Zara - male bodies in female changing room

Hey it's all good!

Glad we got that sorted out :) Thank for posting to say.

Incidentally and at risk of this landing badly,

I noticed that we have really similar posting styles.

Fairly long, lots of dates, info, examples etc.
Determination when know correct (in this case we both knew we were correct!) to not back down.

So feel like I have an idea now on what like to be on other side to my posts when that happens.

And it's not very much fun... I'm glad we're on the same 'side'!

Hope you don't take that the wrong way please say wtf if you want!

Fair enough. I think the points are clear, and that's what mattered.

and sorry about the damper on your mood, which at the moment goodness knows nobody needs.

Reading your latest posts *asking

I think this huge disagreement because when I wrote-

'Some of this was put in place decades ago. Single sex wards being the massive example.

'Always single gender. Big political promise at time. The govt told the NHS to always say single sex so as not to confuse the public. 90s I think it was.'

I thought it was obvious (but obviously wasn't!) that when I said 'always single gender' I mean during and after the big govt pledge that was so widely reported! Looking again I think 'at time' and '90s think it was' (actually 2000s) shows what I meant, but yes can see not actually v clear.

I suppose also when been on a thread a fair while chatting a lot and reading others, you can fall into trap of dropping posts in that assume readers will know from previous conversation what you feel about the topic.

So really sorry we were at total cross purposes and while I wrote short post because long previous discussion, (and there were things that pointed to what context),

For sure it could easily be read by someone just thought interesting and clicked, maybe scanned back over few recent posts to get feel, something seen and 'what? That's just nonsense' and naturally comment and off you go. (we went).

Can we draw a line under it?
I am sorry for lack of clarity leading to two people who I think agree having a right old row.

Genuinely. Wasted both our time and well it was a damper on my mood! And I really hate that that's happened tbh.

Hope that ok with you too .

4-bed or 6-bed bays? I remember those too. And because the nurses' station was not in any of them the way it had been at the end of the long wards, it was easier for nurses simply not to notice someone who was in trouble in one of them. A nurse I knew well complained about that.

"Women's surgical" was one long ward with beds in ranks up either side of it, and not a male-bodied (or as we used to say in those days, male) person in sight unless there was a doctor on his rounds. There was one private room up near the nurses' station so they could put people who were likely to die during the night into it and avoid upsetting the other patients. And when someone did die, while I was in, they told any patient who asked that she had been moved into the private room.

My mother was in and out of hospital a lot from the 1960s through to early 2000's due to diabetes and recurrent, severe leg ulcers.

I do not recall any men being on the wards in the 1960s or 1970s.

She was definitely on a mixed sex ward in 1982, although it was a new hospital with the ward divided up into "bays" and I think the bays were single sex, although I could not swear to it.

Not unlike school, gym and shop changing rooms, and public lavatories, in this country having been single-sex until this century.

CheeseMmmm
Asking, I have no idea why you are so intent on proving... Something.

I am fed up because I pointed out something from my own experience which supported your argument and you told me in so many words that "That's not correct" about my simply factual post; you were not there, I was, you were apparently telling me that what happened TO ME did not happen.

I found it hard to credit, but that is what you did.

You don't have to go far to find my posts; all three are on this most recent page of the thread (unless this post goes to the next page; they are on page 19).

I will say again what you clearly misunderstood.

1] Wards in hospitals always used to be single sex until they decided to make them mixed-sex some time in the eighties. Not "single gender"; that word was not used for human beings in the UK and by official organisations all that much forty and fifty years ago, though the prudish USA (which for example calls male hens roosters instead of cocks) may have made that change by then, "sex" being too rude for them.

2] When they realised that mixed-sex wards had been a mistake, they promised to put the wards back how they had been, but were unable to do so for various reasons.

3] What happened in the nineties was as you aver: mixed sex which they lied about.

You yourself said they had promised to BRING BACK single sex wards: how could they have planned to bring back something which had not previously existed? Mixed-sex wards were an innovation; the norm for centuries had been single-sex wards. And still was in the first eighty years of the twentieth century.

I'm sorry to say. This.

I don't want to settle for it either but what can we do?

