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!

Just as refusing to treat gay people as equals and let go of homophobic definitions is homophobic.

This from someone who denies that same-sex attraction even exists.

You want trans people to not exist by converting them back into cis people who "accept their sex

This shows a complete lack of understanding of the GC position. We are not 'cis' because we do not identify with oppressive sex stereotypes. Of course they must accept their sex, just as they must accept gravity exists. But behaviours and dress associated with gender are harmful social constructs. A man can wear a dress, high heels and makeup, he could be a stay at home parent, work in caring roles, like pink floral fabrics, he could decide to perform what he perceives as feminine behaviours. He can be as gender-non conforming as he wishes but he is still a man.

Self-explanatory. Calling them a "man" is forcing that role on them.

But it's not self explanatory, is it? What role is forced on them, by referring to their biological sex?

^"There's a three-way fight here

(a) genderologists - men should be able to play the "woman" role, women should be able to play the "man" role
(b) right-wing - men have to play the "man" role, women have to play the "woman" role
(c) gender critical - there should not be any roles"^

This has been rebuffed thousands of times.

No, you are still forcing people into the "man" and "woman" boxes against their will. You are still imposing roles.

This from someone who denies that same-sex attraction even exists.

Exactly. This has been pointed out on various threads this morning.

As long as you ars forcing the labels of "man" and "woman" on people against their will, you are (b). Period.

No, you are still forcing people into the "man" and "woman" boxes

What's in these boxes? If it's just meaningless labels, why would anyone care that people refer to their biological sex?

@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?

It's so frustrating even if they did allow comments, you just KNOW that the vast majority would be on the GC side (and side of safe guarding children) but still these organisations will carry on as if the GC side is the "out there" idea that only a small minority of bigots agree with. It's the most bizarre case of pretense I've ever seen

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Self-explanatory. Calling them a "man" is forcing that role on them.

But it's not self explanatory, is it? What role is forced on them, by referring to their biological sex?

The role of a "man". Which is imposed by imposing that label. The role includes "sex-based" labels and "sex-based" segregation.

These are parts of the role, which you militantly uphold.

Do you think everything should be fully mixed sex?

Lekisa = kimilybob??

@Ereshkigalangcleg

No, you are still forcing people into the "man" and "woman" boxes

What's in these boxes? If it's just meaningless labels, why would anyone care that people refer to their biological sex?

It doesn't matter how much space you believe there is or should be inside the boxes, I don't care whether the boxes are "sex-based", stop forcing people into boxes they don't want to be in.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Do you think everything should be fully mixed sex?

By your definition of "mixed sex"? Yes. There should be no discrimination against trans women.

Physical characteristics should still be accounted for in medical context, but besides that N O T H I N G should have trans-exclusionary "sex-based" segregation in place.

Lekisa658 what words would you use to describe the class of organisms with immobile gametes and those with motile gametes? What words would you use to define these groups specifically in humans?

Oh, and obviously, medical context should still avoid using gendered terms to refer to physical characteristics. That's kind of the point of the trans-inclusive language you lash out over so much.

Man" is not a role, any more than a "woman" is.

That's the entire point of our belief.

It's a statement of biology and nothing more. A man (male human) can play any role. But they can't be female, any more than they can be a dog.

Exactly. Lekisa's perspective is founded on a whole host of gender and identity based assumptions, that I doubt they are even aware of.

The gender critical position is simple. Man is just an adult human of the male sex, and sex is important in some circumstances, some of these are such that even the most fervent genderist can't reasonably deny.

By your definition of "mixed sex"? Yes. There should be no discrimination against trans women.

That wasn't what I asked. My definition of mixed sex is a space that males and females can both use. I didn't use a narrow definition of any kind in my question, but I realise you might want to avoid it.

@Lovelyricepudding

Lekisa658 what words would you use to describe the class of organisms with immobile gametes and those with motile gametes? What words would you use to define these groups specifically in humans?

"People with immotile gametes", "people with motile gametes".

I don't see how having which gamete would be relevant outside of gamete-related healthcare anyhow.

We don't need our social identities to be based on the motility of our gametes. We certainly don't need segregated spaces based on the motility of gametes.

The role includes "sex-based" labels and "sex-based" segregation.

These are parts of the role, which you militantly uphold.

This gets to the nub of it.

Single-sex sports for women, single-sex prisons for women, single-sex rape crisis centres for women may be "role play" for you, but I can assure you for women they are a necessity.

This is the paradox - we've reached the progressive point that on the whole most of the "role" part of the sexes had been eliminated, leaving sex segregation only where truly necessary.

But now those who are desperate for there to be a role play have to try to get themselves into those necessary areas for validation.

And their egos and entitlement are so high they're not even prepared to accept the previous status quo, which was that a very select few men might be permitted into this sort of "witness protection programme" with careful screening and gatekeeping - no, they're insisting that any male be able to enter these spaces on demand. That was never going to fly.

We certainly don't need segregated spaces based on the motility of gametes.

So sayeth a man.

We're only using these gamete based definitions because you're denying the existence of biological sex, and instead believe that people can just decide what "gender" they are and it has nothing at all to do with biological sex, and it's a total coincidence that so many "woman" brains ended up in those large gamete bodies who have been oppressed by small gamete people for millennia.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Man" is not a role, any more than a "woman" is.

That's the entire point of our belief.

It's a statement of biology and nothing more. A man (male human) can play any role. But they can't be female, any more than they can be a dog.

Exactly. Lekisa's perspective is founded on a whole host of gender and identity based assumptions, that I doubt they are even aware of.

The gender critical position is simple. Man is just an adult human of the male sex, and sex is important in some circumstances, some of these are such that even the most fervent genderist can't reasonably deny.

The mere act of labeling is imposing a role.

Also, you absolutely do believe in a whole set of bioessentialist gender stereotypes about "men".

The reason you are so persistent in labeling trans women as "men" is because you want to weaponize those gender stereotypes against them ("perverted paraphilic predatory males" etc.) to advocate for their exclusion.

You use the label itself as a weapon, and you do project gender stereotypes on the label, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

@Lovelyricepudding

We certainly don't need segregated spaces based on the motility of gametes.

So sayeth a man.

Lol, as I was saying.

You aren't "gender critical". You are firm believers in gender stereotypes.

Also, you absolutely do believe in a whole set of bioessentialist gender stereotypes about "men".

Do you deny that gender is actually a thing at all?

Here we have the end point of the TRA argument.

Women's sports? Banned, mixed sex only.

Want to be black, like Rachel Dolezal, but people keep forcing you into the 'white' box? Go for it, never mind racism or anything.

Hypochondriac, but those pesky doctors keep forcing you into the 'healthy' box? Not any more!