Well this was totally predictable

[OverlyFragrant]

Woman identifying as a man is 'raped in all-male psychiatric ward' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15461027/Transgender-man-raped-male-psychiatric-hospital-ward-court-hears.html?ito=native_share_article-bottom

Shame on these men and shame on the NHS for placing this poor women directly in the hands of predators.

I ... but ...

No. It's no good. I literally am speechless.

It's very frightening how women who identify as men seem so deeply, irreversibly indoctrinated that neither pregnancy nor p-i-v rape, both only made possible by their female anatomy, makes them think again.

• Why was a woman with this severity of mental illness considered able to consent to her 'transition'?
• What risk assessment was carried out as part of the drafting of the NHS policy that allowed her to be placed on a dangerous male ward?
• What (if anything) should have happened to protect her from male assault?
• What disciplinary action will managers and staff now face for not protecting her from rape by two other patients?
• Are the managers and/or staff criminally liable?

How can we ensure this can never happen again in the UK?

Jamie's eugenics-type theory was certainly bold, though it seems unlikely. If indeed trans men are shorter than the average woman, then the use of puberty blockers seems like the most obvious explanation, though not all of them have taken puberty blockers by any means.

It does seem that a lot a trans men are shorter than average (see Stephen Whittle, who appears tiny), but is that simply because they are often pictured next to men, who are inevitably much bigger?

Sorry, I do realize that we can't rank all humans and ascribe their value by reference to height, strength, fertility, good looks, brainpower etc.

I wil say that there is no way gender ideology could take hold in the world without years of political correctness and woke ideology convincing people of insane ideas like "we cannot say that it is better to be tall and strong and sporty than to be short and weak and with no hand/eye co-ordination" or "we can;t say that someone who is genetically pre-disposed to very poor mental health has worse genes compared to someone who is geneticaly pre-disposed to being positive and pro-active and motivated".

Surely we can see that some people due to genetics and / or upbringing are more likely to be vulnerable, and that people are targetted for SA because they are vulnerable and SA can lead to trying to escape womanhood.

Also, the Courier. When papers were dutifully avoiding printing the truth, in 2019 the Courier was the first to give a more accurate idea of what had happened: "But instead of being jailed at Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court, Dolatowski, who identifies as a woman but was believed by her victim’s family to be a man, was given community payback and tagging orders."

However, you'll notice that even then this report was very carefully worded.

Source link added.

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/courts/819644/mum-of-supermarket-toilet-sex-assault-victim-warns-freed-attacker-could-strike-again/

You claim to not know NHS policy on gender and sex?

Yet to have managed to make up a whole theory about how management have hired a trained psychiatric medic to work on the Psychiatric Ward who set out to have female patient raped by men on the male ward.

Wow just wow.

Before your theory runs wild you could try checking what the policy was for that hospital. And FYI unit staff dont write policy so the ethical ownership of how she ended up on a male ward with no extra safeguarding lies with each and every member of the senior management and the board.

You're assuming tall is sporty and strong and not predisposed to poor mental health and short is non sporty and weak and predisposed to poor mental health. That is piffle.

Nicola Adams is fairly short at 5' 4" do you think she is weak and non sporty

The thread has taken a strange turn

Guff.

Some are shorter because of puberty blockers, true. Setting that aside, however, I've known TIF of varying heights. (Only a handful, however.)

The shortest is a young TIF whose family are all short and who are all highly intelligent, fit and well educated.

Indeed

Yes. It's unlikely that he'll ever be released. However, he had the capacity to be tried and found guilty.

forgot the image…

.

google ai - what studies correlate height and mental health?

Studies indicate a complex correlation between height and mental health, with
taller individuals generally reporting better mental health and self-esteem, while height dissatisfaction (feeling too short or too tall) is strongly linked to various psychological problems, including loneliness, social anxiety, and depression

We know that at the Tavistock most had several MH co-morbidities.

I posed the theory (a guess based on anecdata) that TIFs are shorter than the averge woman.

I stand by my guess that if TIFs are shorter than the averge woman it is partly due to women who are taller and stronger with better mental health are more likely not to end up as TIFs than women who are shorter and weaker and with worse mental health.

Obviously correlations say nothing about exceptions.

Obviously puberty blockers might be a big factor (but then again how many get them?)

I honestly thought this board was full of left-leaning be-kind types who have learnt over the last 5 or 10 years that a F/T be kind position is not kind, it leads to horrors like metally ill women being raped on male hospital wards. I thought the sorts of sex realist people on here were increasingly realizing that the truth matters and everything that is good follows from the truth and not lies.

I thought we were past living in a world where one can't say "Muslim Pakistani men are more likely to be involved in rape gangs than other men in the UK" or "knife crime is a particular problem amongst black boys - both as victims and perpetrators". I thought we were past living in a world where we had to pretend that we would not choose our son to be a 6 ft athlete with a 130 IQ and positive attitude, in preference to him being 5'3", 85 IQ and depressed.

Why was a woman with this severity of mental illness considered able to consent to her 'transition'?