Me too. Are we too polite as women that we really are losing our voice on this one?

Looking again I said 90s I think it was in my first post.

You missed that? It's a really short post!

Then looked it up and said the big political promise was 2000s not 90s.

And said sorry got it wrong.

Have you homed in on the word always? And ignored context, date 2000s not 90s etc?

Context is very useful.

To say they had ALWAYS been single gender. You didn't think well the context and the dates etc are relevant?

You think I know what the policy was in whatever they had in Roman times? Or the 1800s?

You didn't think hmmm always is BOLD! Maybe I missed something. Oh look! There's other words! They might be useful.

I mean when the big political promise all over the media was! A few decades ago. 90s 00s I said sorry got decade wrong. And still you decide I literally mean back until the birth of the human race?!!?

'They were changed to mixed sex in order to save money by closing a lot of wards, and then gosh, that was a dismal bloody failure so they promised to put it back how it had been. Only they couldn't because they'd closed the wards and used them for something else, so they have been fudging it ever since.

And it was always sex, not gender. It went by type of body, not mental condition.'

'00:12CheeseMmmm

Some of this was put in place decades ago. Single sex wards being the massive example.

Always single gender. Big political promise at time. The govt told the NHS to always say single sex so as not to confuse the public. 90s I think it was.'

Asking, I have no idea why you are so intent on proving... Something.

The fact is.

There were mixed sex wards
Govt big publicity promise etc to make single sex
Even though they weren't. They lied to the public.

Not complicated.

You started off iirc by saying always single sex based on you and your mum experiences in .. 2? 3 hosps or similar.

Then asserted that was true everywhere.

I can see that my mixed sex ward age 18 thing didn't merit any reaction. Apart from I am right!

Do you want me to find your posts from earlier?

Why are you so hung up on this? I mean it's your call obv.

The NHS has for years classified patients by self-declared "gender" in the first instance, the default being "female".

Yes, "F" = "female gender", not "female sex". More stealthy overwriting of "sex" with "gender".

This is explained by Anne Harper-Wright:

Sex, Gender & the NHS Part 1: The “Single-Sex Hospital Wards” that have always been a lie
medium.com/@anneharperwright/sex-gender-the-nhs-1e8f4e6363a6

Sex, Gender & the NHS Part 2: Your Medical Record and your Ladybrain
medium.com/@anneharperwright/sex-gender-the-nhs-bb86b0c3ebb

NHS Policy on “sex = gender” started under the Labour Government in 2008 due to Christine Burns’s influence and continued under the Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition after the May 2010 election.

<a class="break-all" href="https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130123195237/www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_089941" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130123195237/www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_089941

Eliminating Mixed Sex Accommodation
May 2009

webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130104221201/http:/www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_098893.pdf

Sex and Current Gender Input and Display
User Interface Design Guidance
Prepared for
NHS Connecting for Health
Thursday, 25 June 2009
Version 4.0.0.0 Baseline
Prepared by
Clinical Application and Patient Safety Project
NHS CUI Programme Team

This document explains clearly why it is important for Patient Safety to always record birth sex. "Current gender" is also recorded.

1.1 Customer Need

This section explains why the guidance has been created.

The NHS categorises a person's gender in two ways:

• Person Gender Current. Or ‘Current Gender’, which refers to a patient's current gender classification.

• Person Gender at Registration. Or ‘Sex’, which refers to the record of a patient's gender classification at the point of birth registration.

Note

For brevity and clarity, this document uses the term Sex in place of Person Gender at Registration and Current Gender in place of Person Gender Current.

NHS applications input and display a patient's current gender or sex in various contexts. Users may confuse the terms current gender and sex, or assume that they are synonymous. Therefore, it is essential that all NHS applications display and explain current gender and sex terminology and values in a clear and consistent manner.

This document details the recommendations for entering and displaying current gender and sex in NHS applications. NHS clinical applications should use the Current Gender and Sex format to
enhance readability, ensure consistency and to cover all possible variants of Current Gender and Sex. This recommendation provides the best display format because it decreases ambiguity
through the clear presentation of data values, and intuitive, concise labelling of patient Current Gender and Sex. Additionally, this recommendation enables NHS clinical applications to display a predefined, restricted set of unknown or unspecified Current Gender and Sex values.

