Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Courtesy of the Torygraph, though, under the Theory of Critical Race, what's described is by definition impossible, presumably the nurse had too much 'white blood'.

An NHS nurse was punished after accidentally addressing a transgender paedophile as “Mr”.

The paedophile, a patient from a high-security men’s prison, called Jennifer Melle, 40, a “n-----” three times during an aggressive tirade at St Helier Hospital in Carshalton, Surrey.

But it was Ms Melle who was investigated and disciplined by the hospital in October 2024, with a final warning and a referral to the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

Now she is filing a legal claim against the Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals Trust for harassment, discrimination and human rights breaches.

Ms Melle said: “Ever since I have expressed my Christian beliefs under extreme pressure, I have been a marked woman.”
Click to expand...

NHS nurse punished for calling transgender paedophile ‘Mr’
 
theprestige said:
Political labels become political policy.
Click to expand...
Do they?
theprestige said:
Self ID is nonsense. Nobody self IDs as goth, as a political label. Nobody self IDs as influencer, as a political label. Why should anyone self ID as dude in a dress, as a political label?
Click to expand...
You are missing key context here.

The political label under discussion at that point was "progressive," and I still think it's just fine to derive the meaning of progressivism from what the groups calling themselves progressive tend to broadly support. Same goes for "conservative," natch.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Oh FFS. Let's not strike down the entirety of S. 504. It includes things like requiring that text-to-voice versions of contract language and important information be available to people with visual impairments, as well as providing subtitles on videos for those with hearing impairments.
Click to expand...
Agreed on all points.
Emily's Cat said:
Gender dysphoria isn't a disability, so just remove that one stupid thing and leave the rest alone.
Click to expand...
Weird thing here is that the current administration could explicitly revoke the Biden-era rule which spawned this lawsuit in the first place, thereby mooting the case.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Do you feel that it is reasonable and appropriate that hispanic people are routinely lumped in as part of the rainbow people?
Click to expand...
I don't, but then that's not what the progress pride flag is usually taken to mean.

Emily's Cat said:
Do you feel that the rainbow people represent your view - as well as that of other hispanic people - sufficiently that being referenced as part of that same group makes sense?
Click to expand...
Again, that's not what the progress pride flag is usually taken to mean.

They aren't saying "These groups are so uniformly coherent in terms of their worldviews that we can lump them all together."

Emily's Cat said:
Did you actually voluntarily team up with the rainbow people?
Click to expand...
Of course! I'd share a photo of me marching with them but it appears that's already my profile pic.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Well see... the rest of us all agree on what language we're using and what it means. You seem to be demanding that we all abandon out shared understanding and embrace your definition.
Click to expand...
My bad for thinking it was something other than liberals wanting a new word because the old one was tarnished. Is that what you want to hear? Liberals already existed... and they pushed the exact same minority identity politics dialogue... some of which has always done more harm than good (although I've always been somewhat on board in the abstract).

I guess we can use that understanding if you want, but the fallout is that it's a switcharoo of nothing but words, not policy positions... with "Progressive" now labelled as the more extreme position. Did we dig it up just to take the pressure off the word "liberal" or what? I'm pretty sure that isn't what those using the label intended, but whatever, man.

I mean... at the very least, the emphasis has changed. The word "progeressive" started coming back in vogue again right around the time of Occupy Wall Street... as did "woke." Neither of those things originally had anything to do with race or sexual orientation. Some of the same people might be pushing other causes, sure. But it was about more than the sound our mouths make when we talk about it.

It's almost like you're trying to talk me out of my own damn memory, here. I know exactly when we started using these words and why. I was there (well, not in NYC, but I was alive at the time and paying attention).
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
I guess we can use that understanding if you want, but the fallout is that it's a switcharoo of nothing but words, not policy positions... with "Progressive" now labelled as the more extreme position. Did we dig it up just to take the pressure off the word "liberal" or what? I'm pretty sure that isn't what those using the label intended, but whatever, man.
Click to expand...
If you made a thread on this topic I would consider chiming in.

