Reflexão - O que vai um homem fazer ao ginecologista? (Helena Matos)

 Cá vamos...

https://observador.pt/opiniao/o-que-vai-um-homem-fazer-ao-ginecologista/

O que vai um homem fazer ao ginecologista?

Um ginecologista francês foi probido de exercer medicina durante um mês por ter recusado atender um homem. Acusação: transfobia. Mas o que vai um homem fazer ao ginecologista?

Helena Matos 

02 fev. 2025, 08:14

29 de Agosto de 2023, no consultório do ginecologista francês Victor Acharian apresenta-se um casal. A mulher tem 26 anos e marcou consulta através duma aplicação. Não conhece o médico. Mas este ao ser informado pela sua assistente que a próxima paciente é uma mulher trans declara-se incompetente para fazer a consulta: a ginecologia trata do aparelho reprodutivo feminino e a jovem que estava no seu consultório podia parecer uma mulher, vestir-se como mulher, apresentar-se com um nome feminino, tomar medicamentos há três anos para feminizar o seu corpo mas biologicamente falando continuava a ser um homem: “Eu sou ginecologista e trato mulheres verdadeiras. Não tenho qualquer competência para tratar homens, mesmo que eles tenham eliminado a barba e digam à minha secretária que se tornaram mulheres.” — escreveu Victor Acharian numa resposta ao comentário negativo feito pelo casal ao seu não atendimento.

PUB • CONTINUE A LER A SEGUIR

Rapidamente entraram em cena várias associações que fazem de Victor Acharian uma espécie de saco de pancada. Foi apresentada uma queixa na Ordem dos Médicos franceses. Entretanto o ginecologista insistia: “Eu podia ter atendido essa pessoa, cobrar-lhe 80 euros pela consulta para lhe dizer que sou completamente incompetente no seu caso: é isto que ela queria? Estas pessoas estão sob tratamentos hormonais, prescritos por serviços especializados. É deles o cuidado do acompanhamento.”

A penalização surge agora: Victor Acharian foi proibido de exercer medicina durante um mês.

Mas o que este caso revela é muito mais grave que essa penalização e remete-nos para a ditadura do pensamento instituída em nome das liberdades e da igualdade e que tem o seu melhor exemplo no ginecologista a ser penalizado por dizer o óbvio: os ginecologistas tratam mulheres. Um homem pode mudar de género masculino para feminino tal como uma mulher pode mudar de género feminino para masculino  mas de sexo não se muda. Como é que dizer isto se tornou uma ofensa? Insulto? Heresia?

24 de Dezembro de 2023. No Victoria Hospital, na Escócia, a enfermeira Sandie Peggie discute no vestuário feminino com a médica Beth Upton ou mais propriamente com o homem que se passara a identificar como mulher e que por isso usava os vestuários destinados às mulheres. A enfermeira Sandie Peggie foi suspensa e o caso que chega agora a tribunal ganhou novos contornos pois os advogados de Beth Upton pretendem que Sandie Peggie se refira à médica como mulher o que a acontecer tornaria absurda as discussões que teve com Upton a propósito da sua presença no vestuário das mulheres, discussões essas que levaram à suspensão da enfermeira. É uma espécie de círculo vicioso constituído em armadilha: Sandi é suspensa do trabalho por ter discutido com um homem transgénero mas no julgamento tem de se referir ao transgénero como se ele não fosse homem…

Setembro 2024. “Olhem para o guarda-redes deles. O número 10 deles é obviamente um homem” — Observações como esta valeram a suspensão por vários jogos a duas futebolistas britânicas e a obrigatoriedade, pelo menos para uma delas, de frequentar um curso para se reeducar nesta matéria. Ou seja as mulheres estão a ser claramente prejudicadas por causa da participação de homens que se dizem mulheres, vestem como mulheres e se sentem mulheres em diversas modalidades mas depois não se pode referir que eles são transgénero.

