This is just vile NHS again

[IcakethereforeIam]

I'm hoping it'll be swiftly withdrawn but someone should be fired for this. Notice it's about making women comply.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12370811/NHS-managers-told-not-offer-sympathy-female-colleagues-worried-sharing-toilets-biological-men-woke-handbook.html

I'm not sure it is conditioned so much as an instinctive weighing of the risks. We all do this in every encounter. We all assess the situation, even if unconsciously, to determine our position, or our safety.

I think that one of the negative impacts of early infringemnt of our boundaries, as children, is that we can lose our instinctive radar for wrong un's and for risky situations.

Just being male is enough to trigger alartness in women - for obvious reasons.

alertness

....and if there is an aobvious male - posing as a woman - this can trigger the responses even more because we detect duplicity.

Agree.

Your post is revealing of the way the social contract has broken down - and why the equality act needs to be updated and tightened up. A male who enters in to a female only space knows exactly what he is doing, and doesn't care. Why on earth would anyone expect a woman to feel comfortable in such a situation?

Third spaces and gender neutral facilities are the obvious solution.

Floor to celing cubicles but on a mixed sexed corridor of such cubicles does not solve the problem; especially in the night time economy.

Why should we be installing a system which does not work as well - when the obvious solution is to provide a small number of 'gender neutral' cubicles or facilities instead ( in addition to the single sex facilities)

The situation has only escalated in more recent years. Prior to the current situation there was little to no public awareness and the phenomena of people 'transitioning'. It just wasn't a thing. In the public imagination there were a few 'transsexuals' ( largely males of homosexual orientation who had undergone the 'full works') and most people would never come across such a person.

Now the trans umbrella has been expanded to include those who would previously have classified themsleves as cross dressers. People are only just becoming aware of this, and now it is far more likley that we will come across such people in our everyday life. These people are clearly male and are perceived as such.

This changes everything.

Growing up female you become very acustomed to, and have a super awareness of, predatory male behaviour. It doesn not have to be overt physical assault to be predatory. To be preyed upon is to sense the ways in which you are being viewed; of the way you are having sexual fantasy projected upon you.

From an early age you become conscious of this - even if still too young to be able to articulate exactly what is going on. I recall getting the bus to school, age 11, and there was often this guy at one of the bus stops ( I used to have to get two buses to school) that totally gave me the creeps. He would look at me in a very unpleasant way - and was seedy and unkempt ( he haunted my imagination for years afterwards - i can still picture him now).

Once at school we'd be out on the netball court ( which backed on to a public park) and there would be guys beyond the railings exposing themselves, or throwing the pages of pornographic magazines onto the court. As you made your way home - men would shout lewd comments from taxis or other vehicles.

We all know when a man is motivated by something sexual. We sense it instinctively.

...and it is not in the least bit flattering to be in receipt of such attention. It does not validate your femaleness, nor validate your attractiveness.

Always the threads about ‘bathrooms’ (or toilets as we call them in the UK) for you isn’t it @DadJoke

we see you

BadJoke · Yesterday 21:29

Trans women are legally entitled In woman’s bathrooms.

Toilets / lavatories, as so many others have pointed out. Yes, places can allow transw into the toilets and other female only spaces, but equally, they are legally allowed to exclude them, if they wish.

Joyce is wrong about the EA2010.

Only if you've flipped the word "wrong" to mean "correct"; are you Humpty Dumpty?

All public sector bodies, including the NHS, follow the law.

Well, they may choose to follow one part of it and to eschew the other, by which, they may, perfectly legally, exclude males from women's facilities.

Thanks for the link. Do you have one that actually references the EA2010?

it’s not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

You don't see women's privacy, dignity, safety, inclusion and freedom from men to be legitimate.

And you don't see saying no to men a proportionate thing to achieve that for women.

You do you. Other people have the capacity to see women as human too.

It seems it's never proportionate if it means saying 'no' to a man.

This is it really.

Nothing, not even women being raped, is a sufficiently good reason to present a man with boundaries.

The issue is massive, massive misogyny.

I think it is primarily a boundary issue. Boundaries of any sort are not on trend. Openness, boundarylessness and the free movement and expression of people is the trending zeitgeist.

But conversely, boundaries are now being re-drawn on what it permissible to think or say around the concept of 'gender'.

The whole queering concept is, in effect, to transgress conventional boundaries, especially as they pertain to sex, sexuality and personal expression.

