young transitioners.

Who would wish for an unbalanced team in charge of the Tavistock?

why would you deny a patient

I mean a general ‘you’ here, by the way.

Justwaking, the price list includes costs for hormone treatment and surgery. Neither is cosmetic

Both are cosmetic.

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!

Feminists have always recognised that women are oppressed by their reproductive role and the physiology that goes with it. What do you, Ides, think is the source of their oppression? Long hair, skirts and womanly 'feelz'?

@candycane222

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?

But a core gender critical belief is that transgender patients should not receive transition care in the first place?

It's like putting an anti-vaxer in charge of distributing vaccines.

I am old enough to remember this, or think I remember this, but didn’t it used to be the case that it was a core part of the counselling before a sex change that the patient had to show they knew that whilst they could modify their body, they would never actually change sex? I think I am thinking back to reading April Ashley’s autobiography? Or have I muddled this with something else?

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!

I keep coming back to this and laughing. Does ides know any feminists at all? From decades ago or now?

Maybe an alternative feminist universe?

Maybe Ides should read the wonderful account of Ros Whyte about setting up one of Scotland’s first rape crisis centres

Here on this thread is a share token to the article in the OP

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4492145-SNP-Rebels-Yes-really-and-More

Ros very clearly stated that males were not accepted to enter the centre even to assist, due to the harm it would cause the women.

Oh…. I know! Ides will come back and tell us Ros is not a feminist!! Or was not an early enough feminist!!!

Or somethink!!

Lekisa “But a core gender critical belief is that transgender patients should not receive transition care in the first place?”
No, it isn’t. There are very many self described transsexual gender critical people who know that gender is a social construct, who know that human beings cannot change sex and who also know that some people suffer dysphoria so utterly distressing that cosmetic and social changes are a means of managing that dysphoria to a limited extent. There has always been, and will always be transgender people and these people need compassionate, informed support.

@WorkingItOutAsIGo

I am old enough to remember this, or think I remember this, but didn’t it used to be the case that it was a core part of the counselling before a sex change that the patient had to show they knew that whilst they could modify their body, they would never actually change sex? I think I am thinking back to reading April Ashley’s autobiography? Or have I muddled this with something else?

I believe this was the case in the past. A trans person who used to post on here said that they had had to sign a declaration to that effect before having genital surgery. I think they had transitioned some time ago - in the 90s or possibly even earlier. I have no idea what happens now - are people going into this thinking they can literally change sex?

@MrsWooster

Lekisa “But a core gender critical belief is that transgender patients should not receive transition care in the first place?” No, it isn’t. There are very many self described transsexual gender critical people who know that gender is a social construct, who know that human beings cannot change sex and who also know that some people suffer dysphoria so utterly distressing that cosmetic and social changes are a means of managing that dysphoria to a limited extent. There has always been, and will always be transgender people and these people need compassionate, informed support.

That's funny, considering that gender critical people consistently lash out whenever a trans woman is referred to as a woman in pretty much any context.

If what you're saying were true, we wouldn't see so much unrelenting resistance to the social changes, or the constant fearmongering about the physical changes.

But a core gender critical belief is that transgender patients should not receive transition care in the first place?

It's like putting an anti-vaxer in charge of distributing vaccines.

You seem confused about the point of the service. It's not a "give permanent cosmetic+hormonal treatment to children who want it" service, it's a "help children overcome their sexual identity issues" service.

Your logic seems to be that if any service starts doing something harmful, you can't stop it, because appointing anyone who is skeptical of that thing is described as being "against" that service.

So we couldn't appoint anti-lobotomy people to mental health treatment services performing lobotomies, because "surely a core X belief is that mental health patients should not receive lobotomies?"

Well, yes.

And that's why we want to get onto the board of the service that is giving harmful evidence-free "treatments" to make them reconsider what they're doing.

Now, if the Tavistock wants to be a "give permanent cosmetic+hormonal treatment to children who want it" service, with no dissenters permitted on board, then (a) it's not medicine, and not suitable for NHS funding, and (b) child abuse, because it's not medicine.

(Much like an organisation wanting to be a "lobotomy service" and blocking anti-lobotomy advocates.)

are people going into this thinking they can literally change sex?

