Telegraph - Patient safety fears as NHS allows trans sex offenders in female-only wards

'The Department of Health and Social Care said: “Sexual abuse in the NHS will never be tolerated. We take every allegation of abuse extremely seriously and we expect every report of sexual assault on patients or staff to be immediately investigated by trusts.

“Men and women should not share hospital accommodation and we’ve cut mixed-sex accommodation breaches by over 85 per cent since 2010.”'

???!!!

The DOH never had a single sex policy. Single gender. Public lied to.

And they're still lying!!!

Jesus Christ.

Yes-

'Hundreds of vulnerable women and men are being sexually assaulted by other patients while staying on NHS wards – at a rate of one attack every day, data has revealed.

At least 1,019 sexual assaults were reported by male and female patients on mixed sex mental health wards between April 2017 and October 2019, according to figures obtained by the Health Service Journal.'

www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-sexual-assault-patients-mental-health-mixed-sex-wards-a9273656.html

The levels of sex offences committed in hosp is high isn't it?

No, I see. I suppose I think a lot of bad behaviour, if reported, would have discredited the programme.

For the rest though, I suppose I'd adjust my comments above to say that, to a lot of men, the idea of wanting to be feminine and feminised marks a person out as 'not man' and, for reasons best known to themselves, they see this as placing them in the category 'women'.

I don't doubt at all that the feelings and responses of women was not given the slightest thought.

We're oh so accommodating, comforting and supportive, aren't we. One big universal mummy figure.

The no more mixed wards was a big deal at the time. Widely reported, massively welcome. I think there are fines if mixed sex happened (outside of ICU etc).

The fact it was mixed gender- and the govt dept meant gender not sex- and that there are documents to show that the NHS said ??? are you sure. And govt said yes. But it's always got to be referred to as mixed sex to avoid confusion.

That surely suggests that they had someone/ people in their ear pushing it? It was not a thing known at all and I v much doubt that Lansbury civil servants etc thought of it by themselves. (Unless an advocate was working in the dept).

So basically a 'gentleman's agreement' (to behave decently in female spaces) for men who no longer wished to be gentlemen.

I'm not sure it was even that. The primary purpose of the letter was to protect the male patient in the event he was challenged. All of the focus appeared to be whether a man could tolerate 'living in role as a woman'. This proof was required before hormones and/or surgery was made available.

That's interesting @R0wantrees

So basically a 'gentleman's agreement' (to behave decently in female spaces) for men who no longer wished to be gentlemen.

I cannot help feeling (and know this will have been said many times before) that, to most men, the idea of a man wanting to be a woman, with all the low status and existence as an object of many men's disgust that that entails, seems so shocking, so degrading, that they cannot imagine him being anything other than completely sincere, completely other, therefore utterly un-masculine, that he could not possibly be any sort of threat to women.

So a commitment based upon mutual masculine social status, to behave in a way that instantly rejects and is able to slough off all masculine socialisation.

Why surprise to anyone about mixed sex. Abusive councils try to put vulnerable victims of domestic violence in mixed sex B&Bs with violent men and maybe also violent women. Openly mixed sex so nothing to do with trans. There's no safety for some vulnerable women and I wouldn't mind as much if they didn't lie. They need to be honest and stop pretending they care about vulnerable women. They're lying.

2019 thread I wrote,

"I saw this comment by Ray Blanchard recently and have been thinking for some time about that gatekeeping 'test' of 'living in gender role for two years'

As the vast majority of people presenting to the early proponants of medical 'sex change' surgery were males, I have often wondered how much sexism/misogyny was involved in the male doctors requirement for males to perform female sex-based stereotypes, access female single-sex spaces etc.

It also seems a rather unusual diagnostic tool. Rather than supportively unpicking the potential issues driving an individual's drive to be/be seen as the opposite sex, it just establishes that this is powerful and ongoing whilst promoting the requirement that society validates this."
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3500657-Can-transsexuals-truly-be-allies-to-women?msgid=84739275#prettyPhoto

NB Blanchard has also described how he (and his colleagues) provided letters for his male patients for them to offer up in the event they were challenged in female single sex spaces during the 'living in role test'. A 'permission note' so to speak.

Whilst many saw the doctors role as 'gatekeepers' of desired surgery/medical intervention, the doctors also acted unilaterally as gatekeepers to women's spaces & services. They opened the gate without women's consent. The impact on girls and women was not considered.

