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/

Things that are abusive in this person’s mind:
-criticising the opinions of his internet pseudonym.

Things that aren’t abusive:
-forcing elderly and disabled women and girls to receive intimate care from men against their will.

Maybe @Adelishious is following the new trend of defining things however they like, not by common usage. He’ll be saying words are literally violence next

to let them know that disabled children aren't entitled to believe their bodies belong to them?
Always Remember That Your Body Belongs To You
No Means No

First you claim that protecting women from sexual assault is less important than some warped version of “equality” for male caters

This is pure nonsense, and a contemptuous use of 'triggering' phrases and terms that are designed to make it look like that's the issue.... When it's not.

No one has said anyones body doesn't belong to them - that's just mumbo jumbo thrown in, as is the no means no 'slogan'.

Pretending that I've claimed that protecting women from sex assault is any more important than equal employment opportunities is utter garbage and is inflammatory and made up twiddle twoddle that was never said. I completely disagree that what you propose has any bearing on 'protecting women' and no one has even offered up any kind of workable solution to how their new oppressive employment drive could work in reality. Do we rank in terms of gender who commits the higher rate of crimes for particular vulnerable groups and bar them from all professional duties around said group?? It's ill thought out reactionary scaremongering instead of laying out an intelligent plan of how better to acheieve what they desire.

If its genuinely protection of vulnerable adults & women you care about why not start with the most serious problem at the top which is the disabled vulneravke clients themselves. Sexual assault in the care settings like the ones being discussed, by the clients themselves is reported at around twice that of adult care workers themselves. Why is the elephant in the room of no concern worth even a mention if youre main concern is safety and protection???

That is the clients being reported as the 'perpetrators' twice as much as any care workers in situ if I wasn't clear.

Pretending that I've claimed that protecting women from sex assault is any more important than equal employment opportunities is utter garbage and is inflammatory and made up twiddle twoddle that was never said.

Well, quite.

Wow - a thread about vulnerable girls and women and Adelishious (a male poster?) wants us to talk about these women sexually assaulting staff? Vile whataboutery.

What's that phrase? When someone shows you who they are believe them the first time.

That is batshit @Adelishious are you claiming all these vulnerable women and girls are abusing their female Carers, or are you saying male clients are abusing female Carers, in which case is that another argument for same sex Carers?

As a woman and also someone who works with non-verbal autistic children and provides personal care this is terrifying.

I do a lot of safeguarding training more as the statistics state that children with special needs are 10 times more likely to be abused. That’s truly horrific, non verbal children and adults. There’s not the money for 2-1 changes although we have to do them a lot for our safety and to get the changes done.

I believe same sex should be the norm and parents/carers could then be asked “we have a male carer would you authorise him to perform intimate care duties” I don’t think many would though.

What a spectacularly disgusting derail from the point of the thread.
Start a new thread if you want to argue your bizarre nonsense and stop twisting and being offensive on this one.

Sorry, that^ was to the derailing poster, no one else!

@MrsOvertonsWindow

No thats incorrect. The fact I was pointing out was that the sexual assault of disabled clients in care are perpetrated by fellow disabled clients at twice the rate than they are by staff. That doesn't mean staff are being assaulted.

It has everything to do with body autonomy - which means being in charge of your own body. Deciding who touches you, where and how and when. Having your "no" listened to and respected. Having your wishes followed. Being treated with respect. Human decency.

Am worried that you don't know that, @Adelishious. Perhaps these are things that you take totally for granted.

Am tempted to suggest you check your privilege.

Check my privelege??

If bodily autonomy means people get to decide who touches them and when then that's absurd in the conditions you are referring to. Obviously if someone is refusing care, that should be respected but that doesn't mean they get to pick and choose who cares for them. The exception being if they are paying for that service themselves.

I think you'll find this is specifically about the topic and far from a derail. Just because I may have derailed the way you would have liked it to go doesn't mean its off topic.

This is a feminist board Adelishious where women centre the needs and rights of women and girls. Your endless attempts to derail the thread from the needs of some of the most vulnerable girls and women in society have been noted from the outset. No matter how much you flail around with your childish and grim "whataboutery", women on here will continue to focus on girls and women's rights and our determination that girls and women have the right to say no to men touching them intimately - no matter how much that enrages creepy men.