Não duvido que um dia destes veremos vários líderes políticos a terem com o tema dos transgénero o mesmo volte-face que estão agora a protagonizar com a imigração ou com a segurança. E numa espécie de movimento reflexo as autoridades de saúde, desporto, as ordens profissionais… qual exército em manobras prontamente terão entendimentos em tudo contrários ao que defendem agora.  E nesse momento várias pessoas que até agora se mantêm em silêncio aparecerão a dar conta da sua discordância que dirão de sempre apesar de nunca se lhes ter ouvido uma palavra sobre o assunto. Quanto aos outros, os estridentes defensores destas causas e aquela legião burocrática que a impõe, nem por um segundo se deterão a avaliar as consequências do que fizeram. Com a inimputabilidade de sempre e a arrogância de quem se considera dono do futuro, prontamente trocarão  os transgéneros por outros quaisquer grupos ou temas que lhes apareçam como instrumentais.

Não me admira que o façam porque é isso que sempre têm feito. O que cada vez me cansa mais é que aceitemos tudo isso como natural. Uma espécie de destino por assim dizer.

Filme - Horizon, an American saga (part I)

 

Great film portraying true West. 

Cartoons - The Spectator

 

The Spectator - Who’d dare join the SAS now?

 

(personal underlines)

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/whod-dare-join-the-sas-now/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Editorial&utm_campaign=WEEK%20%2020250227%20%20GK+CID_14b31d3a6d1fa1ff98849dcf4c7db1cc

Who’d dare join the SAS now?

Mary Wakefield

We should all feel scared to our bones about the persecution of the SAS, soldiers harried through the courts for jobs they did many decades ago. It’s not that the SAS should be allowed to behave like trigger-happy psychos, but as Paul Wood wrote in this magazine before Christmas, Special Forces are now being hounded and punished for simply following orders and conducting operations. And what will we soft sofa-sitters do when no one wants to be a soldier any more?

Wood described in particular the plight of 12 soldiers of a Specialist Military Unit (SMU) deployed in Ireland in February 1992 to apprehend a gang of IRA terrorists – the East Tyrone brigade of the Provisional IRA (PIRA). The Tyrone PIRA had procured a socking great Russian machine gun and planned to use it to attack a police station. The SAS got their men and retrieved the gun, and as a reward they’ve been subjected to decades of interrogation and now an inquest into the deaths of the terrorists shot during the operation.

When Wood wrote his piece, Justice Michael Humphreys, presiding over the inquest, had not yet reached a verdict or released his report. Well, now he has. He has decided that the use of lethal force was not justified and referred the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

I spent the weekend reading Justice Humphreys’s report, expecting to find at least some evidence of SAS wrongdoing – some reason to put the soldiers through so many gruelling years of investigation. But what I found is much weirder than that. The SAS unit seems to me to have behaved bravely in tricky circumstances, and certainly just as it had been trained to do. What’s bizarre is the picture painted by Mr Justice Humphreys of how he thinks the SAS should have behaved. It’s a glimpse into life lived by the light of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and it’s both scary and surreal.

All accounts agree that the moon was full and bright in County Tyrone on the night of 16 February 1992, which was not great for soldiers lying low. The intelligence had been that the PIRA would meet at St Patrick’s in Clonoe before the attack, and the original plan was to apprehend them there, so the men of the SMU hunkered down behind a patchy hedge to wait. Even Justice Humphreys agrees that the hedge provided inadequate cover. But the PIRA didn’t stop by St Patrick’s Church. They drove their gun straight to the Royal Ulster Constabulary station and shot it up with 60 rounds of armour-piercing bullets. Only after that did they drive to St Patrick’s, whooping and shooting, intending to dismantle the gun and escape with the other members of their brigade, 20 IRA in all.

When the truck arrived at St Patrick’s Church, the SMU was waiting. But as the headlights swept towards him, the soldier in charge of the unit – Soldier A, the inquest calls him – judged it likely, given the scrappy cover, that he and his men would be spotted. He describes seeing PIRA members in the back of the truck, one of whom was holding a rifle in the air. So Soldier A opened fire. His men engaged and four IRA men wound up dead.

