How do we find a middle ground?

[Namechange2468109]

How do we find a place where it’s ok to say we believe their are transsexual people (in my lifetime it’s always been around and as far as I am aware not particularly fought against/prevented people accessing services/given equal rights) generally these people (who I totally support and would advocate for) appeared to me to want to go under the radar and just live their lives. I’d have NO issues sharing a bathroom with these people.

What shifted? Why is it now a case that we are bullied into accepting a man (with a beard who in every way looks and acts like a man) as a woman?

I thought in the 90s we accepted that what you wear, your hobbies, who you slept with and career choice did not define you. I was never girlie, wore boys jeans but at no point did I think I was a boy or prevented progressing my life.

We now have men that define themselves as women by going backwards in stereotypes, basically the clothes define the man.

The levels of irony baffle me ‘sex doesn’t exist, but if I wear heels I’m a woman’ ‘don’t assume or judge, but if you don’t assume correctly I’ll punch you’ and my favourite ‘I’m a non-binary lesbian’

The ironic thing is (and sorry if this offends anyone) I never coined myself as a feminist. I genuinely thought the previous amazing women had won the war, I earned equally or out earned my male counterparts, I never felt being a women provided me different opportunities to my brother, if anything maybe a tiny advantage.

But now I feel that all that has been pointless and at 41 I’ve become a feminist because I NEED too. Is this not such a rewind in society. I was genuinely a little nervous today at taking a book to the counter (material girls) a bloody (amazing) book, but a book.

How do we rationalise this?

Sorry for the long post but I am genuinely lost at the next steps to take.

Omg Lucy Letby is the latest pro-trans gotcha? Just how much do you have to scrap the barrel for that one?

Reminder: There were warnings about Letby's behaviour being inappropriate and concerning from staff which were ignored by senior management. The safeguarding that should have been in place to protect against harms failed. Cos people didn't take concerns seriously, and there was a top down silencing imposed to protect Letby. Indeed Letby was given special treatment and protected by senior management with an offer of a promotion following the raising of concerns. She was given super special untouchable status by them.

What exactly is the point that women have been making which is being ignored by authorities again? Oh yeah, a failure to listen to warnings about safeguarding.

Safeguarding, safeguarding, safeguarding.

Yep I think the comparison here is an apt one.

It's almost as if the interlopers don't know what the fuck they are talking about, spout utter nonsense and safeguarding is an alien concept to them.

Amazing.

That's for that gem. I'm well impressed.

Remind me what was Letby's method of killing?

I have a feeling that being in a ward with direct access to medical equipment and babies who were recieving significant medical intervention and couldn't be moved at times notably when the ward was particularly understaffed and parents were either not there or less alert (night shifts), is a little different and easier to do than roaming the corridors of a hospital with an unauthorised hyperdermic needle shoved up your sleeve on the off chance you might find a baby in the toilets unattended by their mother in broad daylight.

Again we have the dynamic of crimes being more likely because of a situational factor which increased the ability of opportunitist criminality to occur.

Newsflash: Reducing opportunities where offenders are more able to commit crimes is part of the dynamics of safeguarding too. Letby's choice of timing was explicitly commented on and identified in the case against her. She picked a weak point in the system and exploited it.

Funny that.

Hello you still here GoddessofThunder?

Would love to hear the comical retorts of baffling bollocks on this one.

Oh no wait, you flounced some pages back...

Oh my.

Just as you illustrate the entire point about adding layers of 'soft protection' and the value they have with regards to reducing opportunitism and how criminals deliberately target and exploit weak points they have identified with a great example for everyone to learn the relevant lesson from.

Damn.

What a roaster.

Sorry I’ve not responded individually, but I’m so grateful for the mostly intelligent replies. Who’d have thought Lucy Letby would form part of my peak…!

You’re welcome ;)

Morning @GodessOfThunder!

@RedToothBrush has made a really important point about how Lucy Letby and other criminals operate. Opportunism plays a huge part in it. They attack their victims because they can.

I'm fairly sure that if I were shopping for bedlinen in a department store with my baby asleep in her pram and while my back was turned Lucy Letby happened to come along, she wouldn't grab hold of the nearest pillow and hold it over my baby's face, because that isn't her modus operandi. My baby would most likely be perfectly safe near Lucy Letby in any public place.

Lucy Letby murdered babies in one way and one way alone: by tampering with medical equipment in the NICU. It was her employment as a nurse which gave her easy access to sick babies and the necessary authorisation to touch medical equipment which gave her the opportunity to commit those murders.

We see this a lot, particularly with murderers who choose a specific type of victim. Peter Sutcliffe chose vulnerable women. Ian Brady and Myra Hindley chose unaccompanied children. Jon Venables and Robert Thompson chose to abduct a two year old while his mother's back was turned.