All the mental health professional bodies are captured by gender ideology. It's transphobia to question someone's gender no matter how out of touch with reality they are. If the planned 'conversion therapy' ban goes through, it'll be illegal for a mental health professional to question whether a mentally unwell person is really the opposite sex than they actually are.

What risk assessment was carried out as part of the drafting of the NHS policy that allowed her to be placed on a dangerous male ward?

None. Or if an EQIA was done, it will have had the section on sex changed to gender and the policy will have been assessed as being positive for people of gender. See the NHS audit threads for extremely ample proof.

What (if anything) should have happened to protect her from male assault?

Not putting a woman on a mens ward. If you put a woman in a mens psychiatric ward rape is very likely to happen.

What disciplinary action will managers and staff now face for not protecting her from rape by two other patients?

None. They were following policy. The policy is insane and was written by clueless activists bit whether they followed the policy is what matters. Plus all NHS data is corrupted by gender ideology so it's very possible she was recorded as male in the hospital system. Slim chance that a lowly HCA or band 5 might get hung out to dry for not supervising better, but not likely.

Are the managers and/or staff criminally liable?

The executives who signed off what will be a hospital-wide policy imposed with no consultation with front line staff fucking well should be, but they won't be.

How can we ensure this can never happen again in the UK?

If the government stopped their spineless fucking around and enforced the FWS decision it'd help.

you are in a hole, and someone needs to take your spade away.
Just stop it

No its not perfectly possible that a woman decided to take out her upset over being bullied by colleagues and bosses by intentionally setting an innocent vulnerable woman up to be raped women don't behave like that.
@JamieCannister as you are a man you clearly failed to understand the way women think and act are completely different to men. Whilst a nasty rapey man might think that its OK to do that to a woman women don't.
You need to stop trying to mansplain womens thought processes to us and listen to what we are saying, which is women don't behave in the way you are suggesting

all the eugenics guff is a sure fire way to get this swiss-cheese of a thread deleted, isn't it?

I thought we were living in a world when I could make up revenge fantasies and bang on about eugenics and all the women would just nod and tut.

If you ignore the shite you are accused of 'supporting' the shite. Or endorsing it.

If you make a fuss it is all 'ooh you are sensitive'.

If you all go 'WHAT THE FUCK' yes ladies, you are piling on.

If you report it you are not robust enough to challenge it.

If you challenge it, then you are bullies.

More piffle. Together with the conflation of being short means being dissatisfied with your height.

Maybe at 5' 4" I'm just too mentally unstable to understand some posters points.

I wil say that there is no way gender ideology could take hold in the world without years of political correctness and woke ideology convincing people of insane ideas like "we cannot say that it is better to be tall and strong and sporty than to be short and weak and with no hand/eye co-ordination" or "we can;t say that someone who is genetically pre-disposed to very poor mental health has worse genes compared to someone who is geneticaly pre-disposed to being positive and pro-active and motivated".

SO much wrong with this that is feels impossible to create an integrated critique of it. Just a list of some of it's many problems seems more maneagable.

1. There is NO sense in which it is simply "better" to be tall. It is 'better' if you have certain sorts of sporting ambitions, or a job as a supermarket shelf stacker, or a desire to impress sexual partners who are attracted to tall people. It is neutral if you are a novelist or an accountant. It is disadvantageous if you are a miner or an elephant that lives in a forest (hence the evolution of small forest elephants).
2. It is not true that "we cannot say that it is better to be tall and strong and sporty than to be short and weak and with no hand/eye co-ordination". We can say it as much as we like to people who want to become basketball players and suchlike. We would be looked at with some sympathy if we said it to someone who was short and weak and a Nobel physics prize winner. In other words, again, "better" is context-specific.
3. To the extent that it is true that "we can't say that someone who is genetically pre-disposed to very poor mental health has worse genes compared to someone who is genetically pre-disposed to being positive and pro-active and motivated", that would largely be because there are some words missing. The corrected version would be something like "someone who is genetically pre-disposed to very poor mental health has worse genes in respect of the specific genetic disorder that they are suffering from... ." That makes the statement not only true but a harmless tautology. In other words having "better" or "worse" genes isn't an all-or-nothing thing. Our genes are a patchwork: in each of us, they create good health in some areas and specific ailments in others. Hence the shocking fact that short people are often mentally well and even sporty, and some Aryan supermen have male pattern baldness.
4. Additionally, the so-called unsayable "we can;t say that someone who is genetically pre-disposed to very poor mental health has worse genes compared to someone who is geneticaly pre-disposed to being positive and pro-active and motivated" starts from the assumption that the people it concerns are as they are because of their genes. In some cases, that may be true and not remotely forbidden from being ackowledged, But in most cases, especially in respect of characteristics like "being positive and pro-active and motivated" it is manifestly not true that genes are a sole or even a major cause. The "forbidden" "politically incorrect" claim is your confident assertion of a genetic explanation for difficulties that in fact have a range of possible causes.

It
Is
Time
To
Step
Away
From
The
Keyboad

Really just stop now you're just digging yourself a deeper hole