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/

"What did you do today dear?"

"I spent the day on Mumsnet telling disbelieving women that if men want to provide intimate care to unconsenting women then men MUST be allowed to. Because men's rights are more important than the law or what women want".

"That's nice dear....."

<sigh>

because, @Adelishious the law has been made an ass by muddling sex and gender up so that if a male person believes himself to be a female (or just says he is a female) then he is protected from discrimination under employment law.

Which is how a female patient landed up with a male nurse in a female nurses uniform ready to do her smear test in Poole, because the . There was an apology made.

Rights, it turns out, are exactly like pie.

How do you know there aren't any in court?
Court of protection is all private
Crown courts , well have you checked the entire countrys courts? Cos I've just looked at my local crown court, and theres not a great deal of detail

But look here
www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/court-case-search.php?click=submit&action=search&mode=1

Quite a few , enough to be worrying are about carers, very first one though sexual activity blah blah Male care worker, female caree

Oh dear, we've started with condescending personal insults now. I can assure you I wouldn't do that unless I was really reaching for ideas besides non of what is said above is true. I'm for equality. Not men, not women.

Everyone should have the right to refuse care and understand alternative care will not be given without charge. I view this matter as arbitrary. If Im 95 yrs old, can't care for myself, and my main concern is whether 1 of my carers has a weener or vajayjay, I'll be ordering a beer, as life's going good!

And if that's what we're arguing about if doubt if there are any carers in court who have abused patients as a male posing as a female. You prob woukdnt even notice they were technically male. This really is making a fuss where non is needed.

I'm for equality. Not men, not women.

Maybe a feminist board isn't the place for someone who doesn't see the difference? Here we centre women and girls - unashamedly.

We are simply correcting all and any false information that is being written on this thread today, for the benefit of all other MN readers.

And if that's what we're arguing about if doubt if there are any carers in court who have abused patients as a male posing as a female. You prob woukdnt even notice they were technically male

And there you have it! The real agenda.

So bizarrely at the moment we need to both have court cases of men pretending to be women in court for assaulting the women they care for and also we wont know because they pass? Or something.

If what you say is true (it isn't by the way since in almost all circumstances we can identify who is male regardless of what clothing etc is worn) then a deceit has occurred and that is a breach of consent, which means it's a violation of a person's dignity and privacy and, in some circumstances, that person's safety. That could lead to a claim for negligence against the provider organisation as a minimum.

If a man cannot respect the human dignity and privacy of a woman or a girl that man is deemed to be a predator because he has violated her boundaries against her consent.

You prob woukdnt even notice they were technically male.

Another very serious ethical problem with this in health care in all forms.

If a female has specifically stated she requires as same sex hcp or carer, and a male person chooses or is sent as an intentional deception that they are the same sex, in the hope that the female will not actually realise she has been fooled so everyone can snigger and say 'got one over on her?'

How the hell is this ethically or morally acceptable, and not just a flat out intentional assault on the female against her consent?

It's utterly indefensible. Anyone of any sex or any gender or any identity with such utter disrespect for their female clients or patients has absolutely no business working in such a role.

It also puts the female in the position of quite possibly realising that she is about to be intimately handled by a male in a situation she has specifically not consented to, and she's then faced with a major problem.

Does she risk being called all sorts of names, or be threatened with withdrawal of services or care as a punishment for hate crime? Does she have to specifically state because she has no other option that this person is a male and deal with their distress and anger (we have all seen the video of the very tall TW screaming 'it's Ma'am!' and throwing things over.) Does she dare to try and protect her boundaries?

Or does she shut her mouth and let this male do something to and with her body that she specifically did not consent to and is not willing and is likely to be perceiving explicitly as an assault? With all the harms involved?

Who the hell is a vile enough person to intentionally go putting a female in this position to start with? There should be some consideration here too of the TW's feelings and needs should they encounter a suddenly distressed, alarmed or angry female who has been forced to the discourtesy of stating a fact the TW would like not to be reminded of.

Who the hell wins in this situation? How many females would just stop agreeing to or presenting themselves for care knowing they may be confronted with this situation? Who is sick enough to treat people in this awful way in the name of 'care'?

It just emphasises over and over again: the TQ+ political agenda sees females as subhuman and there is no emotion they feel that matters - terror, trauma, pfft. No reason they have, no thought they have, nothing in their world matters other than that they are saying no to a male.

