Never thought I'd post on here but males on female hospital wards. Wtf

The assuming criminal intent is discriminatory- so transwomen cant go on men’s wards because?

Because you obviously won’t be assuming any criminal intent from the men towards transwomen, that would be discriminatory. Just like racism.

Exactly. Double standards. What a ridiculous argument. They are male. They are as likely to commit male pattern violence as any male.

I'm likely to have abdominal surgery again soon and I'm really worried about this now.

I shall write to the CEO of the Hospital Trust, I think.

@ryzen you said that you are new to these discussions. I just wanted to point out that your thread has been moved. This is because someone thinks it is so inappropriate of you to even question transwomen on women’s wards that they have reported your thread to MNHQ.

You see, even having this discussion triggers some people.

TBH when DH was on a male ward with other males it was pretty upsetting and intimidating, being completely helpless,1 as he was and having aggressive patients in the beds around him. It would be awful to be a female in the same situation.

IME what you "have" and the ward you end up on often don't bear any resemblance.

I agree with the article that to assume criminal intent as a first point of risk is discriminatory.
Clearly you've never volunteered to read in a school. EVERYONE, whoever they are (frail old lady), whatever their connection to the school (daughter on staff, grandchild in school), however well known in their community (very small town, lived there decades), no matter that they will never be actually alone in a room with a child (readers all heard out in the corridor with everyone walking past: head, caretaker, children on errands) will have a DBS check done.

I can only conclude that the assumption is that anyone can commit an offence, and also that if you leave a loophole even a tiny bit ajar, a sexual predator will spot it and slide through.

So yes, the assumption is that criminal intent is possible. Is that 'discriminatory' against sweet old grannies? Or just the first rule of safeguarding - that it applies to everyone who might pose a threat?

Presuambly there wont be any statistical evidence of increased problems of men in female wards.... as it will be recorded as women if anything occurs 😔😔.

The lack of proper statistics now worries me as there will be no way to argue it is anything other than women harming women/exposing themselves etc.

I am still angry this happens on psych wards where people are not always sure of reality as it is. Its just wrong to be saying "no thats a woman".

How did we get to a place where you can be refused treatment for not going along with all this. Especially when most vulnerable.

There is a discussion of women’s rights topic

Do you mean that one?

(It was obviously only going to be seconds before it was moved…feel so sorry for all those people who have to open every single thread 😩 must be so upsetting for them)

Has this thread been moved? This affects all women and is not a trans issue.

The assuming criminal intent is discriminatory- so transwomen cant go on men’s wards because?

Because you obviously won’t be assuming any criminal intent from the men towards transwomen, that would be discriminatory. Just like racism.

And where would you put a transman? Especially if they were still quite female presenting? They should be safe as to assume criminal intent from men would be discriminatory. That’s just like racism.

You want safe spaces for transpeople who may have experienced assaults/abuse but not for women in the same position. They’re as bad a racists, apparently.

There’s no consistency that one group is prioritised but another group making the same arguments are boo! Hiss! Baddies!

FWIW this is another problem that requires separate spaces so everyone is protected - be that from actual violence, the perception of violence or issues around PTSD etc.

But there’s no money and no LGBT orgs will help out with cash.

I do not understand how women can worry about women's rights and women's vulnerabilities, yet totally discount the influence of males in these issues.

The separation between these boards is like my teenager. She understands the source and cause of women's oppression, she understands the differences between female and male bodies, she understands stereotypes. And yet TWAW - ND! No debate.

Separating these discussions is just pandering to teenage tantrums.

The Observer
Sun 30 Jul 2017

'Mixed-sex wards endanger and humiliate women'
by Catherine Bennett
"Even as gender-neutral spaces grow, hospitals show that in some areas men and women are best kept apart

(extract)
The unacceptability of mixed-sex wards has been a cherished theme for every opposition since *Tony Blair alighted, in 1996, on what is still, universally, agreed to be a valid cause of public upset.

Mixed wards, he said “cause indignity, upset people”.* Subsequent studies, including a 2008 examination of nurse and patient perspectives, confirmed he had not exaggerated. There were patients, it confirmed, of both sexes and of varied ages, who “experienced a lack of privacy, worried about bodily exposure and felt uncomfortable”. Nurses entirely sympathised. “Mixed-sex accommodation,” it concluded, “is an unacceptable solution to bed shortages.”

Moreover, investigations showed, objections go far beyond the allegedly trivial ones, according to more disinhibited patients, of commodes, Carry On! gowns, proximity to men who might resemble, to pick one or two names at random, the Pimlico Plumber and twat-detector Charlie Mullins or the BBC star and famed beauty connoisseur, John Inverdale.

