Male patients asked if they are pregnant at NHS Trust

[Toni]

.

Cis-female humans who really don't want cis-male humans in certain places with them aren't being irrational. They're being quite rational.

Up above, you've attempted to reduce the trans people's issue to their "feelings." It's all just 'in their head,' to uou. The penis or the vagina is all that matters.

But these historical actions that make some men predators in women's spaces, do they come from the head or the penis?
If someone penis-equipped 'Feels' that they are a woman, aren't they less of an actual threat to other women than cis-gendered penis-havers?
Or if someone doesn't have a penis, but feels they should, aren't thery more likely to be an actual threat to women?

It just seems like in this area, at least, the feelings could trump the plumbing. Making this cut-and-dried issue [in the minds of some] much less so [in reality].

There have been some obvious cases of individuals who are violent sex offenders and who then came out or claimed that they were/are trangender and have been sentenced to female facilities. In the case that was discussed in a different thread, this individual was held separate and where they could not view or be viewed by the children who were also confined there.

I don't think there is any way to prevent every single individual from finding a way to game the system. But I do think that there can be case by case ways of holding such criminals (in the case where the behavior rises to criminality and they have been tried and convicted and sentenced) separate from their preferred victims. It's not perfect. In a perfect world, no one would victimize another person.

 

[Keith&Co.]

.

Cis-female humans who really don't want cis-male humans in certain places with them aren't being irrational. They're being quite rational.

Up above, you've attempted to reduce the trans people's issue to their "feelings." It's all just 'in their head,' to uou. The penis or the vagina is all that matters.

But these historical actions that make some men predators in women's spaces, do they come from the head or the penis?
If someone penis-equipped 'Feels' that they are a woman, aren't they less of an actual threat to other women than cis-gendered penis-havers?
Or if someone doesn't have a penis, but feels they should, aren't thery more likely to be an actual threat to women?

It just seems like in this area, at least, the feelings could trump the plumbing. Making this cut-and-dried issue [in the minds of some] much less so [in reality].

There have been some obvious cases of individuals who are violent sex offenders and who then came out or claimed that they were/are trangender and have been sentenced to female facilities. In the case that was discussed in a different thread, this individual was held separate and where they could not view or be viewed by the children who were also confined there.

I don't think there is any way to prevent every single individual from finding a way to game the system. But I do think that there can be case by case ways of holding such criminals (in the case where the behavior rises to criminality and they have been tried and convicted and sentenced) separate from their preferred victims. It's not perfect. In a perfect world, no one would victimize another person.

That's not at all what i was talking about. The anti-trans crowd wants everything decided by the presence or absence of a penis.
I have a penis. It has never forced me to rape anyone. It's never even caused me to entertain certain fantasies, or to enjoy them when exposed to them, though other men with penises seem attracted/aroused. There are fetish sites that arouse, some that offend, some that leave me 'meh.'

So it seems that the penis is NOT the be-all/end-all to sexuality, sexual identity, sexual relationship to the free world.

 

[Toni]

.

Cis-female humans who really don't want cis-male humans in certain places with them aren't being irrational. They're being quite rational.

Up above, you've attempted to reduce the trans people's issue to their "feelings." It's all just 'in their head,' to uou. The penis or the vagina is all that matters.

But these historical actions that make some men predators in women's spaces, do they come from the head or the penis?
If someone penis-equipped 'Feels' that they are a woman, aren't they less of an actual threat to other women than cis-gendered penis-havers?
Or if someone doesn't have a penis, but feels they should, aren't thery more likely to be an actual threat to women?

It just seems like in this area, at least, the feelings could trump the plumbing. Making this cut-and-dried issue [in the minds of some] much less so [in reality].

There have been some obvious cases of individuals who are violent sex offenders and who then came out or claimed that they were/are trangender and have been sentenced to female facilities. In the case that was discussed in a different thread, this individual was held separate and where they could not view or be viewed by the children who were also confined there.

I don't think there is any way to prevent every single individual from finding a way to game the system. But I do think that there can be case by case ways of holding such criminals (in the case where the behavior rises to criminality and they have been tried and convicted and sentenced) separate from their preferred victims. It's not perfect. In a perfect world, no one would victimize another person.

That's not at all what i was talking about. The anti-trans crowd wants everything decided by the presence or absence of a penis.
I have a penis. It has never forced me to rape anyone. It's never even caused me to entertain certain fantasies, or to enjoy them when exposed to them, though other men with penises seem attracted/aroused. There are fetish sites that arouse, some that offend, some that leave me 'meh.'