What if a trans man required a same sex carer, I wonder whether that would put the home in jeapordy of falling foul for 'forcing' a man to care for a woman! How confusing. Though It's all rather negligible if you ask me as I think any tq with any ill intent to abuse as men could be spotted in a heartbeat. Diligence is the key to sorting this perceived mess.

I think it would be incumbent on the part of what you call a "transman" to specify the sex of the person from whom care can be provided. If a male is required by the client it would be necessary to tell him that the client is female so that he is not deceived. To deceive him as the carer is equally a violation of his boundaries against his consent. The law also permits him to decline if his boundary includes not caring for members of the opposite sex. Some men may be prepared to care for a female in such a circumstance but only with a female 'chaperone' in attendance.

Really, all of this is pointing to the fact that now we need to make the single sex exceptions mandatory in order to protect females from predatory males.

Why did you pick transmen?

Shall we do this thought experiment with a transwoman?
So assuming transwoman wants female carer and still has her penis, its still assault. To be clear, assault on the carer.

The 'never mind the sex of the person, it's about due diligence' is the same argument as 'you can always call the police after you've been assaulted'. No. There is no excuse to strip women of needed, wanted same sex care in order to politically benefit male people who don't like boundaries.

There is quite an interesting article somewhere - someone cleverer than me may remember it - written by a TM, who explained very articulately how in their caring role they made the decision and spoke to their managers about how biological sex did matter in terms of the care the TM was providing to clients, the TM was fully aware of this, put the needs of their client first and therefore in some situations and with some clients was not the right person to provide the care. If I remember rightly, they met with opposition from non-TQ+ managers who found this uncomfortable.

Please clarify what you mean by "trans man" and "same sex carer" as I cannot see how "a trans man requiring a same sex carer" involves "a man" performing any care whatsoever.

You seem to be using different definitions of words to everyone else on this thread.

Is Adelicious after thirteen pages of his offensive rapey bullshit finally figuring out the information THAT IS IN THE OP OF THIS THREAD?

This lawyer did indeed tell them that the policy had to be changed back to same-sex intimate care, to comply with the requirements of the Equality Act (2010).

any tq with any ill intent to abuse as men could be spotted in a heartbeat.

Not all abusive men can be spotted in a heartbeat. A lot of them are rather good at disguising themselves.

Some very much aren’t, of course, but unfortunately they don’t all walk around festooned in red flags like

As to "diligence", I need to go to bed now, but earlier discussions have got me started on the amount of diligence supermarket retailers think appropriate to stop warehouse employees stealing a Freddo. Not sure why I never thought about this before, but I have now.

Their procedures not only include CCTV surveying all premises and security guards on the premises monitoring the CCTV 24/7 but also random searches of employees' pockets and belongings during the shift and when the staff leave work.

In case people nick goods to sell on, or sneak a bar of Cadbury's as a snack.

Can someone explain to me why vulnerable women are less worthy of protection than chocolate bars?

"Can someone explain to me why vulnerable women are less worthy of protection than chocolate bars?"

Lol, some of these comparisons are starting to sound like something from a comedy show, now we are less worthy than a Cadburys bar..... I guess you could make anything up to sound bad if this line fits!

Lol, some of these comparisons are starting to sound like something from a comedy show,

You’re the only person on this thread who is evil enough to find it funny.

I appreciate that you don’t have even the minimal empathy or intelligence it takes to understand the gravity of this topic , or to understand why people don’t like the way you keep dismissing the safety and body autonomy of women, especially girls and women with disabilities.

I wish you’d likewise appreciate your own shortcomings. Perhaps this could be a wake up call to you about what kind of person you are and whether you wish to continue being that person. It’s unlikely, I know. But perhaps you could read back your comments and see if you experience any shame, that would be a great starting point for change.

You’re a useful example of exactly why women’s no must be respected without question. But I think anyone reading the thread has probably got the point by now, especially since you’ve pretended at points to be a carer. Everyone reading this who had any doubts must now be certain that men like you must not be allowed to access women’s bodies and that girls and women with disabilities must be safeguarded.

Everyone reading this who had any doubts must now be certain that men like you must not be allowed to access women’s bodies and that girls and women with disabilities must be safeguarded.

Agree.

Sunlight.

I'm not sure why anyone would make the assumption I'm male.... I'm not.

The whole point of my post was to highlight how difficult it is to take someone seriously when they're making silly comments comparing women and chocolate bars. I could say something equally silly such as "I notice government spending has increased for park keeping, therefore women are seen as less important than flowers!" It's such basic, low level thinking it begs the question whether it's adults I'm actually talking with.