We cannot prevent all murders or all rapes. We will never be able to do that. But we can certainly prevent a large number of them by reducing or removing opportunities for people to carry out these crimes.

98% of sexual offences are carried out by male people. 88% of victims of sexual offences are female.

Segregating male people from female people in particularly high risk situations removes opportunities for male perpetrators to attack women and children.

Allowing any male person to access these female spaces just by saying he is a woman creates opportunities for male perpetrators to attack women and children.

Could Karen White have continued to sexually assault women if he had been locked up in a men's prison? No. He would not have had the opportunity.

I’m not sure how any of this really applies to post op transsexuals though.

Yes, technically they could sexually assault someone (I believe one single example was posted upthread, or at least an assault of some kind), but they’ve got no penis.

So, perhaps we could make an exception for them, and, say, give them a special ladies loo permit. It can then be presented to any enforcement bods doing a “spot check”.

@GodessOfThunder the ladies loo permit is being a woman.

I genuinely didn't think it could get more bat shit than the last TRA bingo card but we can now add toilet passes and but..Lucy Letby to it. The desperation of the TRA arguments is sort of grimly amusing.

Men who have had their penis amputated can still use male toilets. Cubicles are available there for those men who can't use the urinals.

Men don't become women when they have their penis amputated.

@GodessOfThunder
So only assaults where a penis is involved matter?

Are you saying that you can't be sexually assaulted or assaulted by a man without the use of their penis?

The issue here is that makes retain their offending pattern. Hormones don't change that. Surgery just prevents rape. Not sexual assault.

Nor does this change the issues over dignity and privacy. Or issues over trauma.

What we say is that transwomen are allowed what they are comfortable with, but women aren't permitted the same dignities.

Equality Law and Human Rights Law are about balance and consideration of all parties and how it affects them all.

So if it's about protecting the dignity of transwomen and women you have to consider both. And that's what the laws on equality are about. It's not about putting one at the expense of the other and not listening to the concerns of one party.

The argument that transwomen make is that men are dangerous and harm their dignity and privacy. And yet women are supposed to just accept that transwomen aren't men and there are no men who will try and exploit the opportunity because they can without question due to the cloak of trans. How is that consistent, workable or equal?

It's all about limiting opportunitism whilst trying to preserve privacy. The numbers mean the natural solution would be private rooms for transwomen - unless you had a ward full of transwomen in which case it would be the opposite.

In truth the issue remains that actually 'a ban' is just going to end up with more mixed sex wards which has the opposite effect on women than the intended one because hospitals already are failing in their duty to provide the single sex wards they are supposed to and the political commitment to single sex wards is non existent in practice.

And greater awareness of the sheer volume of assaults in hospital will start to impact on when women engage with healthcare. For good reason .

That for me is the biggest issue. No one caring about womens health or women's safety and the underlying attitude that women are second class and that's fine, even from some women themselves, because of this attitude that we should be grateful for any care at all and isn't the NHS wonderful. No not really when we have such a large problem with crimes in a hospital.

You know your NHS number? Well that's kinda on your records. That number gives you a whole pile of information. It's quite handy.

You know the records when you are admitted to hospital. You know these records that you check when you are allocated a bed on a ward. This isn't an emergency scenario in A&E where the priority is prompt emergency care. This is the stage after admission where you can check all the records.

You know the records people check to see what health problems have. You know the records you should be looking at and checking sex on as a matter of routine because presentation of so many conditions is dependent on sex. You know the records that you should be aware of any other medications which may be relevant - like y'know cross sex hormones. You know the records you should check because sex affects medical dosage even for men and women of the same weight. You know those records where if you don't spot someone is trans you could actually do physical harm to them whilst you treat them.

Why on earth would you need to have a peak down someone's pants at all?

The butch lesbian gotcha really shouldn't even be on anyone's radar in terms of a serious argument when you are talking about health treatment on a ward because medical staff should be alert to whether the medical needs and considerations of the patient on the basis of their actual sex not gender not what they look like regardless of whether the patient likes that or not.

Because harms.

There's half a zillion papers on how women's bodies are not male bodies and how we should see sex in research and treatment. It seems absolutely no one is paying attention to this inequality and the issue of the default male in medicine and the rampant institutionalised sexism which disadvantages and harms women in particular.

That I have to actually sit and write this out because people are that bloody ignorant and caught up in the 'hurty feelings of males' drama is astonishing. Women aren't allowed feelings and they aren't allowed dignity and they aren't allowed to feel safe and they aren't allowed healthcare which notices their sex because no one can be fucking bothered to understand that they their rights are equal to men's.

Oh good, the Educationer for The Right Side Of Sunlight is back!

It was explained to you yesterday that women only spaces are as much about the privacy and dignity of one's sex than about safety from physical assault.

Nevertheless, males with or without a penis are far more likley to be fetishistic than women. Voyeurism ( the male gaze), AGP and so on. You were also linked to examples, yesterday where males who have had "full re-assignment" are still motivated by a desire to violate boundaries, and they do so.