So it seems that the penis is NOT the be-all/end-all to sexuality, sexual identity, sexual relationship to the free world.

Ah, and I agree.

That said, I do have sympathy for any person who does not wish to be exposed to the genitalia of any other person. In most settings, this is not an issue. I only look at or have the opportunity to look at the genitals of the person or persons I so choose. But in certain settings: spas, dressing rooms, congregate housing situations, etc. such guarantees do not exist. Unfortunately some individuals do have reason to feel frightened due to past trauma, even if the exposure is unintentional and/or innocuous.

No, I don’t think the behavior is related to having a penis. I do think that a tendency towards aggression might be related to testosterone, given that more assaults are committed by males than females. I’m certain that socialization also plays a role.

So, no, it’s not the penis. It’s the individual doing bad things, sometimes using their penis.

 

[Emily Lake]

Ah, so was the one whose work you disparaged.

FWIW, I've known some brilliant biologists.

And also one who was a creationist. And held a Ph.D. from a very good university.

Did you even bother to read it?

Because I *did* read your twitter-fest before I disagreed with it, even to the extent of pointing out the flaws in the twitterer's positions. All you've seemingly done is dismiss my source out of hand because you don't like the source.

Which I find a bit ridiculous, seeing as your source was TWITTER. Seriously, accepting twitter, and dismissing quillette because apparently you think twitter is a more reliable source?

 

[Emily Lake]

Up above, you've attempted to reduce the trans people's issue to their "feelings." It's all just 'in their head,' to uou. The penis or the vagina is all that matters.

But these historical actions that make some men predators in women's spaces, do they come from the head or the penis?
If someone penis-equipped 'Feels' that they are a woman, aren't they less of an actual threat to other women than cis-gendered penis-havers?
Or if someone doesn't have a penis, but feels they should, aren't thery more likely to be an actual threat to women?

It just seems like in this area, at least, the feelings could trump the plumbing. Making this cut-and-dried issue [in the minds of some] much less so [in reality].

Transgender identified males commit sexual crimes at the same rate as any other males. They do NOT commit sex-based crimes less than males.

Transgender identified females taking testosterone commit at a slightly higher rate than other females, but still massively lower than males. And it's specific to those taking testosterone... you know that whole well-known steroid and aggression thing?

 

[Emily Lake]

That's not at all what i was talking about. The anti-trans crowd wants everything decided by the presence or absence of a penis.
I have a penis. It has never forced me to rape anyone. It's never even caused me to entertain certain fantasies, or to enjoy them when exposed to them, though other men with penises seem attracted/aroused. There are fetish sites that arouse, some that offend, some that leave me 'meh.'

So it seems that the penis is NOT the be-all/end-all to sexuality, sexual identity, sexual relationship to the free world.

Alright, let's provisionally accept that it is not the penis.

What is your hypothesis for the dramatic difference in rates of sexual offenses between males and females? Consider that the disparity in sexual offending has remained extremely large across cultures and times.

99% of sexual offenders are male, 95% of the victims of sexual offenses are female

That of course does NOT imply that all males are sex offenders. It does, however, leave us in a position where women cannot tell at a glance which males are and which are not.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, I don’t think the behavior is related to having a penis. I do think that a tendency towards aggression might be related to testosterone, given that massively more assaults are committed by males than females. I’m certain that socialization also plays a role.

Added by me.

Let's be clear here, it not just "more" which can leave the impression that it merely a statistical majority. It's massively orders of magnitude higher. So much so that female sexual offenders are genuinely aberrations.

Let's also point out that this is excludes things like up-skirt panty shots taken of women in restrooms or in public then loaded onto a porn site, groping of women's butts and boobs in crowded spaces, cornering women against a wall at a night club or other venue and not taking no for an answer, repeatedly pursuing and harassing women who've indicated they are not interested, and similar such behaviors that end up "under the radar" when it comes to sexual misbehavior that is extremely tilted toward males.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There was a case of a six year old mother. And Wikipedia lists two more than gave birth at age six.

All with precocious puberty, which a doctor would have noticed.

A normal six year would not be pregnant, and it's actually quite silly to assume that one needs to ask a normal six year old girl. Let alone a normal six year old *boy*

It is possible to conceive on one's first cycle and thus never have menstruated.

How is this even a response? What point is it that you think you're making?