Article 2 of the ECHR states that everyone has a right to life and cannot be intentionally killed. The ‘Yellow Card’ instructions for opening fire in Northern Ireland insist that a ‘challenge’ must be given before opening fire, but also that a soldier may disregard this if he has reason to believe that announcing his presence to make an arrest would endanger his life, or the life of his men. Hard as I try, I can’t think of a more certain way for a soldier to endanger the lives of his men than by cheerily announcing their presence to 20 IRA terrorists with a burning hatred of the British Army and a heavy machine gun. What choice did Soldier A have?

But here’s how Justice Humphreys thinks things should have played out. In his summary of the events of 16 February, he’s remarkably breezy about the PIRA attack: ‘Some 60 rounds were fired but no one was injured’ – as if it was a naughty jaunt, no harm done.

What the soldiers should have done, insists Humphreys, is to calmly wait in their inadequate hiding place in the bright moonlight for the moment at which the PIRA boys began to unbolt their machine gun from the tailgate of the truck. Then, with every man occupied, it would have been a cinch to saunter up and lawfully arrest the lot of them, in accordance with Yellow Card protocol, no violation of the ECHR.

I long to see inside Justice Humphreys’s mind, the picture he has of this perfect and compliant operation: all 20 IRA men caught unawares and unable to shoot because their hands are full of spanners. Perhaps it stars himself as a sort of Justice James Bond. ‘Rats!’ the PIRA ringleader, Kevin Barry O’Donnell, might say, ‘you’ve outsmarted us with your spanner trick.’

Kevin Barry O’Donnell had, by the by, been acquitted a few years previously of bombing an army barracks. ‘I come from a devout Catholic family and do not support the taking of life,’ he said in court.

But the lesson of the Clonoe inquest, and the miserable decision to refer the case for possible prosecution, isn’t just that Justice Humphreys is delusional. It’s that attempts to ensure that military operations, especially Special Forces operations, comply with ECHR law often leads to terrible injustice and punishes the very people we rely on most. No one who didn’t secretly have it in for our country could think otherwise.

I only know three young people who’ve chosen to join the armed forces in recent years and they’re three of the brightest and most moral twentysomethings I’ve met. The idea that, for acting in our country interests, they might one day be hounded through the courts fills me with despair.

The Spectator - Do many women want to be train drivers?

 (personal underlines)

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-many-women-want-to-be-train-drivers/

Do many women want to be train drivers?

Douglas Murray

iStock

Hold your wine glass steady: the BBC has news for you. This week it splashed the news that train drivers in the UK are ‘overwhelmingly middle-aged white men’. The story was accompanied by a picture of a black woman driving a train – under the supervision of a white man, it might be noted – as though to signal that this glass ceiling too can be smashed.

Personally I would expect train drivers to be overwhelmingly middle-aged, white and indeed male. Most of the UK is white and half of the UK is male. And the male half of the species tends to be more train-oriented. You don’t see many single women standing at the end of Reading station noting down train numbers in a little book. There may be hardwired reasons for this. So I would put the BBC’s train-driver story into the same ‘breaking news’ list as ‘most kindergarten teachers are women’ and ‘most people who run successful corner shops are immigrants’. In other words: not a story.

But of course it’s not really about news. It is another example that tells us something deeper about the age.

Until recently, the only professions in which people obsessed about ‘representation’ were the more high-status ones. One of the madnesses that came out of the #MeToo movement was the idea that if an actress in Hollywood is paid eight million bucks and her male co-star is paid ten million for the same movie then we should all take to the streets to protest this appalling inequality and indeed oppression. Pity the stunning multi-millionaire actress, everyone; we are all Angelina Jolie now, etc.

Company boards were another focus – as though most of the public were regularly bothered by the question of which company boards to sit on. It was decided at some point in the past decade that any company whose board had too many men on it must be ‘diversified’. Which means it’s been a boom time for any potential ethnic–minority board members, while some of the cannier gays spotted a useful ladder. And then there were women, of course. California passed legislation a few years ago insisting that all companies registered in the state must have a quota of people from a list of minorities. That list was itself pretty interesting. It included trans people, obviously. Because if you are after diversity of thinking, it is always good to have input from somebody whose body is being pumped full of oestrogen or testosterone.

