NHS U turn on trans terminology

It's not the NHS itself taking a new line - it's the Tories hoping that this populist diversion will get them votes while the waiting lists grow longer. It's sheer coincidence that it's probably a sensible if rather simplistic idea and it's only a consultation, not a decision.

I don't care why this is happening within the NHS, I'm just pleased that it is.

Smileless2012

I don't care why this is happening within the NHS, I'm just pleased that it is.

👏👏👏

Smileless2012

I don't care why this is happening within the NHS, I'm just pleased that it is.

Absolutely.

I would add that this is why so many people in the more liberal professions mindlessly applied the policies advocated by Stone Wall and often made them even stricter - and, of course, now the tide is going out on the 'transwomen are sexually women' movement and those that oppose it have the upper hand are rushing to change all their policies to bring them into line with the majority of public opinion.

M0nica

I would add that this is why so many people in the more liberal professions mindlessly applied the policies advocated by Stone Wall and often made them even stricter - and, of course, now the tide is going out on the 'transwomen are sexually women' movement and those that oppose it have the upper hand are rushing to change all their policies to bring them into line with the majority of public opinion.

Also, the more liberal-minded welcomed inclusivity which, in principle, is hard to argue against.

And, again, there is no logical reason why any human being has to socially conform to the stereotype of his or her sex, a stereotype which is, itself, based on subjective opinion; nor be discriminated against because they don't conform to it.

So you can see why various individuals, organisations, companies, etc, 'went for it'.

Unfortunately though, a minority - mostly TW it seems - decided that they wanted much more than inclusivity - they wanted to overturn biological fact into fiction and demanded that their whim / feelings / identity were the deal-breakers in deciding what constituted a woman. To hell with biology, gametes and chromosomes... 'I've decided I identify as a woman, so I am a woman. My penis? That's my girl-dick - I'm a woman.'

And the worst part was - no debate. Were we, women, seriously expected to simply accept that a man could declare himself a woman, and not want to - at the very least - discuss the concept? With all its implications for the safety of women, for the skewing of data, medical data, criminal data? Well, yes, we were - on pain of being cancelled, losing a job and being vilified in the media. Even with threats of violence - rape with the girl-dick being one of the threats. Though I do believe those kinds of threats are from a minority, thank goodness.

This is not inclusivity, it is barely disguised misogyny. What better way to overpower women than to nullify the very notion of womanhood, to eradicate them as a biological entity?

Well put Dickens.

Excellent post Dickens! 👏👏👏 The "no debate" was the final slap in the face, the instruction from a misogynist movement.

What bothers me is all those who jumped on the bandwagon, because they were scared not to and now that bandwagon has overturned have quickly jumped on the current band wagon.

Where does principal, and integrity stand in this.

Most of the bandwagn jumpers will not even have thought about the subject, just jumped on, struggled out of and jumped on the next band wagon, for no reason other than cowardice and being seen to be different.

M0nica

What bothers me is all those who jumped on the bandwagon, because they were scared not to and now that bandwagon has overturned have quickly jumped on the current band wagon.

Where does principal, and integrity stand in this.

Most of the bandwagn jumpers will not even have thought about the subject, just jumped on, struggled out of and jumped on the next band wagon, for no reason other than cowardice and being seen to be different.

Not sure who you’re accusing of doing what in your last post M0nica.

ollugo* i am talking about the 'fellow travellers'. the teachers who did and said nothing when schools wanted to embrace Stone wall edicts in their entirety. even though they did not agree with the measures proposed People working in ther sectors who behaved in a similar fashion, also those teachers and others, who don't think at all but just follow the crowd.

All of a sudden when the Stonewall bandwagon overturns and more rational views predominate, in a blink they jump on the new bandwagon that says trans people can change their gender, but not their sex.

I agree Monica. It has done irreparable damage to my faith in various institutions. If you are prepared to say of course women can have a penis, then what else will you say.
I think it demonstrated how rare critical thinking is.
But I dont see how else we can move forward if we dont accept that people can change their mind.

I think it was a cynical move to frame the 'debate' as one about tolerance and inclusivity, and claim those things as 'left wing'. This carefully placed objectors as intolerant, exclusionary and right wing (or to the more thoroughly captured 'fascist'). As people who Stonewall needed onside (eg teachers, social workers, academics and council workers) tend to be left-leaning this would be difficult to process as it's anathema to them, and anyway it's simply not true.

I think it's not so much bandwagonitis as tribalism. There was a hilarious interview with Billy Bragg in The Observer, where he pretty much admitted that JKR and Julie Burchill talked sense, but that he opposed them so vociferously because they were 'on the wrong side of the table' ie that Bad People agreed with them so they must be Bad, too. The muppet. It's as bad as people saying 'Oh, there are Bible Belt American Fundamentalists who don't approve of men dressed as women, so anyone who is concerned about the eradication of women's spaces must be allied to them and will hate gay people too. And probably people of colour'. It's very hard of thinking, but I agree that critical thinking is generally thin on the ground these days.