Let's just reiterate: PRECOCIOUS PUBERTY
And for clarification let's add: CHILD RAPE

The claim was a doctor would have noticed. I was pointing out that it could happen without the doctor noticing.

The chance of a six year old having an undetected pregnancy is very low. It is not zero.

 

[Toni]

.

Cis-female humans who really don't want cis-male humans in certain places with them aren't being irrational. They're being quite rational.

Up above, you've attempted to reduce the trans people's issue to their "feelings." It's all just 'in their head,' to uou. The penis or the vagina is all that matters.

But these historical actions that make some men predators in women's spaces, do they come from the head or the penis?
If someone penis-equipped 'Feels' that they are a woman, aren't they less of an actual threat to other women than cis-gendered penis-havers?
Or if someone doesn't have a penis, but feels they should, aren't thery more likely to be an actual threat to women?

It just seems like in this area, at least, the feelings could trump the plumbing. Making this cut-and-dried issue [in the minds of some] much less so [in reality].

I think behavior trumps plumbing.

That said, I really do understand why women would not want to be in a women's locker room and see a penis there---unless they knew the person and knew that she was pre-surgical trans and even then, it might make some people uncomfortable. Given that the discomfort we're talking about occurs when individuals are in various stages of undress and so more vulnerable, and given the fact that it is likely that at least some of the women in the average locker room have been sexually assaulted before, I really do get why it would be disturbing and why it really should not happen.

A better solution would be for some areas of a locker room to have private stalls and showers for individuals who might make other people uncomfortable or might be uncomfortable being exposed to the general group.

For anyone who wishes to point out any inconsistencies in anything I've written on this topic, I'll agree. I think it's an difficult topic to wrap one's head around all the intricacies and potential for harm.

 

[Toni]

Ah, so was the one whose work you disparaged.

FWIW, I've known some brilliant biologists.

And also one who was a creationist. And held a Ph.D. from a very good university.

Did you even bother to read it?

Because I *did* read your twitter-fest before I disagreed with it, even to the extent of pointing out the flaws in the twitterer's positions. All you've seemingly done is dismiss my source out of hand because you don't like the source.

Which I find a bit ridiculous, seeing as your source was TWITTER. Seriously, accepting twitter, and dismissing quillette because apparently you think twitter is a more reliable source?

No, I actually checked out the person who authored those tweets. I also checked out the person who authored the quillette piece as well. Both hold Ph.D.s in biology and are imminently qualified to discuss what they discuss. I *think* but am not 100% certain that Wright lost his position at a university because of his loudly voiced opinions about trans individuals but it is possible that it is not the same Wright. There are multiple persons with that name. And I also did some checking of the claims in the twitter thread, reading papers which are open access.

All of us know what the standard configuration for male and for female is. What most of us do not know is exactly, on a genetic and cellular level how closely we as individuals adhere to that standard configuration. I *think* I know about myself, given that I became pregnant very easily, carried 4/5 healthy pregnancies and delivered 4 healthy children. But I also know that I do have an unusual biological condition that is....fairly rare and was only discovered when I had an infection and they had to do some imaging. I have another more common anomaly, unrelated to the first, which is uncommon but not that uncommon. That one was discovered during routine dental x-rays.

Who knows what other weird shit I have floating around in my body? Having carried 4 pregnancies to term, I know that I likely still have some bits of my offspring's DNA and cells still in my body as does any woman who carries a pregnancy.

Very few people have a complete genetic analysis done, much less one looking for medical or genetic anomalies. Even fewer people know specifically how their genetics plays out in their individual development and function on a systemic, organ or cellular level. Few of us have any reason to wonder and fewer have access to tests to determine this.

I don't know with any kind of certainty what causes gender dysmorphia or for individuals to believe that they inhabit the wrong sex body. I seriously doubt there is a single cause. I do have tremendous sympathy for those who struggle with how they fit into the world or how they fit inside their own bodies and I believe that all people deserve to be treated with respect and consideration.

That includes transgender individuals.

 

[ZiprHead]

A better solution would be for some areas of a locker room to have private stalls and showers for individuals who might make other people uncomfortable or might be uncomfortable being exposed to the general group.

That's the way our local YMCA has it.

 

[TomC]

A better solution would be for some areas of a locker room to have private stalls and showers for individuals who might make other people uncomfortable or might be uncomfortable being exposed to the general group.

That's the way our local YMCA has it.

Honestly, I know of no "women only" spaces that don't have stalls with doors. There is no reason for a penis to be displayed at our local pool, in the women's changing room. Even taking a shower doesn't require being nude. You can easily shower off the sweat or chlorine with your suit on.

