New NHS guidance on same sex accommodation

This policy has been written and presented with exactly that level of deliberate deception.

Front page says zero tolerance of mixed sex wards.

Page XX in Annex B, hidden in the back, we find sex means absolutely nothing at all.

Sneaky, deliberately dishonest and dangerous. How the actual fuck do they get away with it?

So hang on, if a bunch of guys dressed up for a laugh on.a stag do ended up in hospital unconscious, they would be put onto a womens ward due to their presentation?

What if I get run over in my mens.jeans..i bought them as i needed Jeans urgently and Tesco had nothing else that fitted. Will i wake up surrounded by men?.should Iake surs i only ever wear pink tops with said Jeans just on case ?

Fucks sake if drs and nurses cant tell who's male and who's female and designate beds accordingly then get the fuck.out the hospital

"purposefully"

If, on admission, it is impossible to ask the view of the person because he or she is unconscious or incapacitated then, in the first instance, inferences should be drawn from presentation and mode of dress. No investigation as to the genital sex of the person should be undertaken unless this is specifically necessary to carry out treatment.

So Pips Bunce would be sent to a men's ward if he was run over by a bus on a 'Phillip' day, but a women's ward if it was a 'Phillipa' day? seriously?

This new policy is almost identical to the old 2009 policy.

The choice of telling the public that the wards would be segregated by SEX whilst instructing the NHS to segregate by GENDER instead, was 100% a government decision.
A deliberate deception.
The NHS have clearly defined BOTH sex AND gender, they have been explicit that the two should not be conflated. And the NHS team challenged Andrew Lansley, Health Secretary, for his deliberate choice to lie about which of sex and gender wards would actually be segregated by.

He insisted upon using the word sex.

Copies of meeting minutes verify that this conversation took place more than once.

And one of the principal NHS meeting attendees said he told Lansley to be honest to the public that wards would be self-identified gender, but that Lansley insisted upon using the word sex. This attendee said they would swear in a court that this was what happened.

This happened a decade ago.
All receipts and links to documents are in the article below.
medium.com/@anneharperwright/sex-gender-the-nhs-1e8f4e6363a6

Perhaps you need your preferences embroidered on your clean knickers.

WTF? Mode of dress?

So we’d all better not get run over by a bus wearing jeans, trainers and a sweater then, or we’ll all wash up in the men’s ward.

Or not. Because we all know what ‘mode of dress’ this refers to don’t we.

From Annex B. I can't quite believe that someone has written this in an NHS document.

If, on admission, it is impossible to ask the view of the person because he or she is unconscious or incapacitated then, in the first instance, inferences should be drawn from presentation and mode of dress. No investigation as to the genital sex of the person should be undertaken unless this is specifically necessary to carry out treatment.

So my question will be, how do you prevent any male abusing the Annex B rules to access vulnerable women?

Let’s understand the protocol here for busy staff to weed out the chancers. Because surely they’ve spent as much time working this out as they have spent promoting rainbow lanyards, right?

Thank you custard.

mumwon, of course. Use what you like.

I'm hoping that he'll at least be asked a question by the media about it. And he can explain how 'same sex' actually means 'mixed sex'.

So many politicians sitting around on sofas doing interviews, talking about all sorts of bollocks.

I'd love just one of them to explain to the voting public how single-sex spaces can be maintained when members of the opposite sex can identify their way into the single-sex space.

I mean, on what basis are males in eyeliner who are non binary let in, but Big Hairy Barry is denied access?

There's no way to distinguish between them. They have removed the protected characteristic of sex from the Equality Act.

@Popchyk I can send a direct letter to his local office as he is my MP (nb my comments on your suggestion on other thread) Can I plagiarise yours?Or perhaps someone can assist in writing a more extended letter?
As you may gather I have little respect for the man - he toes the party line & if you write a letter to him about an issue it seems that he doesn't read the specifics but just quotes the party line - he is not much liked by people within the NHS either

So if I understand this correctly, any male who identified as a woman regardless of having a GRC or not, must be allowed on a female ward.

Similarly any make who says they are non binary. Regardless of appearance or anything else.

So by those rules, it would be outright discrimination to block any ordinary bloke from the female wards wouldn’t it? I mean, on what basis are males in eyeliner who are non binary let in, but Big Hairy Barry is denied access?

On a thread recently about Youth Hostels, someone more legally savvy than I made the point that, by using characteristics that have no basis in law, it’s discrimination to then pick and choose between individuals who you give special treatment to.

I meant non binary.

..whoops... people declaring themselves binary on admission to hospital.

I do think trans people should be first in the queue for single rooms, their needs are more complex.

Well, maybe not more complex than everyone's, but I would agree that single rooms is likely to be the most pragmatic solution. So long as that didn't result in a spate of

I started work in the NHS in 1996, just as the experiment in mixed sex wards was dying out. In the 80s there had been a Laing type push by some for 'normalising' hospital environments and allowing previously segregated groups to mingle more, based on the reaction against institutional long term care. This was leapt on by acute hospital leaders with shrinking budgets and the first targets on patient care to meet. Pure mixed sex provision, first come first served, is undoubtedly the most efficient use of a limited resource of open bays and wards/shared bathrooms. But patients and families loathed it. Disinhibited 65 year old detoxing alcoholic Frank wandering behind the curtain around 80 year old Mary immobile with her broken hip was not what anyone wanted. It was so hated that the reaction against it is still in place.

Now more wards are single sex and en suite, it does make it easier. But there are still plenty of wards and bays out there and not likely to be rebuilt any time soon. I do think trans people should be first in the queue for single rooms, their needs are more complex. But a blanket 'trans trumps all else' approach leading to mixed sex by the back door is not right.

I’m just putting together a FOI request. Does anyone have any pointers?

Of course, the reality is they haven’t done an impact assessment. Because they forgot women have rights.

sleepyKat I’m at the point where I’d probably keel over if there actually was a risk assessment in place. Never mind that we all know it would have to include mind-bending standards of doublethink, just simply that one existed. There won’t be one because our government, public services and organisations have all be captured to the point that they no longer give the shiniest of shits about women and girls, inasmuch as they ever did

And non-binary has no legal status.

They may as well say "blokes who are fans of Star Wars are entitled to access female single-sex spaces but not other blokes".

They won’t have. Because hey TWAW and women’s don’t sexually abuse other women do they? Us girls don’t mind pitching in and sharing a ward do we? So when my sister who is loosing her sight as part of her shitty illness goes into hospital that will be fucking brilliant won’t it?