People write one another off as Remoaners, Mail Readers, Loony Lefties, Brexiteers etc, and that's without the spurious generational groupings. Very few people actually listen to others, but fling about insults with no nuance involved. It's lazy and usually ill-informed - specially the 'right/left wing' thing, which usually shows a woeful lack of understanding of what the terms actually mean. This debate is neither right nor left.

The reverse ferreting is starting already, of course, but I agree that we must be gracious in victory, and not too complacent - nothing is signed yet.

Great post DD. Yes it is a lot to do with tribalism and that happens on many subjects not just this issue.
It is odd behaviour, I imagine there are a number of things that I and the 'right wing' agree on, we both know that the earth is round for example, I am not going to change my mind on that because the right may agree with me.
I think left and right are becoming more and more irrelevant as descriptors.

The reverse ferreting is starting already, of course, but I agree that we must be gracious in victory, and not too complacent - nothing is signed yet. this 100%! Of course the temptation to do the "I told you so!" is great, but that never won friends. Just be glad that eyes are being opened, truth is taking centre stage, but there's still a lot of ground to be retaken. Nobody likes to admit they were totally duped by what they can now see is total fantasy. Many were duped by their wish to 'be kind' not comprehending that in fact they were being cruel to the most vulnerable. The battle isn't won, but the tide is definitely on the ebb to mix metaphors

Yes great post Doodledog. I think the "you think this and so did ...Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot....so you must align with them in every respect is just lazy, untruthful, deceptive, deliberately mis-directing rubbish.

Be kind is one of the worst slogans of this decade+, since it was usually applied by those who wanted acceptance of the lie that you can change sex, to those who refused to accept that lie.
The implication that if you refute the lie, you are being unkind. Strange when you think of the unkindness to females, practised by TRA and some TIM.

I have all sorts of concerns
with 'be kind' that are nothing to do with this issue. It is meaningless and frequently used to control.

I agree Mollygo it's a meaningless slogan. 'Be kind' to who exactly? The violent offender? The paedophile? The thief? The unemployed? The homeless? The rapist? The lonely? The cancer sufferer? Or is it just to the confused about their sexuality and sexual identity?
Of course kindness is preferred to unkindness in most situations, but don't tell me I have to be kind to people who would deny me autonomy over my body, who would deny me freedom of thought or expression, who would deny me freedom of association with defined groups etc.

Well posted, Doodledog!

(Just a little info note on something mentioned upthread - nearly all NHS M Health wards are mixed wards and have been since their inception.

Patients all have their own rooms with bath/toilet in. It depends on circumstances as to whether you can have "wings" but dining and other facilities are mixed.)

Are you sure about that Wyllow3 and what proportion is nearly all? So mental health wards are now a series of en-suite rooms? Why isn't that the norm for all NHS patients? So like hotels really.

Doodledog

I think it was a cynical move to frame the 'debate' as one about tolerance and inclusivity, and claim those things as 'left wing'. This carefully placed objectors as intolerant, exclusionary and right wing (or to the more thoroughly captured 'fascist'). As people who Stonewall needed onside (eg teachers, social workers, academics and council workers) tend to be left-leaning this would be difficult to process as it's anathema to them, and anyway it's simply not true.

I think it's not so much bandwagonitis as tribalism. There was a hilarious interview with Billy Bragg in The Observer, where he pretty much admitted that JKR and Julie Burchill talked sense, but that he opposed them so vociferously because they were 'on the wrong side of the table' ie that Bad People agreed with them so they must be Bad, too. The muppet. It's as bad as people saying 'Oh, there are Bible Belt American Fundamentalists who don't approve of men dressed as women, so anyone who is concerned about the eradication of women's spaces must be allied to them and will hate gay people too. And probably people of colour'. It's very hard of thinking, but I agree that critical thinking is generally thin on the ground these days.

People write one another off as Remoaners, Mail Readers, Loony Lefties, Brexiteers etc, and that's without the spurious generational groupings. Very few people actually listen to others, but fling about insults with no nuance involved. It's lazy and usually ill-informed - specially the 'right/left wing' thing, which usually shows a woeful lack of understanding of what the terms actually mean. This debate is neither right nor left.

The reverse ferreting is starting already, of course, but I agree that we must be gracious in victory, and not too complacent - nothing is signed yet.

Top post Doodledog.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

I dont know about now but certainly when I was visiting a friend on a MH ward 20 years ago they were mixed, they were utterly awful and my friend felt unsafe for various reasons.

Late to this discussion. Great post Doodledog.

A colleague still working was completing a Diversity Form for a 6 week old baby. They were expected to complete name, birth sex, gender ID.