Emma Nicholson in the Times

The hospital held their line for an entire year. That is a year of lying to a woman who was raped while in their care. This hasn’t hit the headlines as the newspapers are strongly discouraged by IPSO from reporting on such issues.

Hospitals do not gather the data on this. There is no evidence because they are deliberately preventing the collection of evidence but we know it is happening because we are hearing from the women it is happening to and the nurses that are observing it happening.

Here, we are being asked for proof of harm. Hard to come by, given it is deliberately concealed; & when provided, somehow inadequate.

Or the proof can't be mentioned because of the potential consequences for those who have witnessed the harm. This is from Baroness Nicholson's opening speech:

Finally, I draw to the House’s attention the fact that I have been requested on a number of occasions by the Minister and others to give examples of what I am talking about. This is not at all easy, because all the examples given to me have been given in confidence. Whereas I know who they are—some are medical professionals and some have already had their jobs threatened—I can see why they do not want to be known.

It's quite handy to say 'nobody objects to this rule, and if they do object, they must be mad or bigoted, so we won't listen anyway', isn't it?

Artichoke more than one peer made it very clear that the EA should not be prioritising one protected characteristic over others. And that women have rights that must be respected.

Of course, there seems to be a few willing to stand up and argue against thta simple point, but hopefully more are coming to agree that yes, women do indeed have rights and protections.

This was the first speech after Baroness Nicholson spoke about a woman who had been raped in hospital and was told that there were no men on the ward so this could not have happened.

I suppose this is quite a useful strategy really.

"Mr Johnson, what will you do about the fact that due to gas prices, many of my constituents cannot afford to heat their homes?"

"There is no gas, it does not exist, so this doesn't happen."

"I'd like to ask my learned friend how many people died in speeding related accidents last year and what he plans to do about this?"

"There are no cars, so there is no speeding, this never happens."

The looney land bus stops here.

So very much of what we hear when trans women’s rights & women’s rights are seen to conflict appears - to me - to be upside down/back to front (& not in a charming Edward Lear sort of way).

Here, we are being asked for proof of harm. Hard to come by, given it is deliberately concealed; & when provided, somehow inadequate. Safeguarding means proving (as far as one can) the safety of the measure before implementation - that never happened. As with sport, the burden of proof has been perversely flipped: trans women have invaded women’s spaces* & women are being expected to provide mountains of evidence to prove that they continue to have they have the rights that are enshrined in law as they attempt to evict these gatecrashers.

As well as all the times things are deliberately disguised &/or suppressed, there are going to be innumerable women who are simply never heard. The mere existence of some women of faith is evidence. I wonder if there is some formula for calculating how many women have been so badly traumatised by VAWG that such a situation would prove intolerable to them.

I posted about needing single-sex wards on another thread:

I wouldn’t feel safe sharing a bay with any male person, however they choose to identify, when in hospital. It is bad enough having other women hear - because they inevitably do, unless you’re in a side room - every last detail of your body’s [mal]functions. I have had the experience of another patient’s male relative staying in the Bay (he was not meant to be there, staff were not aware & patient was not - unlike me, as it happens - desperately unwell). I’m sure he was a perfectly nice man with no thought other than for his female relative (& perhaps his own comfort). Unfortunately, my lizard brain was not on board with this analysis. The stress did bring my blood pressure up towards normal, which was much-needed - but I literally couldn’t speak with terror. My nurse was in to me multiple times for obs & to switch over IV bags, I didn’t need to call them even, but I couldn’t speak. The idea is bad enough in the daytime, from a privacy, dignity & neurodivergency point of view. Dismissing my not wanting to be repeatedly retraumatised night after night as part of a “right-wing moral panic” is, to put it politely, grim. Not that it should have to be about any of the many women & girls who are survivors of male violence. Nor those women whose faith prohibits their sharing such a space with a male individual - again, however they identify. It is enough that women simply want to keep the single sex spaces that are there to protect them; & to take the utilitarian approach, which here, of course, means vigorously enforcing women’s rights to single sex spaces (“here” would of course apply to female sport, girls’ schools - & the charity commission making Girlguiding either revert to being single sex for young members or give up the “single gender” nonsense & be openly mixed sex).

Nobody’s asked for my views, my opinion, my input. Unless the Trust in question were to consider it relevant (doubtful, given the indirect relationship) it would take someone trawling these boards to find this evidence. Which some would be all to ready to dismiss, I know, because TWAW & I couldn’t possibly ever know. Tell that to my lizard brain.

• it’s all so neo-colonialist I’m surprised they’re not wearing pith helmets - TRAs make the most zealous Victorian missionaries look positively laid back about evangelising & proselytising though

Presumably he'd written the speech before hearing about the rape on the ward. I think if it were me, I'd have probably made a few changes, but there you go.

It is not a legitimate aim that some people feel uncomfortable sharing accommodation and facilities with people of the opposite birth sex.

Aim? People feeling uncomfortable is an aim?