I also explained that there is a whole sub category of men who have 'a thing' about castration, and last year a new gender category was created - that of Eunuch. Many of the older, late transitioning AGP men do take it all the way in terms of body modification ( Documentary on Netflix 'Regretters' features one typically AGP male who transitioned for this reason) but this does not negate the intense sexual motivation that lies behind the transition.

Do you think people are admitted to the correct prison by having a pants check and then allocated?

Or do you think there's some other records involved in their somewhere? Especially since criminals have a bit of a reputation for fibbing.

We have laws about sex by deception. We have laws about fraud. And just general laws about lying really.

It's possible to have these laws and state the purpose (where proportionate).

One of the issues currently is the fact that women feel criminalised for challenging a situation they feel uncomfortable with. If the law were to back them and say, if there is a legitimate issue then institutions are liable for enabling the deception or being sexist then there may be a change of heart that goes on over it (because they'd still be legally obliged to provide access and services to transpeople too... but shhh that's super secret knowledge)

Aren't most, or at least half, nurse serial killers male?

This is a good account (although not official stats).

https://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2016/04/male-nurses.html

I’m not sure how any of this really applies to post op transsexuals though.

^ This is the problem, right here.

We're talking about women's rights, their spaces, their safety and privacy, their needs. And you, yet again, are seeing the entire issue in reference to men!

But what about this man? What if he does that? Says this? Or this man, what about him?

Does it ever cross your mind why you are so determined to pander to men 100% of the time, even when it comes to the dignity safety and privacy of a cohort has absolutely fuck all to do with them?

Women's spaces are for women and you're bending over backwards to twist them into the service of men.

And the absolute fucking icing on the cake is that women wouldn't even need their own spaces if it weren't for male behaviour!

There was a woman here once who worked in a rape refuge. She said it was more akin to a witness protection programme than anything else.

The women in there were traumatised, petrified, and extremely vulnerable. The staff are taught not to raise their voices, not to shout or even laugh loudly. They have to wear soft soled shoes and everywhere is carpeted.

This is because loud voices, heavy footsteps and slamming doors can make these women jump fearfully, triggering PTSD symptoms.

The men who have abused them are often so determined to find them that the refuges have had to develop secret ways of meeting up with the woman in order to give them access. They don't advertise their address, and it doesn't show up anywhere.

One in four women have been raped or sexually assaulted as an adult. These women still go about their daily lives, using public facilities.

And here is you banging on about forcing men into women private spaces showing a fucking pass that they don't have a penis, when for some women, the very prospect of a male where he shouldn't be is enough to put the fear of god into them.

Do you think, for one single fucking second, that you could drag your eyes off the men who want to violate women's boundaries, and concentrate on the women that those boundaries are meant to protect instead?

Just for once?

Weirdly health care murderers are much more evenly split between sexes than all other kinds of murderers. (Fun fact I learnt reading stuff when the Letby verdict came through).

I cavet this by saying about the number of women v men employed in healthcare.

The numbers are also much smaller in numbers of offenders compared to all other murderers. But each individual can murder higher numbers because of access to vulnerable and the means to murder being easier.

But still the number of health care related murders remain lower than other types of murder. Particularly if you live in the US where you just get shot.

No they dont. Where the hell did you get that from?

As is the case worldwide, men , in any profession in hospitals commit the most crimes.
A pretty quick look into the various registrations of the professions will show you that.

What's actually worse than all these men committing crimes in hospitals is even when caught, they are far too often allowed to continue practicing.

Smacks of catholic priests allowed to continue in a different area.

Weirdly health care murderers are much more evenly split between sexes than all other kinds of murderers. (Fun fact I learnt reading stuff when the Letby verdict came through).

I cavet this by saying about the number of women v men employed in healthcare.

Are there any actual stats?

Yes. Me too. Door wide open and me dealing with flooding periods and hormomal bowel movements!

I know I am not alone with this because I have seen it many times.

How do we know if they have a Penis or not? Will they wear a badge? Have a special pass? Who will be allowed to ask for the evidence?

Not all attacks on women by men are sexual or rape. How do we keep the bad men out? The same way we have always fone: byy not letting Any of them in

I did find some a few months back that surprised me.

Its a definitely a different pattern. But there's all sorts of cavets that can easily be applied too (as I said above).

The key point for me was about safeguarding and opportunitism being key features of the problem and their being failures in limiting opportunities and protecting vulnerable patients adequately.

I didn't see stats on who the victims were either - I also think this relevant but overlooked.

I've seen mention of stats but not the actual numbers.

Oh now you want the bog police?

who’s on dick checking duty?

wheedle wheedle, it’s really important that some men are allowed into the women’s loos. What about if we do this, or that, then those men can have access to women surely? Gwan, be kind

The answer is no