Figure 1 shows examples of how an NHS application might display Current Gender and Sex values.

The aims of this guidance are to:

• Ensure patients are correctly identified and matched with their patient record by displaying data items consistently

• Allow the status of the patient to be entered and displayed in a legally compliant and patient-sensitive manner

Potential consequences of not adhering to these standards include:

1. The patient is given the wrong treatment as a result of a failure to identify the patient correctly.

1. The patient is given the wrong treatment as a result of a failure to match the patient correctly with their artefacts (samples, letters, specimens, X-rays, and so on).

1. The patient is given the wrong treatment as a result of a failure in communication between staff, or staff not performing or checking procedures correctly.

<a class="break-all" href="https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20150107153859/www.isb.nhs.uk/use/baselines/sexdesign.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20150107153859/www.isb.nhs.uk/use/baselines/sexdesign.pdf

Despite this, we now have the dangerous situation where the only "sex" code using in the NHS coding system is for Wards, not patients.

This is due to lobbying from trans advocacy organisations and also explains how the "single sex" wards promised in 2009 were actually "single gender".

The "sex" code for Wards was matched with the "Current Gender" code for patients, not the code for "Person Gender at Registration. Or ‘Sex’, which refers to the record of a patient's gender classification at the point of birth registration".

You said they promised to "bring back single sex wards". They could not have brought back something which had not been the case before. What I said in no way contradicted your 1990s recollection; it was about what had been the case well before that decade.

If you can find a hospital in the fifties or sixties, or come to that seventies, that had mixed-sex wards for anything other than immediate emergency cases (which would be found a bed in a single-sex ward once they'd been seen) I would be surprised. It would have been noticed by the husbands of women who were forced to share sleeping accommodation with male strangers if nobody else! and complained about, and given as another reason never to go into hospital unless you had to. My parents were both horrified by the very idea when it was brought home to them in their late seventies that this mixed-sex accommodation was what might be done to them if they got seriously ill.

Just looked this was 2010ish.

Not 90s, apologies

The 90s. Not the 50s.

Is this based on anything other than your own experiences in a couple of hosps?

If so how can you be so sure?

Yes, they said they would unmix the wards again, but they didn't do it.

(I am trying to imagine a 1950s or 1960s Matron faced with suggestion of mixed-sex wards. I rather tend to pity the person making the suggestion.)

Are you basing your confidence they always single sex on your own experiences with a few hosps?

That's not correct.

In the early 90s iirc there was a huge political promise to bring back single sex wards.

It was a big thing in media for a fair while.

Govt bought in tracking and I think penalties for hosps that still had mixed sex wards (where suitable obv not high dependency wards etc).

There are documents with NHS and govt discussing.
On MN somewhere not sure how easy to Google.

NHS saying are you sure you mean single gender not sex.
Govt saying yes. Everyone to refer to single sex though, so as not to confuse the public.

I stayed on a mixed sex ward in Central London in 1994 when I was 18.

About 7 men and me.

It was not a comfortable experience for me at all.

Wards were all single sex in Reading in the 1950s and 60s when my mother was going into hospital sometimes. Wards were single sex in Bristol during the 1970s and early 80s. I know; I was in and out of Women's Surgical 1 for a while, and it and Women's Surgical 2 were not the same places as Men's Surgical 1 and 2. They were not even on the same floor of the hospital. (Women's were upstairs, inconveniently far from vending machines. Of course they were.)

They were changed to mixed sex in order to save money by closing a lot of wards, and then gosh, that was a dismal bloody failure so they promised to put it back how it had been. Only they couldn't because they'd closed the wards and used them for something else, so they have been fudging it ever since.

And it was always sex, not gender. It went by type of body, not mental condition.

Some of this was put in place decades ago. Single sex wards being the massive example.

Always single gender. Big political promise at time. The govt told the NHS to always say single sex so as not to confuse the public. 90s I think it was.

What's that old saw about it being easier to explain afterwards than get permission first?

It ought not to be allowed to work in this case.