Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

You said we've been given this number, in support of your argument.
The number I mentioned was not limited to people talking about trans identity, as you should know, having written a qualifier to specify that particular subset.
 
Last edited:
:rolleyes:

Happening at an employment tribunal in the UK

Dr Upton is being supported by his employer, in a case involving a nurse who disagreed.
Some interesting notes about this case.

Sandie Peggie has been cleared of any misconduct. That pretty much shows that Upton...

- lied about her threatening and bullying him (as if a 5ft 4in, 96lb, 50 year old woman is going to be any threat to 6ft 2in 200lb, 28year old man).
- lied about her conduct in the staff changing room.
- lied about her conduct towards patients on the ward.

A few people are asking why, in view of the UK supreme court ruling, is this tribunal continuing. Well, @Rolfe might correct me or have a better idea here, but AIUI, its because it was Sandie Peggie brought the action (a lawsuit against Upton and NHS Fife for sexual harassment) in the first place, so neither Upton nor NHS Fife have standing to drop the case - it is Sandie's decision whether to drop the action or not... and it seems she is not going to. In the wake of the Supreme Court decision, NHS Fife in all likelihood want this to end, and to distance themselves as far as they can, but Sandie wants to go all the way to a ruling, to really stick it to the NHS, in order to set a precedent other nurses will be able to cite if they find themselves in similar circumstances.

Also worth noting is that Sandie is now suing her union (The Royal College of Nursing) for abandoning her in her dispute with NHS Fife. She is one helluva brave women in my view, taking on these powerful people and oranizations for the benefit of her fellow nurses all over the UK.
 
NHS Fife could stop the action by admitting liability. They could make Mrs Peggie an offer she couldn't refuse. They're not going to do that.

The parade of captured (female) staff continues today. A senior A&E consultant is being cross-examined. Yesterday she said she knew she was female because that's what it says on her birth certificate. It's what she was "given" when she was born. She believes it's something the people delivering the baby do at the time, but she's not an expert. (By this count of course, Upton, whom she is adamant is female, is actually male.)

Half the country is glued to this. It's better entertainment than a TV sitcom.
 
We ARE taking about transgender issues Skippy, because we ARE talking about whether or not AGP is a disorder…
A mental disorder includes dysfunction pretty much by definition. Typically the DSM mentions "clinically significant distress" or something along those lines.
 
NHS Fife could stop the action by admitting liability. They could make Mrs Peggie an offer she couldn't refuse. They're not going to do that.
Catch 22 for NHS Fife. It would be a brave (but stupid) judge or magistrate who would make a ruling that directly contradicts the Supreme Court decision.

The parade of captured (female) staff continues today.
People who have sold their soul to the anti-science, anti-reality brigade.

A senior A&E consultant is being cross-examined. Yesterday she said she knew she was female because that's what it says on her birth certificate. It's what she was "given" when she was born. She believes it's something the people delivering the baby do at the time, but she's not an expert. (By this count of course, Upton, whom she is adamant is female, is actually male.)
There is no accounting for stupid people. The fact that these medical professionals believe this claptrap I find somewhat terrifying

Half the country is glued to this. It's better entertainment than a TV sitcom.
Anyone can follow it here...
 
Humans have easily managed sex segregation for over a century without any difficulties.
That century was mostly prior to the widespread adoption of endocrinological and surgical interventions designed to mimic the opposite sex. These days you can get your cross-sex hormones after a single doctor visit, in more progressive jurisdictions.

Why are we finding this so very difficult now, when it was so easy in the past?
See above.
 
Last edited:
That century was mostly prior to the widespread adoption of endocrinological and surgical interventions designed to mimic the opposite sex. These days you can get your cross-sex hormones after a single doctor visit, in more progressive jurisdictions.


See above.
Why would that be relevant? The problem has never been trans people who pass. The problem is the trans people who don't pass, many of whom have had neither surgical nor endocrinological interventions.
 
Having men who mimic women so well that we don't know they're there in female-only spaces is not ideal, but if that was the full extent of the issue we would not be having this debate. However, as soon as some men are allowed into a female-only space it is then deemed to be discriminatory to exclude any man, and here we are.
 
Last edited:
A mental disorder includes dysfunction pretty much by definition. Typically the DSM mentions "clinically significant distress" or something along those lines.
They know, and they know they are factually wrong. But they rely on everyone accepting their alternate reality, else their fig leaf of cards collapses.

It's very simple: the couple advocates of this AGP postulate acknowledge themselves that they have no evidence to support it. Their postulate is not accepted by the professional and academic communities. EC and others claimed it is a DSM defined mental disorder. It demonstrably and definitionally is not. That's pretty much it.
 
Last edited:
Mmm
Why would that be relevant?
The question was basically why we are having this problem now instead of earlier, and my answer is that the number of people trying to pass as the opposite sex—to varying degrees of success—is much higher now than in previous decades.
The problem has never been trans people who pass.
I'm sure there are many who object to them as well, whether as the thin end of a policy wedge or just on principle.

I'd put Executive Order 14168WP in the second bin (standing on principle) since they laid out categorical rules which wouldn't allow for "trans people who pass" to use facilities in which they do pass.
 
