Learning-disabled girls & women must accept men providing intimate care

[MrsOvertonsWindow]

This dreadful account from Transgender Trend is no doubt replicated all over the country as schools / social care / the NHS remove the rights to sex based care for these vulnerable young women, allowing men to provide intimate / personal care. Prioritising (yet again) the demands of this toxic lobby insisting that the safety, privacy and rights of women and girls no longer matter.

Warning - contains information about rape / HIV

www.transgendertrend.com/severely-learning-disabled-girl-sex-based-rights-under-threat/

You've obviously never worked in any such place nor taken on any caring responsibilities.

People in such jobs actually put the care and wishes and dignity of the people they are caring for at the heart of what they do. They actually notice and have interest in the best possible interest of those people. And they know who does not cope well with certain situations or people or who have traumas, fears, particular needs, and they're written into care plans. They are capable of basic human compassion, understanding, person centred care.

This whole empathy devoid, thoroughly nasty attitude towards those being cared for comes exclusively from TQ+ politics and frankly this attitude and political obsession that male people must be inflicted at all costs and regardless of the damage left in its wake would render a person absolutely unfit to do the job.

Caring for the elderly can be very difficult and it's often not at all clear what they want, even if it may seem like they aren't giving consent. Many a time they may not have the capability to give consent. Many get angry due to medical conditions and its the job of the carer to provide the care they need and require. A decent carer won't faf around listening to every word that patients utter

jesus CHRIST. I know this guy has never actually done care, but if I thought there was the faintest chance he actually had, I’d be asking MNHQ to pass his details to the police.

I think we can all see this as an attempt to railroad into your own narrative. As I've said, one does not equal the other. Not being able to pay for personal care does not mean a loss of the right not to be assaulted. Now youre just being silly and making things up.

Let us assume what you say about the "overwhelming majority" is true. (I doubt it!)

So the remainder are just acceptable collateral damage, are they?

Tell us then. What percentage of rapes and sexual abuse isn't worth preventing?

You have said unless they pay for care they should not have the right to same sex carers. In other words a woman should be forced to have their genitals touched by a man against their will. That is sexual assault. That is what you are demanding.

Why would anything I've said be devoid of empathy?? I believe patients should be given the very best care and understand the difficulties and complexities often involved in doing so. If you have to start making it personal and misgendering me to somehow point out my view is that of a male, then it shows just how out of ideas you really are as not one of my arguments have been tackled yet, just seemingly angry poster's who lack understanding.

Yes caring is a difficult job, sometimes elderly, young, disabled people wont be clear , because reasons. A decent carer will faff around and listen, because that's the decent thing to do. all these people are real humans, with foibles and reasons for wanting whatever, whether that's lukewarm tea, to never eat a baked potato again, to wanting same sex care. You wouldnt put a baked potato in front of someone who hated the sight and smell of them. You wouldnt make a person drink cold tea, you wouldn't make them suffer a man changing them if that's not what they want.
I'm sure a few women wont care, they can have the men tending to them. But for those who choose not to then there really is no more to be said. Ignoring their wishes is assault.

Everything you have said is devoid of empathy for disabled women and girls.

I think there are those on here that put their empathy above all else, including the actual care someone recieves.

If someone was wanting a different carer who wasn't available, I get the awful feeling there are some on here who would happily sit and watch residents mess and soik themselves then sit there in it as long as they felt their empathy was there. Residents will often complain, sometimes they hate every staff member, but professionals will deal with it appropriately, male or female.

Don't be ridiculous. It's not one thing or the other: part of dealing appropriately with a client you are caring for is putting their individual needs, feelings, wishes at the heart of their care. Not to be obsessed with enforcing that male people must never ever encounter a 'no' and no one else ever matters. Sorry, male service providers are absolutely not the heart and centre of everything, the client needing care is. And any male service provider capable of doing the job would be the first to tell you that and to ensure their client was not distressed or alarmed or forced into surrendering their boundaries and suffering something in the name of political gains for the TQ+ lobby.

People who cannot set this political obsession aside should be nowhere near real people with real caring needs, they lack the necessary capacity to provide such care. And they frequently have no grip at all on what life is actually like in these real life situations, with real people, who actually have capacity to care for and respect those they work with.

Ffs do you really think it's that simple?

People don't want to work in care because we are treated so appallingly. Vastly underpaid for a highly skilled job.
If people want to start getting picky about who provides their care then I'm afraid they are going to have to pay a lot more for it

Ah, another poster back to advocate for male carers assaulting women.