The Californian list also included Pacific Islanders. I did the maths and worked out that given the demand for trans and Pacific Island board members vs the relative supply in the state, if you were a trans person or a Pacific Islander living in California, you should clear your diary for the 2020s, because you’ll be shuttling from board meeting to board meeting with never an hour for yourself.

Personally, I had expected this diversity obsession to remain fixed on high-status professions. Because it was noticeable that, for example, while the vast preponderance of road-layers who mix the tarmac to sometimes fill in the nation’s potholes are men, there is yet to be an outcry along the lines of ‘none of us are free until women are made to lay more tarmac’. Now it seems that the age is indeed even madder than I thought.

This is why we now have the idea that even train driving must be diversified. Take the words of Zoey Hudson, who is the head of talent, diversity and inclusion at Southern Railway. You may not have known that such a role existed, but it does, and Zoey is able to spout the usual verbiage that comes with her line of work. As she told the BBC, diversity ‘freshens’ the rail network. ‘It’s really important that we have diversity of thinking within the railway, which is as important as diversity of ethnicity. It brings creativity.’

For my part, I’m not sure I want much creativity in my train drivers. In fact I prefer them to be slightly plodding, uncreative types. Loyal, punctual, good in a crisis: these are the sort of qualities that I look for before boarding the 7.48 to Totnes. But creativity?

Happily for their own career prospects, a diversity officer’s work is never done. Because only one in ten British train drivers is a woman, it seems that Zoey and her colleagues are also on a mission to push more women into the railways. It’s something to do, I suppose, but there is a rather glorious perversity in the idea of persuading women to qualify for a profession that is about to go fully automated. And what will all those creative female train drivers do then, desperate as they will remain for the thrill of the railway while their profession goes driverless?

Let me show my own cards: I don’t believe any of this. I think the whole thing is bunk. This desire to concentrate on stories where middle-aged white men can be cast as blocking the way for everyone else seems a deliberate policy not just of highlighting but of demeaning and demoralising anyone who belongs to what in Britain is still the majority. There is nothing wrong with being white and male. And in a country which is still predominantly white, you would indeed expect white people to be the majority in many industries, as they are in the general population. If you go to India you will find an awful lot of Indian people, and China is strikingly Chinese. But none of these countries have their majority populations addressed as though their very existence is some sort of affront to minorities.

The latest phrase to wheedle its way into the corporate world is ‘global majority’. While job advertisements in Britain used to ask for people from ethnic minorities to step forward, this has been flipped. ‘Ethnic minority’ has become ‘global majority’. If you think that has a slightly menacing air to it, you’d be right – that’s the point. As I have often said, none of this is about justice, equality or letting talent fly.

Gene Hackman (1930 - 2025)

 O primeiro filme que vi, em que ele participava, foi no Castil, com o Zé Luis Trancoso, creio que em 1972 ou 1973.

The Spectator - "Trump and Europe"

How can there be any doubts?  

The spectator - Donald Trump is liberating the US from the transgender madness

LBC : 1-Was it necessary for Trump to be elected for "ex-men" to stop competing with women? Yes, it was!

2 - Is it true that this really happened? Seriously??

(personal underlines)

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/donald-trump-is-liberating-america-from-the-transgender-madness/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Editorial&utm_campaign=BOCH%20%2020250208%20%20House%20Ads%20%20HT+CID_31b13dacfe20d0bc8b5dc20c2b8dd498

Donald Trump is liberating the US from the transgender madness

Brendan O’Neill6 February 2025, 2:04pm

Donald Trump is joined by female athletes as he signs the “No Men in Women’s Sports” executive order (Getty images)

I thought Donald Trump was a woman-hater? The Guardian told us he’s a ‘far-right misogynist’ whose return to the White House would strike ‘visceral horror’ into the hearts of women everywhere. He’s the ‘misogynist in chief’, said CNN. Perhaps someone could explain, then, why he just signed an executive order in favour of women’s rights while surrounded by a joyous throng of beaming girls?

