Can't see some of this going over well

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/11/advo ... -patients/

The publication in question wants hospitals to place people with the sex they ask to be placed, removing any objective standard:

http://www.lambdalegal.org/publications ... l-policies

So a woman who has, say, a history of rape may find herself being placed with someone who looks obviously like a man. I don't think hospitals are exactly tripping over themselves to try to provide this.

This ridiculous document is typical of the mainstream trans lobby. Sex-differentiated terms, services, and accommodations are to be obliterated and replaced by "gender identity"-based services and accommodations, based on the false genderist belief that everyone has a gender identity and that society ought to treat people as if gender identity is the same thing as sex (while the queer theory on which their activism is based consistently and adamantly states that gender identity is not the same thing as sex).

Then, of course, we have the typical social conservatism:

PROCEDURE:
A transgender patient’s preferred pronoun should be
determined as follows:
1.  If the patient’s gender presentation clearly indicates to a rea-
sonable person the gender with which the patient wishes to be
identified, the hospital staff member should refer to the patient
using pronouns appropriate to that gender.

I am female, but, by this guideline, I would be addressed as if I were a guy (or maybe this guideline is only meant to apply to "transgender patients", in which case such patients would be forced to identify themselves as transgender). Something is seriously wrong with a set of guidelines that tells professionals how to address people based on their clothing and grooming.

I know, right? I was in a mental hospital 3 times in the past year and I was placed with the men because I am still capable of impregnating females--as hormones don't keep that ability from you. It's as natural as that. But of course, as per this, they would try to lobby me to have placed with the women.

As the hospital told me, it was my op status--that I hadn't had sex reassignment surgery yet--that was the determining factor. How about these trans activists donate some of their money to a group like the Jim Collins Foundation so that I could get changed to post-op to accomplish that same goal, and with less consternation on the part of everyone?

The mainstream trans community is useless.

It's kind of a tricky question as to "where to place the transgenders?"
Put a M-F trans with the genetic women, the genetic women become uncomfortable.
Put the M-F trans with men, they face potential hostility from men.
It's sad, but much of society wants them to just disappear. Society may slowly be accepting homosexuality, but it still in the stone ages when it comes to transgenders.

I didn't face any hostility from the men during my 3 hospitalizations, though for the most part they made it clear I was a man. (During the 3rd hospitalization, I had people more often refer to me as a woman, though.) During the 3rd hospitalization, I was pretty asocial, and I did have some hostility from my fellow inpatients who were mad I didn't show any interest in conversing with them. During my 2nd and 3rd hospitalizations, there was this one gay guy with schizoaffective disorder who kept harassing me, speaking in a very vulgar manner to me, and demanding that I wear certain clothes for him.

Make of that what you will.

I've heard lots of very mean, hurtful things said about transgenders when it's just "the guys" hanging out.

After reading this, I can really understand why hospital administrators would be really uncomfortable with placing pre-ops and non-ops (male) with women, reserving that just for the post-ops:

http://outofmypantiesnow.wordpress.com/ ... ially-all/

The statistics themselves I find rather questionable, but the links themselves each speak a thousand words.