Just a reminder of the sort of person that DadJoke thinks should be allowed into women-only spaces

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12453205/Kayla-Lemieux-trans-teacher-Canada-school-breasts-policy.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton

The case helpfully supports the guidance given in the Code on the provision of single (or separate) sex services to populations including trans people as being:

1. a starting point that trans people should be included consistent with their affirmed gender;
2. that possession (or not) of a GRC is irrelevant;
3. that any exclusion must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim;
4. with strong evidence required for separate provision of service to a trans person, and exceptional evidence for denial of service.

WTF is an 'affirmed gender'? I assume, since that piece is written by someone who (when still at the 'male crossdresser' stage) decided that they had the right to use a women's toilet if they were dressed in skirt and heels, that 'affirmed gender' is to do with clothing choices.

Why do you believe that crossdressing men should be allowed into women-only spaces?

But at the same time, rigid boundaries are involved that are very strictly enforced.

Women are being asked to engage in a contract where:

they are not supposed to have boundaries about privacy
about mixed sex
about being exposed to male bodies in a state of nudity
about their consent being relevant

(lots and lots of word salad gambits to try and convince them that not having those boundaries is fun, modern, progressive, sensible, exciting, the marketing dept have worked hard)

and definitely not expect anyone to care about their boundaries, or respect them, never mind have them policed.

But those demanding this contract expect absolute boundaries on what said women are permitted to say, perceive, do,

You must use ONLY the words the person with boundaries requires
You must NOT at any time mention perceptions, facts or realities that the person with said boundaries has not approved
You must not leave the space in a way that the person with boundaries may find bruising to their ego
Just to name some.

Much guilt dumped for even CONSIDERING failing to respect these boundaries, and hate crime/possible police involvement is a threat for actual failure.

It's about compelling women to do what men find personally convenient, via seeing those women as non-human resources for male servicing. That's about it really. It isn't any shinier than that.

More case law, this time from a hospital trust relating to a changing room:

"Concluding, Employment Judge Sarah-Jane Davies ruled a female manager quizzed her because she is transgender. Judge Davies said: ‘A concern about the woman’s state of undress in the changing rooms was likely to be connected with the fact that she is a transgender woman.
‘This was a communal changing room with a shower cubicle. It did not seem to the Tribunal likely that there would have been a concern about a cisgender woman in a state of undress while changing in such a changing room.
‘The Tribunal therefore concluded that [the manager] asked the questions because of a concern that the woman as a transgender woman might be in a state of undress in the female changing room.
The employee won a claim of gender reassignment discrimination."

Gender critical people (not women in general) don't like the current legal position, and would like to remove transgender peoples' current established rights, but those rights exist.

https://www.thehrdirector.com/legal-updates/legal-updates-2022/transgender-nhs-worker-wins-gender-reassignment-discrimination-claim-concern-among-staff-woman-naked-waist-changing-room/

Women just think women's rights matter equally to the desired right of men to have access to them in states of vulnerability and undress, whether or not they consent.

There isn't any way to make this sound ok. Because it isn't.

A male is free to believe and identify however they choose. They are not entitled to require everyone else to go along with it, or to attempt to exploit law to have control over women at the expense of women's equality. Hence Kemi Badenoch's comment about this law being supposed to be a shield, not a sword for the means of attacking and harming others. And the work now in motion to fix the law beyond exploitation by those who would use it against women.

DM again, short one this time

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12454913/NHS-doctors-told-not-ask-trans-patients-names-rude-intrusive-insensitive-according-unofficial-rules.html

Actually, I agree no one should be asking anyone inappropriate questions. But, I suspect, sometimes it's pertinent to know the sex rather than the gender of the person you're treating (and vice versa).

Can anyone find a post of the cartoon, you know the one that explains how gender identity is the ultimate darvo for indecent exposure.

That link admits that exclusion, as a proportionate response to achieving a legitimate end, of transwomen (i.e. biological men) from women's sex-segregated services is lawful.

You quoted and replied me, and in this post I've quoted your reply to me.

You do realise I'm agreeing with you?

DadJoke will argue that a sentence saying "the sky is blue" actually tells you that the sky is yellow, if he thinks it'll support his homophobic views. He can't give an honest answer to anything. I've tried. He just runs away or pretends you've said something else - it's quite bizarre.

Is @DadJoke the 'kayley/ceilidh' fool?