Patients and their relatives attested to intrusion, exhibitionism and leering from nearby beds, even with staff around. In 2009, Channel 4 discovered that almost two-thirds of sexual assaults by patients in hospitals (21 out of 33 in 2007/8), occurred in mixed-sex wards. Variations on Blair’s question to an evasive John Major – “Is it beyond the collective wit of the government and the health administrators to deal with that problem?” – was a reliable line in opposition outrage until Jeremy Hunt declared in 2014 that this indignity was “nearly”, or “virtually”, history.

Regulations introduced by the coalition government in 2010 compelled hospital trusts to report their figures for mixed-ward occupation, then fined them £250 per night for breaches. “We want to see the end of mixed-sex wards,” Nick Clegg said. “Everybody knows this has got to end.” As recently as his 2015 conference speech, a key part of Hunt’s claims to representing “the party of the NHS” was the unqualified triumph: “mixed sex wards eliminated”
(continues)

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/30/mixed-sexed-wards-endanger-and-humiliate-women

Previous thread, OP Barracker wrote Tue 16-Oct-18,

"We've been lied to about 'Single SEX' wards since 2010.
medium.com/@anneharperwright/sex-gender-the-nhs-1e8f4e6363a6

They were ALWAYS based upon 'gender'.
The evidence is in NHS documents from 2010.
And the Department of Health were told, by the NHS team, not to tell people wards were segregated by sex, because they knew the policy was based on gender.

But the DOH purposefully used the word sex to the public instead.

We've been deliberately misled."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3396859-Weve-been-lied-to-about-Single-SEX-wards-since-2010

^Feminism Discussion.
This tops off a really shitty day….

I agree with the article that to assume criminal intent as a first point of risk is discriminatory.

Males carry out the overwhelming majority of violent acts and nearly all acts of sexual violence, and that the overwhelming majority of acts of sexual violence are carried out against females. Assuming criminal intent in this case is no more discriminatory than assuming that an older patient is at increased risk of DVT and putting support stockings on all over-40s, regardless of how youthful they look or feel.

Transgender people, male and female have each a history of sexual violence effected upon them

Evidence?

and so also have a right to access safe care settings at a time when they are most vulnerable.

They will be just as safe in the care setting appropriate to their own sex - if not safer, in the case of transmen.

The protest must continue to focus on acts of sexual violence and the manipulation of circumstances to create opportunities to enter into these crimes.

Exactly. And one of the most effective ways is to keep males out of female spaces.

Not criminalise people who are also vulnerable to being targeted.

Indeed. Such as female patients objecting to males on women's wards and suffering the consequences.

It is in Feminism Chat, as it is about women. Women’s feelings, women’s safety, women’s lives, women’s healthcare, women’s safeguarding - all to do with Feminism.

I agree with the article that to assume criminal intent as a first point of risk is discriminatory. Transgender people, male and female have each a history of sexual violence effected upon them and so also have a right to access safe care settings at a time when they are most vulnerable.

Shame women evidently don't have the right to safe care settings though eh.

2019**

Until 2029, one trust advised medics to withdraw treatment if a woman complained

To be honest even without trans people wards In my local hospital aren't single sex even though they say they are. They're single sex bays.

Dd was 17yo and on an adult general ward and the male patients wander and would come in her bay and behind her curtains, especially at night when there's less staff.

I've worked there and was always escorting men out of the wrong bay.

Trusts are telling staff to treat women who object to this as if they were racists and report them to the police for hate crime. In one case, they were told to deny women treatment if they object to being in bed next to a male sex offender.

Have you spoken to a nurse about feeling uncomfortable and explained what you explained here? Maybe they'll move you.

I don't know a lot about how hospital s work, are males being put in female rooms because there's no beds anywhere else? Is it because of places being covid secure?

What is missed is the ‘single sex’. In science, your sex is fixed. It is gender that is fluid, can be charted on a spectrum.

The logic is single ‘gender’ sections in sensitive settings like hospitals and self care settings like changing rooms or toilets, in addition to single ‘sex’ sections of a unit. This is in the context that wards as such do not exist. There will be an ‘acute medicine’ unit within which there are sections containing six beds. Already the units are mixed settings but organised in smaller specific groups based on need, and could also be gender.

I agree with the article that to assume criminal intent as a first point of risk is discriminatory. Transgender people, male and female have each a history of sexual violence effected upon them and so also have a right to access safe care settings at a time when they are most vulnerable.

The protest must continue to focus on acts of sexual violence and the manipulation of circumstances to create opportunities to enter into these crimes. Not criminalise people who are also vulnerable to being targeted.