Last edited:
Mmm

The question was basically why we are having this problem now instead of earlier, and my answer is that the number of people trying to pass as the opposite sex—to varying degrees of success—is much higher now than in previous decades.
Yeah, but that's primarily because of social changes, not medical changes. We've had medical transitions for decades, but the collapse of sex segregation is much more recent. And if it were just about medical changes, then one wouldn't expect to see the rise of so many trans people who aren't undergoing any medical transition but still trying to access female spaces.
I'm sure there are many who object to them as well, whether as the thin end of a policy wedge or just on principle.
That may be, but it doesn't change what I said. The thing about people who pass is that they get to violate the rules because nobody knows they're violating the rules. Which is why they don't cause problems even when the rules don't permit them.
 
That century was mostly prior to the widespread adoption of endocrinological and surgical interventions designed to mimic the opposite sex. These days you can get your cross-sex hormones after a single doctor visit, in more progressive jurisdictions.


See above.
Men can now get plastic surgery for the purpose of entering women's spaces where they're not wanted, without being easily detected and challenged ?

Now *that* sounds ominous!
 
You aren't discussing in good faith. And I don't care if I disappoint you, that concerns me not at all

That is a point of dispute. You don't get to win by simply assuming the dispute is already resolved in your favor. This is an example of your bad faith arguments.
Correct. I assume nothing, and refer directly to the literature in question. Unlike much of this discussion, this is a simple black and white issue, and despite your odd assertion, it's not in my favor. I have no favor in terms of what the terms 'DSM defined disorder' and 'specifier' mean.

There is no dispute, or ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ point thereof. The formulators of the postulate admit very openly that they have nothing. Nor does anyone else. There is nothing being credibly disputed.
 
Reading back the LIVE updates from the Sandie Peggie v NHS Fife employment tribunal has been a hilarious experience - shall we say, "most popcorn-worthy". It has been highly entertaining watching some witnesses (various ideologically-captured members of NHS Fife staff) desperately professing ignorance of reality in their efforts to dog-pile on nurse Peggie in pathetic and failed attempts to execute a hatchet job on her, and paint her as a hateful bigot (every one of those efforts missed its mark).

First they accuse her of racism, referring to Upton's statement that she had made racist remarks to a black doctor, yet the black doctor in question has no recollection of nurse Peggie saying any of the things that Upton claims she said.... Oops!

Then they accuse her of homophobia - a laughable accusation to level at someone who has a gay daughter.... a daughter who calls her mum "her best friend" Oops2
It seems Dr Upton is a fantasist, prone to pulling lies out of his sphincter when he fails to get his own way. This is unsurprising given that he is a 6ft 2in, 200lb, 28 year old man who pretends to be a woman, and wants to invade women's changing rooms so he can get undressed in front of them. He feels "threatened" by a 5ft 4in, 96 lb 50 year old woman. Poor widdle snowflake!

One of the witnesses on the stand today was Dr Kate Searle, a consultant physician in A&E where nurse Peggie worked.
To give a sense of how thoroughly captured by gender ideology this woman is, I offer the following exchange...

Ms Cunningham (nurse Peggie's lawyer) then goes into the conversation between Ms Peggie and Dr Upton on Dr Upton’s chromosomes.
NHS Fife’s lawyer objects to this as “Dr Upton is not obviously a man”.
Ms Cunningham then asks Dr Searle: “Dr Upton is obviously male, isn’t he?” Dr Searle said “no”.
The lawyer then said: “You are telling the tribunal, and bearing in mind you’re giving evidence under oath and your credibility is quite important, you’re telling the tribunal you wouldn’t know Dr Upton was a trans woman had he not told you?”
Dr Searle said: “I would not have known what sex Dr Upton was assigned at birth.”

Ms Peggie’s lawyers are now asking Dr Searle to consider a similar situation in the changing room with a hypothetical man, who was born male and identifies as male, called Pete. Ms Cunningham has asked previous witnesses this question.
NHS Fife’s lawyer objects to this because “Dr Upton is not a man”.
The judge allows the line of questioning and Ms Cunningham asks Dr Searle to agree with her that a man going into the changing rooms is “strikingly menacing behaviour”. She agrees.
Ms Cunningham then said: “It follows then that if the tribunal thinks there is no relevant difference between the hypothetical male Pete and Dr Upton, then Sandie was fully in her rights to say ‘go away, you have no business here’.”
Dr Searle said she did not agree with this.

It astonishing these people are able to say this stuff with a straight face - such is their level of ideological capture. I wouldn't be able to be in that courtroom with out being kicked out. I simply would not be able to stop laughing out loud.

For reference, this is what Upton looks like. On the left, what he actually looks like, on the right, what he looks like after he has tarted himself up in womanface.

Upton1.jpg
Upton2.jpg


Seriously, Upton is so obviously a man cosplaying as a women, that if Dr Searle is unable to easily discern this fact, she has serious judgement and credibility issues.
 
Last edited:
The turning tide in the UK and the US is starting to have an impact here in New Zealand.


Sport NZ is ditching its guidelines for the inclusion of transgender people in community sport, after direction from the Government.
It has also removed the document, which the Government originally asked it to review and update, from its website.

And about time too!
 
This is good. It makes the point that while the Isla Brysons and Katie Dolatowskis of this world may be regarded as aberrations, Upton is the expected outcome of the gender reforms.

 

Back
Top Bottom