The effects on female patients were never considered. So probably not cock up or conspiracy , just institutionalised sexism.

Cock-up or conspiracy?

The effects on female patients' welfare are the same and the NHS has been exposed to considerable liability as a consequence. The idea that there were only approximately 5000 people who would be diagnosed as transsexual came from the lobbyists. Parliament failed to do due diligence and scrutinise the claims and impact of the legislation.

Placing any one of the >5000 male patients with a GRC on a female ward carries with it the same risk/compromise to female patients' welfare as with any man.

Is there a 'more innocent' explanation for this, that the lead up to 2010 was within the timeframe following the law-change (in mid-2000s?) that was based on the idea that there were only about 5,000 transgender people who would want a GRC?

So the sex / gender cover-up may have been along the lines of 'gender is the correct term, if we're being precise and pedantic about it but we're talking about so few people, who have all had their bits chopped off and the frequency of those people staying as hospital inpatients will be so low, that this really isn't a detail we need to bring to people's attention, so causing unnecessary confusion.'

Or, maybe it was Tory cronies seeking profits for their big pharma friends (and the shareholding, non-exec selves), who were probably already some years into development of drugs to support a transhuman future.

Plus, it was entirely possible to address the issues and recognise the problem in principle, even if, at that time, there were few people with GRCs and no idea of self-ID.

Cock-up or conspiracy?

Yes, the gaslighting, the cruelty, the sheer vindictiveness. The woman-hate just shines out of these policies.

No other word for it. And these are the people responsible for our care when we are sick or injured. We’re in their power when we are most powerless. God, what a travesty of the NHS.

I think everything was in place well before 2010 when Lansley signed it off.

It is a shame there wasn't more scrutiny. Could say the same about all of this mess

Yeah yeah look at it..

This has been in place since 2010 ish. Public were lied to.

There's been stuff in the news eg MH inpatient facility for women having man.

Nope.

current thread
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4313843-Game-on-Sajid-Javid-bites

Sajid Javid via Twitter

(Member of Parliament for Bromsgrove & Secretary of State for Health and Social Care)

"All patients, including women and transgender people, should feel comfortable and safe in hospital.

It's not wrong to look at whether guidance is right, or how it's being applied, to reassure everyone.

I’ve asked @DHSCgovuk for fresh advice."

7:20 PM · Aug 3, 2021

twitter.com/sajidjavid/status/1422623414196576256

"Andrew Lansley, as Health Secretary in 2010, ordered the NHS to segregate wards by gender identity, but to tell the public it was by sex.

Outrageous.

It’s been about 10 years since I worked in A&E or emergency admissions to an adult ward but in all the years before that I have never once as a medical professional asked or been told about whether the patient I am admitting has a history of offending. That includes when prisoners were admitted while in custody.
The only time it has ever been discussed or disclosed is in the context of admitting psychiatric patients.
Similarly never in the years since I became a GP have I known or disclosed the offending history of a patient I’ve referred to hospital.
There is no way to ‘risk assess’ these people. To say it can be done is as a sop to those who object. To try and obfuscate a policy which even activists know is completely inexcusable and violates the human rights of women.

Okay. My gender identity is “not the same gender as any people with penises” - is my gender identity going to be respected if wards are assigned based on gender, or is it only penis people’s genders that matter?

Just to highlight part of previous post.

Health Secretary in 2010.

That's eleven years ago.

The public was actively lied to during the big political single sex wards promise.

They were never single sex.

I can't imagine Andrew Lansley did this off his own bat.

So why was it done? Eleven years ago!

I'm not one for conspiracy theories. But that fact is really extraordinary and incredibly sinister.

Are we really going to have to campaign for the right to have single sex facilities- in 2021?

We do yes, and as a matter of extreme urgency.

Are we really going to have to campaign for the right to have single sex facilities- in 2021?

"Andrew Lansley, as Health Secretary in 2010, ordered the NHS to segregate wards by gender identity, but to tell the public it was by sex.

Fines are imposed for breaches.

This is documented in meeting minutes of the time. And I've spoken to people who remember the discussions."

twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1422505032579264512

NHS single sex policies are gender [identity] policies and as such they are currently unable to exclude male patients from female single sex accomodation. In fact excluding male patients who identify as women and vice versa would incur financial penalties to the hospital trust.

FFS!!!