Why does this remind me of the assertion that women who need single sex groups for therapy at rape crisis centres should just “reframe their trauma”?

That’s the vibe I was getting @FigRollsAlly , or ‘lesbians just need to meet the right man’. Not saying @Adelishious is sending out really creepy vibes but I’m not not saying that either

We seem to be wavering between three (hypothetical) views here from the 'male carers enforced on women' camp.

1. be firm. If they hate it, they will be dealt with. 'Appropriately', apparently. This is pure fantasy and it's flat out abusive, real people do not treat clients in this way, they'd be sacked.

2. crisis, crisis, there's no choice, take the male carer who insists on females not being allowed to say no because it's that or no care at all, unless you're very rich. Again this is pure fantasy and alarmism, and frankly if you have a high number of female clients then your recruitment is going to reflect this. There are not a high number of TQ+ male people in the workforce anyway, and any who are fit to do the job are going to care enough about their clients to ensure they work with colleagues to cover the needs of each person. If you're a cold and unpleasant person who has no interest in client need then you wouldn't be in this job.

3. It's good for females to be forced to be distressed and to have their boundaries smashed until they learn to love it. Again this is fantasy and it is not one that is going to lead to recruitment, I promise you.

Attitudes like this have absolutely no place in reality. They're quite disturbing reading, but anyone behaving in this way will not last long at all in a job with these kind of responsibilities.

By appropriate I know you mean a male carer will not force the issue of himself cleaning a woman up. Because again that would be assault. A male carer should and I hope will notify a female carer that a woman needs cleaning up.
and of course if a man needed cleaning up, he should have another male carer seeing to that. Works both ways, both sexes need dignity.

@Terfydactyl I don't think that's what that poster meant. I think @Adelishious was saying it's endless sometimes and the job needs to be done. I can relate to residents wanting certain members... or myself been requested it doesn't work like this in facilities unless you are providing purely a 1 to 1 service only.

No, @Adelishious meant it like that. He’s already said female clients are more likely to sexually assault Carers than the other way around. He has not one shred of compassion or care for disabled women and girls. That mush is very obvious from posts on this thread.

What didnt that poster mean?
Hes been banging on all this thread about women should just accept males doing whatever, so I assure you he means men attending to women wether they want that or not. Or in different words, assault.
I'm not overly bothered if a woman in care doesn't get her favourite carer, I'm bothered that she gets same sex carers.

There's something of a difference between 'Client wants that one particular favourite person (who is busy, not on duty, this is not always possible)' and 'Client wishes to receive intimate care only from female carers'.

This false teaming of the two is again purely in order to force the idea that it is ok to insist that TQ+ male people can overwhelm female people's boundaries. It is not.

And really once you get into a situation of staff feeling that it's ok to get into the mindset of 'client demands are overwhelming and annoying, they have to be done to regardless of how they feel about it, so ignore their feelings and boundaries and do the job to them and they can just deal with it and be grateful they got that much' - a very urgent inspection is needed, followed by a new manager, major staff retraining and a major culture shift, because this is not care, it's a hotbed for abuse and safeguarding disasters. These aren't acceptable attitudes to be holding.

Not to mention I'm also noticing the interesting attempt to link 'we're overworked, overstretched, poor us so it's an excuse for really awful attitudes and bad practice to creep in'

which is being put forward solely to justify a political desire of:

TQ+ male workers being permitted to intimately care for vulnerable female clients whether or not females consent, or the negative impact upon them.

Which is revolting in the extreme. And disturbing to imagine a 'carer' of that mindset being permitted anywhere near any vulnerable person at all.

Thank you Artichokeleaves
It's repeatedly evident that there's a growth of what I call "predatory values" - where the wishes and rights of women and children are dismissed in favour of the demands of those who fail to respect boundaries. The right to say no.
It's dressed up in all sorts of ways and numerous excuses are used but at the heart of it is coercion - insisting that the demands of (usually) a male or men are far more important than the rights and safety of women and children.
It's insidious.

It is. It always seems to be males trampling over female boundaries, and pushing any small concession to the nth degree. Dressing it up in the new ideology does not disguise it as well as the gender zealots believe.

Have you actually worked in a care industry? Because your views are very very jumpy and hypothetical.
Do you have any idea of how stretched staffing is? The unrealistic things expected in so little time? Do you know what's it's like from actual personal experience?

Because for a start it's mainly women who work in care. So what do you suggest to recruit men? Or if there is no men avaliable on shift? Sorry but I'm giving you the harsh reality not some hypothetical view of what you "think".