The scenes in the White House yesterday were extraordinary. Trump signed an order titled ‘Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports’. It commands every educational institution and athletic association that receives federal funding to keep blokes, however they identify, away from female sports. A swarm of sportswomen and giddy schoolgirls watched as Trump put pen to paper. They whooped and cheered. Their glee was infectious.

The order is searingly feminist. It’s a manifesto against misogyny. Allowing biological males to compete against women is ‘demeaning, unfair and dangerous’, it says. It robs women and girls of the ‘equal opportunity’ to ‘excel in competitive sports’. This madness ends right now, Trump decreed. No longer will the women and girls of America suffer such ‘endangerment, humiliation and silencing’.

If I had a bra I’d burn it in solidarity with this momentous blow for women’s liberty. Everyone with a moral conscience – or just a GCSE in biology – knows it is nuts to let men box women and sprint against women and even use women’s changing rooms. Yet all of that happened in the holy name of transgenderism. Born males punched women, stole their gold medals and swanned about in their changing rooms, and we were all expected to say: ‘Yay! Trans rights!’

America is liberating itself from such lunacy. Courtesy of the ‘misogynist in chief’, female sports are now for females only. Their locker-rooms, too: Trump’s order insists that ‘all-female locker-rooms’ be ‘affirmatively protected’ from the presence of men, thus ensuring ‘privacy’ for women and girls. No wonder those girls in the White House looked so sunny and elated: no longer will they suffer the indignity of sharing their sports fields and changing areas with hulking teenage boys.

It feels like we are witnessing the restoration of reason. Where the previous administration sang the praises of a male TikToker for ‘living authentically’ as a ‘girl’ – I’m not making this up – the new administration fights for the right of real girls to enjoy dude-free sports and spaces. Yet we’re meant to believe Joe Biden’s government was lovely and liberal while Trump’s is borderline fascist. Sorry, we’re not buying it anymore.

America is marching from the left’s dark age of cranky moral relativism into the blinking sunshine of rationality. We will no longer overlook the ‘fundamental biological truth’ of sex, says Trump’s order. America, it says, will rebuild ‘fairness [and] dignity’ for women and girls and stand up for ‘truth’ itself. It’s a mini-enlightenment, the euphoric knocking down of the post-truth, post-sex mania of identity politics that spread like a contagion through the ruling classes of the Western world.

Of course, some still cling to their neo-religious convictions. Behold the BBC headline accusing Trump of ‘banning transgender women from female sports’. These are Kafkaesque levels of moral distortion. Trump is not attacking ‘trans women’ – he’s defending women. Imagine how much of the Kool-Aid you’d need to have swigged to think it’s a bad thing to state biological facts and do right by womankind. Dressing up a defence of women’s liberty as an assault on ‘trans rights’ is precisely how we got into this mess in the first place.

It is a testament to the madness of our historic moment that it feels revolutionary to hear a world leader say ‘boys and girls are different’ – a truth even our benighted ancestors of the Stone Age knew. But here we are. Of course, Trump did not arrive at his pro-woman position all by himself. Heroic figures like the American swimmer Riley Gaines, our very own Sharron Davies, tennis legend Martina Navratilova, organisations like Fair Play for Women and many others have been beating the drum for women’s sports for years. They were defamed as bigots, fools and phobes, yet they persevered, motored by a belief that girls deserve a fair shot at sport. Their tenacity paid off. Things are changing.

But Trump said ‘Grab ’em by the pussy!’, some will cry. I don’t care. I really don’t. I prefer to judge leaders by their actions in the here and now rather than by some secretly recorded crap they spouted literally 19 years ago. Yesterday, Trump did more for women with one swipe of his pen than many of his pussy-hatted critics have ever done. To see what it means, just look at the faces of those girls who surrounded him.

Filmes- The promised land (Bastarden)

 

Excellent film with Mads Mikkelsen

Livro - Como se levanta um Estado

 

Livros - Hereges (G. K. Chesterton)

 G. K. Chesterton, uma surpresa! Farpas análogas às de um Ramalho ou um Eça, ou dum MEC, mas das ilhas.