SIGN UP

Student Hounded From School In Transgender Row

Avatar Image
naomi24 | 14:20 Fri 20th May 2022 | News
56 Answers
JK Rowling has condemned as 'utterly shameful' the treatment of pupil, 18, who claims she was hounded out of her private school after challenging the 'trans ideology' of the visiting speaker, a female member of the House of Lords described as a 'well known activist'. The pupil, 18, told The Times: 'The language she was using was implying critical theory took precedence over biological reality in defining women.'

When the student returned to the sixth form she was surrounded by up to 60 girls who screamed, swore and spat at her, leading to her being unable to breathe properly and collapsing, it is claimed.

Teachers supported the teenager at first but abandoned her after other pupils accused her of transphobia, according to the report. She returned to school on several occasions but was told she would be sent to work in the library if she said anything provocative in lessons, and was repeatedly bullied.

She eventually left in September.

Rowling waded into the row today, tweeting: 'Utterly shameful. Add this to the tottering pile of evidence that people in education and academia who're supposed to have a duty of care towards the young have succumbed to an outbreak of quasi-religious fanaticism. The girl's crime? Saying ''sex exists''.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10828431/JK-Rowling-condemns-utterly-shameful-treatment-school-pupil-18-caught-trans-row.html

Thank goodness for people like J K Rowling. .

Answers

41 to 56 of 56rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//Are the police really so inept that it took them a year to figure that out? Did they go to the Nursie school of biology?//

The ins and outs of the police investigation are not the issue. I don't know all the details, only the outline. There are plenty of links to this story available. It was revealed during a debate in the Lords on single-sex wards. Here's one source:

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/hospital-staff-told-police-their-patient-was-not-raped-as-alleged-attacker-was-transgender-despite-cctv-showing-assault-in-ward/250941

The issue is that NHS staff are being instructed to lie, to distort the truth, to portray fiction as fact, even to the extent of obstructing a police investigation into a serious crime. That is not acceptable to me and it shouldn't be acceptable to anyone who values the truth. The notion is simply preposterous.
They we’re hampered ellipsis, that’s the point. A man was on a ward of women, he raped a woman, but of course he didn’t because he was a ‘woman’.

It’s like a weird parallel universe that we’re even discussing it.
NJ, Annex B is from the 2019 NHS guidance on, "Delivering same-sex accommodation"
https://tinyurl.com/yeymzcde
NJ; Are you telling me that a penetrative attack of a human being on another human being is not subject to legal sanction? Or are you saying that NHS staff are forced to deny facts for some reason connected with some sort of 'woke' agenda?

‘A boy without a winkle’. Still chuckling, ellipsis.

I think the problem with the girl and school in the OP is just plain old bullying. No one wants to be bullied so all these other girls are on the nasty side so they aren’t the ones getting bullied. I bet some secretly agree with this poor girl but are too scared to say so. Good on JK Rowling for defending her.

The teachers at that school sound pathetic
Question Author
Atheist, //NJ; Are you telling me that a penetrative attack of a human being on another human being is not subject to legal sanction? Or are you saying that NHS staff are forced to deny facts for some reason connected with some sort of 'woke' agenda?//

A female patient was raped by a man who, because he 'identifies', as a woman was accommodated on a women's ward. When police investigated the complaint they were told that it couldn't have happened because there were no men on the ward. CCTV footage eventually revealed the truth.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/03/gender-ideology-nearly-covered-up-a-sexual-assault/
Such an interesting thread.
I should waste more time here.
‘ because woke procedure demanded they say ‘there was no male in the hospital’.

This, of course, has turned out to be a lie perpetrated on behalf of LGBTQ+ politics’

They don’t help themselves, do they!
//NJ, Annex B is from the 2019 NHS guidance on, "Delivering same-sex accommodation"//

Thanks, Corby.

//NJ; Are you telling me that a penetrative attack of a human being on another human being is not subject to legal sanction?//

No, I’m not telling you that. The police were informed but their investigation was deliberately hampered.

//Or are you saying that NHS staff are forced to deny facts for some reason….//

That’s correct.

//…connected with some sort of 'woke' agenda?//

I really don’t know why any responsible organisation would instruct its staff to deny plain facts, especially when to do so might impede a police investigation into a serious crime. I believe the organisation’s directors responsible for the instruction should be prosecuted for obstructing the police in the course of their duty.

In many, if not most circumstances this lunacy would not matter. But here, clearly, it most certainly did. I’ve just read through “Annex B” which Corby kindly provided, and it makes disturbing reading, especially when applied to hospitals. I believe this lunacy will lead to many more similar instances, and not only in hospitals.
I’ve just read Annex B, and it’s disgraceful.

A man, in possession of all his bits, but identifying as a woman, is entitled to be on a ward for women, and their thoughts count for nothing. His rights top trumps the rights of women.

Is this still the case given the ruling a few months ago which allowed for women only spaces?
//Is this still the case given the ruling a few months ago which allowed for women only spaces?//

The legislation (Equality Act, 2010) never has prevented the provision of segregation of services by biological sex, so long as it can be shown to be reasonable, necessary and proportionate in achieving a legitimate aim. The problem comes when organisations such as the NHS (who really should know much better) fail to interpret the law’s provisions sensibly, the result being policies explained in "Annex B". Providing single sex wards is clearly a legitimate aim and men who dress up in women’s clothes (or perhaps don’t even bother to do that but simply declare that they are women and make the appropriate noises about preferred pronouns) should be told this instead of being indulged in their fantasies. The fact that the NHS chooses not to do this is bad enough. But when a serious crime is committed against a patient in its care and both the victim and the police are told that no men were present at the time is when it descends further into lunacy.

There is no obligation on organisations to make provision for transgender people if it can be shown that segregation by sex is in pursuit of a legitimate aim. This includes the provision of toilets and changing facilities. The fact that they choose to is usually their business – except when it involves something like the NHS. This is a public service to which most people have no realistic alternative and women (and men for that matter) are entitled to be provided with single sex accommodation.

This article make interesting explanatory reading:

https://fairplayforwomen.com/equality-act-2010_womens-rights/
‘ This article make interesting explanatory reading’

No, no it doesn’t.
It explains very well that in the case the judge is talking about the operatives where perverting the law and indeed the spirit of the law. At best out of ignorance at worst out of slavish dogma.
//No, no it doesn’t.//

It depends what you want explaining, Zacs. It explains perfectly well that the Equalities Act makes provision for singles sex spaces and services to be provided where necessary. It also explains that many businesses and organisations do not have to provide inclusive facilities for men masquerading as women (or vice versa). Though I agree it does not explain why organisations such as the NHS ignore those provisions or why they instruct their staff to tell lies to the police.
“No, no it doesn’t”

Yes it does.

You’re wilfully not getting it.

41 to 56 of 56rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3

Do you know the answer?

Student Hounded From School In Transgender Row

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.