Some trans activists think sex is equally about having or not having breasts and which hormones you artificially change your body's hormone profile to, and reproductive role is just one thing among these.

So a male person who takes oestrogen and develops gynecomastia is literally female, and any male can do this.

@Helleofabore

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.

Bravo a million times

That's funny, considering that gender critical people consistently lash out whenever a trans woman is referred to as a woman in pretty much any context.

You don't have to share the belief that males can be women to know that some of these people of both sexes need medical care.

'Transwomen' are men they are not women so why should we refer to them as such? Why should we be required to pretend otherwise? Why should women be used as a prop? And why do you think requiring everyone else to support an individual's fantasy is the best treatment for anyone?

@Lovelyricepudding

'Transwomen' are men they are not women so why should we refer to them as such? Why should we be required to pretend otherwise? Why should women be used as a prop? And why do you think requiring everyone else to support an individual's fantasy is the best treatment for anyone?

And this is precisely why gender critical people should not be allowed anywhere near transgender patients.

You have no qualms about triggering trans women's dysphoria by calling them "men", and anyone who is like you is therefore unqualified.

And this is precisely why gender critical people should not be allowed anywhere near transgender patients.

You have no qualms about triggering trans women's dysphoria by calling them "men", and anyone who is like you is therefore unqualified.

As far as we can see, they're not being helped by being told they're women - the current crop of transwomen who (want to) believe they are women seem to be a lot more mentally vulnerable than the previous generation.

I believe the dysphoria is being amplified by by them being told they're "women" and that anyone who says they're not hates them.

The point is to help these people, overall, not to avoid temporary discomfort.

Medicine is not simply "pain avoidance".

And this is precisely why gender critical people should not be allowed anywhere near transgender patients.

You have no qualms about triggering trans women's dysphoria by calling them "men", and anyone who is like you is therefore unqualified.

That is unnuanced as it overlooks the profound distinction between holding beliefs and manifesting them. I'm sure that you understand the difference.

Colluding in an immersive fiction is a separate issue.

Lekisa658 do you also believe that anyone who refuses to agree that an anorexic individual is as fat as they think they are should be nowhere near anorexic patients? That all clinicians around them should support them losing weight?

Or OCD patients should be told they are correct to spend five hours a day washing their hands because they actually are contaminated when they touch their freshly laundered clothes? Or do you think they should be supported with proven therapies that are distressing and hard work for those patients but ultimately result in a good outcome?

@NecessaryScene
“As far as we can see, they're not being helped by being told they're women - the current crop of transwomen who (want to) believe they are women seem to be a lot more mentally vulnerable than the previous generation.

I believe the dysphoria is being amplified by them being told they're "women" and that anyone who says they're not hates them.”

Actually what is detrimental to their mental health is the existence of the anti-trans "Gender Critical" movement that aggressively campaigns for restricting their ability to medically and socially transition.

Your only actual issue with the trans-affirming approach is that it's uncomfortable to you, and everything else is just a dishonest play to try and advance your goal of getting "tr*nnies" out of your sight.

Dysphoria is amplified by you refusing to respect trans women as women. Simple as.

Dysphoria is amplified by colluding in a dysphoric belief. Simple.

Your only actual issue with the trans-affirming approach is that it's uncomfortable to you, and everything else is just a dishonest play to try and advance your goal of getting "tr*nnies" out of your sight.

The only time I've ever seen that word on Mumsnet is from posters like you. It's just not a word most gender critical feminists use.

You are a fan of analogies, Lekisa. Should we tell anorexics they are morbidly obese? Or people who believe they hear voices that someone wants to kill them that they are correct?

@Lovelyricepudding
“do you also believe that anyone who refuses to agree that an anorexic individual is as fat as they think they are should be nowhere near anorexic patients?”

Not remotely the same thing.

It's actually more like if you were trying to "cure" gay people from experiencing "unnatural urges". That's what you're trying to do to trans people. This is eliminationist rhetoric.

Trans people consciously want to be able to socially live as women, nothing about that wish itself is a "delusion". This is all just you trying to dictate how others should live their lives.