I think that most of this problem results from trans folks who enjoy being despised and feeling persecuted.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

Just for the record...

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Just for the record, is there some source you feel internet infidels should consider an unquestionable source?

 

[Bomb#20]

Man, every thread "expose their penises" is brought up by you. Makes it sound like you are saying transgender are perverts when you use the word "expose". Conservatives seem to have this issue with not understanding an individual's rights aren't an affront to their individual rights.

Emily Lake wants a world where people have to abide by what she wants, regardless how prude it might be.

As opposed to the one you want, in which Darren Menager and Lia Thomas are ENTITLED to walk around sex-separated nude spaces with their dicks a-dangling, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes all of the women there.

People used an analogous argument that during the civil rights movement - that desegregation should not happen because it made white people feel uncomfortable to have black people using the same toilets or sitting near them in a restaurant.

That's an analogous argument? So, in this analogy, men = black people and women = white people? So, in this analogy, women's bathrooms are a social convention that was established by the female-supremacist matriarchy, without consulting men, against the wishes of men, for the purpose of excluding oppressed powerless men from the women-only spaces that female rulers regarded as their own?

When you treat discrimination as the only salient feature of the situation, and sweep the correlation between categorization and power under the rug, you are implicitly arguing that affirmative action is racist. Do you in fact think affirmative action is racist?

 

[laughing dog]

Man, every thread "expose their penises" is brought up by you. Makes it sound like you are saying transgender are perverts when you use the word "expose". Conservatives seem to have this issue with not understanding an individual's rights aren't an affront to their individual rights.

Emily Lake wants a world where people have to abide by what she wants, regardless how prude it might be.

As opposed to the one you want, in which Darren Menager and Lia Thomas are ENTITLED to walk around sex-separated nude spaces with their dicks a-dangling, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes all of the women there.

People used an analogous argument that during the civil rights movement - that desegregation should not happen because it made white people feel uncomfortable to have black people using the same toilets or sitting near them in a restaurant.

That's an analogous argument? So, in this analogy, men = black people and women = white people? So, in this analogy, women's bathrooms are a social convention that was established by the female-supremacist matriarchy, without consulting men, against the wishes of men, for the purpose of excluding oppressed powerless men from the women-only spaces that female rulers regarded as their own?

When you treat discrimination as the only salient feature of the situation, and sweep the correlation between categorization and power under the rug, you are implicitly arguing that affirmative action is racist. Do you in fact think affirmative action is racist?

The analogy is that the it is "feelings of _____" that is driving the discussion not who the people are. To be clear, that means the answers to your questions is NO.

 

[Bomb#20]

People used an analogous argument that during the civil rights movement - that desegregation should not happen because it made white people feel uncomfortable to have black people using the same toilets or sitting near them in a restaurant.

That's an analogous argument? So, in this analogy, men = black people and women = white people? So, in this analogy, women's bathrooms are a social convention that was established by the female-supremacist matriarchy, without consulting men, against the wishes of men, for the purpose of excluding oppressed powerless men from the women-only spaces that female rulers regarded as their own?

When you treat discrimination as the only salient feature of the situation, and sweep the correlation between categorization and power under the rug, you are implicitly arguing that affirmative action is racist. Do you in fact think affirmative action is racist?

The analogy is that the it is "feelings of _____" that is driving the discussion not who the people are. To be clear, that means the answers to your questions is NO.

Okay, then in your analogy, who are the black people and who are the white people?

 

[Metaphor]

I guarantee you, you are causing discomfort and embarrassment to the nurses forced to ask 70 year old male patients if they are or could be pregnant.

Your guarantee is worthless because you are not in any position to know what the nurses will feel.

I've already seen nurses talk about it

So, you generalize about an entire profession?

No. I said I guarantee nurses are feeling discomfort and embarrassment. They are. "Nurses" does not mean every nurse who has ever existed, just as when I say "men are taller than women" I do not mean "every man who has ever lived is taller than every woman who has ever lived".

If you were not talking about all nurses or the actual nurses who worked at that UK health trust, then your "guarantee" was truly worthless.

I was talking about at least one nurse who worked at the trust and wrote about it.

But also some human beings have developed something called 'empathy', and they can imagine themselves in another's position, and they can imagine what it would feel like.