That said, consider a fundamental asymmetry at play here. There are countless threads where we could discuss the differences between liberalism and progressivism without being off topic, but this thread is the only one where we can talk about trans issues. It might be best not to deliberately sidetrack it (as you are doing here) given that the trans issues discussion has nowhere else to go.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
If you made a thread on this topic I would consider chiming in.

That said, consider a fundamental asymmetry at play here. There are countless threads where we could discuss the differences between liberalism and progressivism without being off topic, but this thread is the only one where we can talk about trans issues. It might be best not to deliberately sidetrack it (as you are doing here) given that the trans issues discussion has nowhere else to go.
Click to expand...
It's one of those situations where I'm willing to drop it if people quit contradicting me, I guess. A millisecond before that last post, I wasn't the last person to talk about it and I keep getting these nifty notifications telling me so. That makes it hard not to answer.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Are you saying it's not a mental illness?
Click to expand...
It depends on the context, really.

If we're playing along with fiat self-ID and preferred pronouns, it can't be a mental illness. That would raise all kinds of awkward questions for the proponents, about self-diagnosis and medically-approved treatment plans.

If we're investigating whether it's a disability that needs workplace accommodations, then it pretty much has to be a mental illness. At least for the ADA, anyway; reasonable accommodations start with a doctor's description of the patient's limitations. Then it's up to the patient and the employer to figure out if there's still a way for the dysphoric person to do their job without creating an undue hardship for the employer.

It seems to me that if Nebraska classifies dysphoria as a disability, it then follows that anyone who doesn't have a diagnosis can't demand preferred pronouns or entitlement to the other sex's privileges.

The remaining questions then start with whether a dysphoric can function in the workplace as-is, or if their disability prevents them from doing their job without a reasonable accommodation. Then we have to ask what a reasonable accommodation is. Do we decide that requiring everyone else to use the person's preferred pronouns is reasonable? Do we decide that letting the person use the other sex's bathrooms etc. is reasonable?

Personally, I'm in favor of Nebraska's decision. As I indicated above, it tends towards a showdown between the Illness and Not-Illness positions. I think this is long overdue. I also think it's something that TRAs have been delaying/avoiding as long as possible. There's too many benefits to playing both sides of the fence as necessary. It's an illness when you dismiss someone's preferred pronouns, or drive them to suicide with "watchful waiting" instead of prepubescent trans-affirming care. It's a healthy self-expression when you try to call people out for self-diagnosis, or demand a medical opinion before granting cross-sex privileges.

Nebraska seems to be setting the stage for demanding a medical opinion before granting trans privileges. I'm looking forward to how it works out.
 
d4m10n said:
New article on sex differences in sports performance dropped this year.

Click to expand...
Interesting article. Although much of the focus is on male/female, they do get into the transwoman/woman comparison near the end:

Notably, the relative swimming performance decline after about 2 yr of gender-affirming hormone therapy (testosterone suppression and estrogen supplementation) was ∼5%—a magnitude which is ∼50% smaller than the typical male-female performance gap of 10% among top NCAA swimmers, suggesting a retained/legacy athletic advantage.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that swimming is one of the events where the male advantage is the smallest to begin with--in jumping type events (high jump, pole vault, long jump and triple jump) the edge is more like 20%.
 
Rolfe said:
thecritic.co.uk

LGBTQ+ has a paedophile problem | The Critic Magazine

The question of whether predators are hiding in plain sight, in a movement graced by an unexplained plus sign, has always struck me as clinically naive
thecritic.co.uk thecritic.co.uk
Click to expand...
Psst:

I'll throw you a hint, here. Statistically, the highest risk group for paedophilia isn't LGBTQ+, though. It's men. Just plain ol' men. Also the highest risk category for all sexual assault. Murder too, of course. Does that mean that we should all be castrated?

Just a thought. At least I'm on topic this time.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
If we're investigating whether it's a disability that needs workplace accommodations, then it pretty much has to be a mental illness. At least for the ADA, anyway; reasonable accommodations start with a doctor's description of the patient's limitations. Then it's up to the patient and the employer to figure out if there's still a way for the dysphoric person to do their job without creating an undue hardship for the employer.
Click to expand...
It's been a long while since we've seen a new framing of the problem here, but I think this counts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom