Emma Nicholson in the Times

We might not have much of an opportunity to see RMW in action during the proceedings.

I assume that was at the couple’s own earnest wish, not forced on them.Whether the transman/mother realised in retrospect that maternity leave was needed to recover from pregnancy and birth is another matter.

And even if they did, they wouldn’t be the only person to work against their own interests. People do some strange things in pursuit of a deeply held belief.

Does the Baroness know about the above-mentioned instance of maternity leave being given to an ejaculator? And the person who gave birth got paternity leave?

Thank goodness peers are continuing to pursue this.

For those who may not have seen this from over 4 years ago:
"Terrified patient treated like ‘transphobic bigot’"

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d44f95cc-f8ab-11e7-9644-5d5d116c6d89?shareToken=5878ce2d3677e59455984b1e9a410248

This is what women staying no looks like.

A fiction is being imposed on other patients, their concerns disregarded, even being smeared as bigotry. Nurses are left in a difficult position.

This is insulting to patients and a safeguarding disaster.

For 35 years, debates in parliament have said there should be single-sex wards. There was a huge fight 20 years ago to stop mixed-sex wards. Yet here we are: the NHS, captured by lobbyists, is implementing, outside its authority, a one-sided policy.

These hard-won rights are vital for patients at their most vulnerable.

Thank you, Baroness.

The answer is no.

maybe though we are being treated to posts from a visitor using MN to see what is happening in a tribunal and this is a weak attempt at distraction from seeing Ben Cooper QC at work. Getting ready for next month (or have I got the date wrong!)

Once again natal women are being asked to demonstrate what harm it does them to share their spaces with male people when they are vulnerable.
Why is the onus on us? If one group wants to change the current legal position (I.e that those born male even if they have a GRC that says they’re now female can lawfully be excluded from single sex spaces) then why isn’t the onus on them to demonstrate why the change should be made?
And no, mantras such as ‘TWAW’ or because of internal feelings of wanting to be included are not sufficient to warrant the loss of privacy, dignity and safety for women or in some cases exclusion from their own spaces.

An admirably clear piece by the Baroness. Hopefully the powers that be in the NHS will start to realise their massive blunder.

I wonder if it would be possible for people to ask for their medical records to be corrected to fill in the sex field and get rid of the 'gender' one, unless the latter was relevant supplementary information?

And you have to wonder what sort of mindset then leads them to imagine that their opinion about anything to do with women should even be heard, much less addressed.

Oh no. We don't have to wonder really. We pretty much all know what kind of male does that.

And you have to wonder what sort of mindset then leads them to imagine that their opinion about anything to do with women should even be heard, much less addressed.

The policy is surely, very simply 'no males'.

Two words.

What's the name for someone demanding statistics that they and their mates have ensured are unavailable? As even the most dangerous of male born sex offenders is classed as a woman by the NHS if they say they're one then all incidents will be hushed up recorded as committed by a woman.

And with that you want to alter a policy for every trans person’s n in every NHS hospital?

No. We actually want the NHS to apply the law, their own policies as they actually are. Which is what Baroness Nicholson is saying.

Come on Robin. How many women must be harmed before you can agree that no man belongs in single sex female spaces?

Someone who is unable to extend compassion to women in this situation must, I think, have one of the following motivations:

Women's distress and fear and concern is something they are unable to hear, understand, or unable to imagine. Even when it's spelled out.

Women's distress, fear and concern is something that they don't care about. Even when the law makes provision for it.

The last possibility I hesitate to include because it is, I hope, unlikely: Women's distress, fear and concern is something that they enjoy.

As for the idea that the existing evidence of harm is not enough evidence of harm, bring me more harmed women…well, that’s just grim.

It says such as lot about RMW doesn't it. I especially note that in one of the incidents discussed, there was a very vulnerable young woman in a psychiatric facility and that leaves RMW unmoved.

It's a personal branding choice.

When women say no, and the response is:

• to keep badgering with "but but but"
• to exclude us from decision making
• to lament that some of us unfortunately HAD TO be asked
• to ignore the clear evidence of the dangers

And so on. I cannot help but wonder why "no means no" is railed against, and sneakily worked around at every opposition.

And as a woman who's learned from a very young age about the dangers males present to me - and experienced it - and who knows that loophole after loophole will be found and exploited...well I wonder why when all this is presented, some people cannot or will not take no for an answer.

If you think women and girls don't have the right to say no then you've no place in discussions about our dignity and safety and rights.

HTH.

Unless I've got this all wrong? Someone tell me I've got it wrong, because I really am having trouble believing it.

No. You are not wrong.

What sort of person would seek to remove the birth recovery time from a woman and send her back to work early, so that the male can take her recovery time and use it for himself. That's fucking grim.