I know a lot of nurses. Indeed, I have tremendous empathy for the many indignities, frustrations, hard work, lack of respect, grueling hours and too often disrespect they must endure on a daily basis—often from
physicians, hospital administrators, and occasionally from patients and their families. Like most people, they do not enjoy extra paperwork and endless forms. Yet they also can point to cases where something very unusual and quite unexpected with regards to a patient’s apparent condition happened. Forms, stand procedures and checklists help medical professionals ensure that they are not overlooking important detains which might not be obvious or readily apparent.

Perhaps Great Britain is different than the US but here, forms and standard questions are developed in response to actual needs and events however unusual they might be.

Good grief.

I did not suggest getting rid of standard questions and forms.

Yes, you are. You are protesting this additional question which has now become standard.

No, I am not. I am not protesting standard questions or forms. Stop misrepresenting me.

It is not an additional question. It is the same question being asked of additional people to whom it cannot ever apply. The previous policy restricted the question to be asked only of females. The previous policy made sense. This new policy does not make sense. It was not driven by any 'grave mistakes'. It was driven by the demands of trans activists who want to jettison sex and replace it with 'gender', but their demands do not change biological facts.

Additionally, if you'd read the OP and link, you'd know that the additional scope is being practised by one NHS Trust, but not all of them, so it is not 'standard'.

If it’s been added to that institutions routine documents, it is indeed standard for that institution.

Your accusation was false. I did not and do not object to standard questions per se. Nor is there any evidence that this change to the standard was a response to actual needs or events.

 

[Metaphor]

What dodge?

Do you imagine every nurse can immediately discern which patients might possibly be pregnant, with 100% accuracy? Particularly while the patient is clothed and awaiting exam/treatment—which, typically is when questions are asked. Do you believe that every patient knows what information is abs is not pertinent? Or that they answer accurately?

You know nothing.

When i have been hospitalized, every time nurses administer drug treatments, they scan and verify my wrist band, bed number, verify the drug, the prescription, the dosage, and verbally ask me to confirm my name and birthday. Every time.

Other patients get testy to have to repeat (what corresponds to) Keith A. Company, 9-26-62.

I was asked several times my name, year of birth, and address when I received my vaccine shots. I was asked at the entrance, at the sorting line, and just before I got the jab.

I am not against standard procedure. I am against changing standard procedure for no good reason.

Protecting the health and well being of those who are not gender conforming is 'no good reason?'

How does asking only females about their pregnancy possibility harm the mental health and well being of 'gender nonconforming' people?

 

[Metaphor]

.

Cis-female humans who really don't want cis-male humans in certain places with them aren't being irrational. They're being quite rational.

Up above, you've attempted to reduce the trans people's issue to their "feelings." It's all just 'in their head,' to uou. The penis or the vagina is all that matters.

But these historical actions that make some men predators in women's spaces, do they come from the head or the penis?
If someone penis-equipped 'Feels' that they are a woman, aren't they less of an actual threat to other women than cis-gendered penis-havers?
Or if someone doesn't have a penis, but feels they should, aren't thery more likely to be an actual threat to women?

It just seems like in this area, at least, the feelings could trump the plumbing. Making this cut-and-dried issue [in the minds of some] much less so [in reality].

There have been some obvious cases of individuals who are violent sex offenders and who then came out or claimed that they were/are trangender and have been sentenced to female facilities. In the case that was discussed in a different thread, this individual was held separate and where they could not view or be viewed by the children who were also confined there.

I don't think there is any way to prevent every single individual from finding a way to game the system. But I do think that there can be case by case ways of holding such criminals (in the case where the behavior rises to criminality and they have been tried and convicted and sentenced) separate from their preferred victims. It's not perfect. In a perfect world, no one would victimize another person.

That's not at all what i was talking about. The anti-trans crowd wants everything decided by the presence or absence of a penis.
I have a penis. It has never forced me to rape anyone. It's never even caused me to entertain certain fantasies, or to enjoy them when exposed to them, though other men with penises seem attracted/aroused. There are fetish sites that arouse, some that offend, some that leave me 'meh.'

So it seems that the penis is NOT the be-all/end-all to sexuality, sexual identity, sexual relationship to the free world.

Being female is the be all and end all to the possibility of being pregnant.

 

[Metaphor]

Just for the record...

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Just for the record, is there some source you feel internet infidels should consider an unquestionable source?

ZiprHead loves pointing to this rating when he doesn't want to engage in discussion but instead wants to shut discussion down.

When asked why I should trust medibiasfactcheck.com, he has never been able to respond.