Either it is acceptable that there are sex segregated facilities that recognise that privacy, dignity, safety and the ability to recover which does involve feeling safe, involve not being alongside those of the opposite sex, or it isnt.

Either there are NO sex segregated facilities because it's never acceptable for anyone to have these feelings, or those feelings are acceptable and there are sex segregated facilities. It's one or the other.

Because how someone of the opposite sex identifies makes absolutely no practical difference to everyone else. They remain of the opposite sex.

And this will in practical terms exclude many females from any care so that these male people can have their preferences and identity recognised and validated.

Is that a legitimate aim? It's a really fantastically sexist and discriminatory one. Again, for the umpteenth time, the EqA2010 have NINE protected characteristics. Not one.

Lord Etherton:
It is not a legitimate aim that some people feel uncomfortable sharing accommodation and facilities with trans people of the opposite birth sex. That would make a nonsense of having the statutory protected characteristic in the first place.

So according to him, any man is a woman if he says he is, and any woman who is uncomfortable about sharing a hospital ward with such a man has no legitimate reason for objecting. And the only reason for having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is so that men can self-identify into women only-spaces.

This was the first speech after Baroness Nicholson spoke about a woman who had been raped in hospital and was told that there were no men on the ward so this could not have happened.

And questions about the fairness of the review raised by Lord Lucas:

'A review carried out by people so committed to a highly politicised organisation—one embracing the extremes of postmodernism in its attitudes to people—is entirely unsatisfactory'

All wound up at 2am.

I should think NB qua NB would not wish to be in a ward with anybody but NBs. Unless they are male or female presenting in which case there might be a preference.

However, if people are of the sort who experience themselves as gender fluid with a shift several times in a day, I doubt the NHS has the capacity to reserve 2 or more beds in different spots.

Baroness Penn basically saying there's no point discussing due to the review being carried out.

As we know, though, that review may not be being carried out in a fair manner:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4506395-Fears-over-flawed-NHS-single-sex-wards-review-carried-out-by-trans-advocate?watched=1&msgid=115918883#115918883

Lord Lucas:

'It is absolutely clear in the definitions in the Equality Act that trans women are men. So if you have a trans woman in a female ward, that is a man in a female ward and that is against what female wards were intended for'

'“Non-binary individuals, who do not identify as being male or female, should also be asked discreetly about their preferences, and allocated to the male or female ward according to their choice.”

Being non-binary is not a protected characteristic, so what on earth is it doing in annexe B?'

Lord Clement-Jones.

Debated at 1am in the HoL, on Hansard now:

hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2022-03-16/debates/84C9B6AA-0214-4CEF-A41D-302373BDC190/HealthAndCareBill

All praise to those who stayed up til an ungodly hour to debate this.

So let me try to understand this.

The person who went through 9 months of pregnancy and have birth - gets the leave that would usually go to a person who just was there for ten mins or so 9 months ago?

So they don’t have any of the aches, pains, sleep deprivation, PND… then just because? But the person who is the biological father (no pregnancy, no swollen ankles, haemorrhoids, high blood pressure, tears n stitches) needs the full maternity leave?

What was the argument for this exactly? Are they going to take on the full ‘baby duties’ whilst the person who gave birth gets to sleep through the night, dodge changing nappies, and go to work (with a need to pump breast milk, soft cushion to sit on, and have physical checkups?).

I cant quite believe that this happened, I mean I can of course , look who sorted it, but did no one actually say hang on, the birth giver needs the time off to recover?

Birth giver was now a 'man' therefore maternity rights do not count.

Keep up! People on here have been pointing out what the erasure of women in law means for several years now. You are just seeing it played out in real life. No matter that there may not have even been risk assessments on the pregnant man in the first place to protect them and their child, now the giver of birth has to return to normal duties just 2 weeks after giving birth.

It is what feminists wanted all along right, equality?

[Don't @ me, I know].

Out of curiosity is it the same couple who had a short video of the "mother" trying to breast feed unsuccessfully and the " father" looking on which I wont link to cos it makes me feel vomitous.

Why would you just want two weeks off after giving birth??? Hooray me, they must’ve thought…

You, Robin, are the one who was recently boasting how you'd sorted out the parental leave arrangements for a confused-sex couple, where the 'man' was the one actually pregnant and going to give birth. You arranged for this person to have the paternity leave (do correct me if I got this wrong) and the ejaculator to have the maternity leave. So the birthing parent' would have two weeks off work after the birth and you seemed to think that fine and dandy

I cant quite believe that this happened, I mean I can of course , look who sorted it, but did no one actually say hang on, the birth giver needs the time off to recover?
Not one person felt able to say this is all kinds of wrong, it's so wrong we wont do it?
All contrary opinions just fell by the wayside because trans?

I mean why did women campaign ever so slowly to increase maternity leave ( I got 4 weeks, and I still suffer now with things that had they had time to heal wouldnt give me grief now) up to a full year if really it's not needed.

Ffs