Charity rejects disabled child for mother's GC views

[PaddingtonSwear]

Archive link here: https://archive.ph/zGGCc

Pretty shocking but it seems they think they're right.

And no. I know these parents and have watched them interact with their children since they were young, some from babies, and that is not the way they interact.

You wouldn't believe ideology that tells you that you aren't a girl if you had been raised to be secure in your identity regardless of your expression. That's my opinion based on the trans people and their parents Ive met.

I dont trust your interpretation purely because I have no idea if you say and think these things, yourself.

So you're saying that a member of the House of Lords ( who are not politicians btw) has lied in the House and claimed that a person sexually assaulted in A&E was actually a person raped in a ward then lied to by the hospital?

And that all parents of transIDing children have caused their children to be trans by being gender conformist?

Do you have any idea how sophomoric your posts are? Embarrassing.

I agree with you, Ihavetoask, and that is why it is so important to highlight the negative effects of transgender ideology on girls [boys too, but you mention girls].

It's impossible for a girl to feel secure in her identity as a girl if she's hearing from multiple sources - the media, education, the medical profession - that her identity as a girl has no foundation in fact, and anybody, male or female, can be a woman, even men can be women if they say so.

The right of women and girls to be women and girls, with a clearly-delineated, factual, scientifically-verifiable definition of 'girl' 'woman' 'female is, is fundamental to the kind of strong identity you refer to.

You don’t think four year olds believe what their teachers tell them?

It can be, but you get better at spotting ‘the script’, it starts off with the wide eyed, disingenuous, here I am, being all reasonable and genuinely wanting to debate in good faith, right through absolute falsehoods that have been debunked a million times, then the insistence that we all work with/know/meet completely passing TW every, single day, but have no idea, even though they are a tiny minority of people who just want to pee, then moving on to emotional blackmail, mentioning genocide, suicide, extermination, and seamless segueing into angry abuse, with the absolute pièce de résistance of a good old flounce.

I see. Why then do you trust skeptics groups and AI? We already know that some of the skeptics groups are quite specific in that they fully believe that male people can be 'woman'. So, I don't understand why you would put your trust in them. Yet your AI feed is listing Yahoo, GB News, and Skeptics and some South African references.

The AI feed is very clear that Baroness Nicholson discussed this in parliament. It is most likely from the Skeptics feeds that has expressed doubt because it was 'just one politician' who raised the issue, that she was asked not to name any further details because the woman was not going to take legal action.

Well... no shit Sherlock.

Why trust the skeptics? Oh.... right... because the skeptics have shown that they are very knowledgeable about why women would expect privacy around this incident. They have shown a depth of understanding why this woman who was very ill and lied to wants to be made public.... just like you have shown this depth of understanding. And obviously skeptics don't have any of their own biases at all....

Yes Namey! Because the Skeptics told them so! Therefore it must be true....

So we know

• women are raped daily in the NHS
• the NHS allow men who claim to be women onto female wards including locked psychiatric wards
• NHS policies have said any woman who does not agree a man who says he is a woman is a woman is a bigot
• men who claim to be women are five times more likely than other men to commit sex offences

but a member of the House of Lords must have been lying when she said a woman was raped on a hospital ward by a man and the NHS lied about whether a man was on the ward because all the details weren’t reported in The Guardian?

Apparently, the skeptic groups obviously have access to deliberately siloed information that has been kept out of the public because the woman did not wish the trauma of legal proceedings.

This is great! We should fucking ask the skeptics then to help us to keep track of all the reports on media where pronouns have obfuscated whether someone is male or female. Why the fuck didn't we think of this???

Oh... yeah...

Righto.

So you think a child should completely accept what an adult says to them about the sex of a child.

The adult is evidently and actively lying about the sex of a child.

Feminists on here believe that these lies should be challenged.

You say this should not be done in case the child mis sexes someone.

Because you think that feminists are really responsible for the trans identifying children because actually they are the ones supporting stereotypes?

And you also believe that a Baroness lied in the HOLs about a woman who was raped in hospital.

😂

I think you are totally projecting.

'Gender' is all about stereotypes associated with the opposite sex to that which one is. Sex just is. It says nothing definitive about personality, character or personal preferences.

The women's and the gay liberation movemnts were predicated on a rejection of gender stereotyping. Transgenderism simply re-inserts it.

Being female is not an identity, it is a fact... one not changed by personal feelings. A male person, even one with a secure identity, is still not female.

I have had direct correspondence with the Baroness and she had personal conversations with the victim in question. Are you accusing either of lying?

@BundleBoogie 'this never happens' remember, and If it did the trans identifying male is still the victim....

Your child in this example of "hyperbloe"

Per the opening post you become the mother with a child filling out the application form but ignoring the request for you to declare your belief system when it comes to gender.

You send your child to the camp.
There are adults and children there.

The adults have a socio-political belief that people must be allowed to control the way they are described by others.

You stated you share the same belief.
You said that you feel so strongly about this that you would stop comminicating with me if I failed to accept that you had a right to dictate what words were used to describe you.

Therefore you are claiming that you would not have a problem with your child
• being taught to lie to you
• being told-off or sanctioned for correctly sexing a child
• being instructed by adults to obey instructions without question when you know said staff would openly lie knowing your child understood they were being lied to.

In the camp your child meets Sam.

Your child know Sam is a male.

The staff instruct your child that Sam is a female with she/her pronouns. And that your child must only recognise Sam as a female person.

Your child knows Sam is a male.
Your child knows that the adults know Sam is a male.

Your child knows that if there is a conversation about Sam, she/her rather than he/him is to be uses.

Your child knows an adult will force a adjustment of your childs language if male or him or he is used when speaking about Sam.

Your child knows that when you and your child have a conversation that Sam must be described as female not male and that the words she not he and her not him must be used.

So unless you ask your child for a detailed description the information you are given by your child is that Sam who slept in the same room as your child and shares changing areas and toilets is female

Eg
Sam slept in my room last night.
She has nice PJs and she changed into her Tshirt and jeans after we shower but before we had breakfast. I liked her runners.

What an utterly vile thing to say to a parent who is dealing with a very difficult situation with his child.

I was considering reporting your post but I think it should stand to show everyone what a disgusting excuse for a human being you are.

One thing that's remarkable is the degree this issue has degraded the integrity of institutions. Captured organizations take it as carte blanche to aggressively lie and falsify in way that no other cause can motivate. Even if you had no sympathy for the GC point of view, surely the deterioration of governing institutions should cause concern. We we've seen it with NHS Fife, the NSL, Allison Bailey v Linnaeus Veterinary, the vicious regard action entrenched bureaucrats at the EHRC fought Falkner, the whole Tavistock debacle.

All that drivel and you cant work out that with humans only human males have a penis.

And try to imply it was a female sex offender
🚩🚩🚩

Who are 'they'? Not the feminists posting on here presumably, or you'd use the pronoun 'you'.

No, we're not just pretending to be against gender stereotyping. We really are against gender stereotyping.

So you're accusing a Baroness of lying in the House of Lords. What is your evidence that she was lying?

I actually agree with Ihavetoask that it would be useful to have more details about that particular NHS rape case.

However, unlike Ihavetoask, I doubt very much that Baroness Nicholson deliberately lied to parliament, and I believe that if the report that she made to Parliament turned out to be inaccurate in any way, that she would come back, admit that she had misled the HoL, and correct the record.

So on balance, although I'd like more details, I take Baroness Nicholson's word that it happened, because I don't believe she is a liar.

With the last bit no penis was involved so must be one of the no-penis sex who did it.
😬

Do you understand that there is a wider world beyond you and the people you know?