Adelishious · Today 13:15
Check my privelege??

If bodily autonomy means people get to decide who touches them and when then that's absurd in the conditions you are referring to. Obviously if someone is refusing care, that should be respected but that doesn't mean they get to pick and choose who cares for them. The exception being if they are paying for that service themselves.

re: The exception being if they are paying for that service themselves.

Are you meaning that if a vulnerable person is using NHS services, they don’t get to pick and choose who cares for them? (A woman in stead of a man for intimate care?)

but, if they pay privately they do get to?

I thought the NHS was not supposed to be so second rate that women have no choice but to have personal care given to them by someone potentially untrustworthy and who even at best may violate their sense of dignity.

If by any chance you mean that a vulnerable, incapacitated person is not contributing to society and so has no right to make demands, I disagree. The rest of society who are contributing, are paying for the service on their behalf. and do so in the belief that the service will meet the vulnerable person’s needs ( not the other way round).

The NHS is failing if there has to be a tacit agreement to ‘ put up and shut up.’

@Adelishious, you asked what counts as a disability. It’s pretty obvious that this thread is about people who are disabled enough to need help with intimate care so going off on a tangent about those self identifying as disabled seems to be quite a derail. Or do you think that there are those who would pretend to need such care? Also, if the vast majority of carers are female and 98% of sexual assaults are perpetrated by men then it’s not demonising male carers to say that there is a bigger risk attached to men as a group. The reason why most cases of stealing are perpetrated by female carers will also be for the reason that most carers are female. You could have worked all this out yourself if you weren’t so busy trying to claim that the rights of the most vulnerable women and girls are less important than the feelings of men.

I would actually go a step further and say that clients would be affected negatively by only being given single sex care. The overwhelming majority of clients will get perfectly good care from men and build up relationships of trust. Barring men does nothing but portray the fact that men as a group can't be trusted and that's not the case. We judge people as individuals not by group so my argument is nothing to do with feelings of men, it's far greater than that.

@FigRollsAlly No, it's not obvious at all! So are you saying that men should be barred from given intimate care to women.... or just disabled women? If a women can't give herself intimate care, is that what should count her a disabled? It's absolutely far from obvious what your saying at all.

Yes - women must consent before non medical care staff administer intimate care. It's a basic principle - the right to consent.
The wishes of random males to administer intimate care to women do not trump the rights of that girl or woman to consent - ever.

Imagine you're a male carer in a care home. It's a standard care home so there are roughly 40% male patients and the majority of staff are female.

You know from experience that Mrs Jones only wants intimate care from female staff but she indicates that she needs the toilet. Do you
A) take her to the toilet yourself and when she gets upset think it's her own fault, silly cow, for being old and disabled and not rich enough to pay for private care
B) go and find one of your many female colleagues to help, if necessary taking over from a job they're currently doing in order to free them up.

If you think the answer is A you shouldn't be in the caring profession. Further if any managers repeatedly saw a member of staff ignoring a patient's right to consent I'd hope they would be swiftly removed from the role.

I think you're living in a dream world as if there's availability of any staff member at any time. I hope I never have to get any care off you when I'm older, as I can tell you that by the time you'd gone off to find another staff member of the opposite sex likely down the stairs to another floor, spoken with them and taken over whatever duties they may have had (let's hope they weren't in middle of sorting meds) by this time good old Mrs Jones is now sitting in a mess of her own piss and shit! But don't worry, you got her the right sex carer.

If you are a manager and say staff ignoring a patient''s right to consent then I hope you would call the police to report the sexual assault for what it is.

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 as it could affect the quality of basic care they are entitled to.

So the idea now is care home residents fall into two groups:

Group A who are being paid for by the state and have no right not to be sexual assaulted by staff

Group B who can afford to pay not to be assaulted and have their consent considered.

As group A are not paying perhaps we could save resources further by sedating them? After all we don't need to concern ourselves with consent if they aren't paying? And as our visitor made clear equal employment opportunities are more important than protecting women from sexual assault.