Emma Nicholson in the Times

OK, but where is the evidence of the present NHS arrangements causing harm?

Are you blind? Not only are there reported incidences, but it seems we are also now seeing the ‘n+1’ equation in full action.

If only one incident had happened, it means that the policy is ‘causing harm’. If transitioned males need protection and privacy away from other males, go and campaign for safe spaces that are not imposing on female single sex spaces.

And yes, I also witnessed my very ill mother with dementia suffer from a male sharing a four bedroom ward. There was nothing we could do because the country she was in allowed mixed sex wards. But her distress was great. She was a victim of domestic violence.

And no. Transitioned males rarely pass so please don’t try that trope again either.

It simply doesn’t matter, males of any gender should not be accommodated in female wards. Nothing ‘vile’ and nothing ‘prejudiced’ about it. Except it is vile and prejudiced against females to deny single sex wards.

The CQC report (CQC is the regulator, so a reliable source) from 2018 on sexual assault on mixed sex mental health wards provides a great deal of evidence of harm occurring in a mixed sex environment.

www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/20180911c_sexualsafetymh_report.pdf

The first point to note is that the book lacks a consistent sense of purpose, wandering between summarising the law, setting out statutory and non-statutory guidance and policy material, charting the development of the law and social attitudes in this area, and legal analysis. Perhaps as a result, its structure is choppy and repetitious…The book is poorly proof-read, with minor errors sprinkled throughout the text and one instance where a section of nearly a page and a half appears in two different places.

The book’s defects of structure, clarity of purpose and editing might have been forgiven if the authors had been able to offer helpful insights on some of the undoubtedly tricky problems in this area. But the book is equally disappointing in almost all matters of substance.

legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/02/a-practical-guide/

So fuck your "it never happens" because what you really mean is "I don't care who it happens to."

Absolutely spot on. I'm sorry that happened to your mother in law.

So fuck your "it never happens" because what you really mean is "I don't care who it happens to."

Is about the extend anyone needs to understand when reading those posters contributions. It is a common theme these days.

Just a reminder that for some posters no evidence of harm causing is ever enough. Even if every single woman was harmed they would still prioritise male feelings

Last time I was in hospital I was on a woman’s ward - almost all of the women in there were there because of gynae issues. Womens medical issues.

A nurse reported on the GRA evidence submission that on her ward there were four abusive males who either sexually assaulted female patients, masturbated openly or were otherwise abusive to staff and patients and had to be removed by security. This was in a two year period.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4506091-Emma-Nicholson-in-the-Times?msgid=115890430

What about the evidence of my feelings that I don’t want to be on a mixed sex ward? The whole existence of trans people is prefaced on feelings. Is it just that my feelings as a woman don’t count?

I think Robin’s position is essentially ‘women who care aren’t people I care about’.

Male people in supposedly female-only facilities are disconcerting at least, distressing often, and actively dangerous in some cases, to many women and girls.

Mixed sex wards is one thing - but being told that the ward you are in is single sex and it being evident that it isn’t really is just cruel.

However, right now it is not only trans women who are able to identify as women, is it? Who is in this other group of men identifying as women? What are their reasons? Because a man's reasons for identifying as a woman if he is not trans can only be nefarious. Therefore, any man identifying as a woman IS a threat unless there is a sure fire way of knowing whether or not he is trans, isn't he?

I don't think we can ever really know that. And there is a contradiction here with the assertion that anyone who says they are trans is trans, so there can be no fake transwomen. A man is a woman if he says he is.

If a transwoman is any man who says he is, then those who identify as transwomen for nefarious purposes are just as genuinely trans as those who hold a sincere belief that they are women.

If it's only those who hold a sincere belief, how do we know that they sincerely hold that belief? Some people can lie very convincingly.

What is a transwoman? Do we have a definition?

What evidence is collected? Is that evidence permitted to be collected by sex? Or does everyone have to be polite and pretend, in order to receive healthcare and keep their jobs?

I can understand why a trans woman would feel uncomfortable in a men's ward. Why then, is it so difficult for Robin to understand that many women feel uncomfortable accommodating a trans woman in their space. The issue is the same issue. In an ideal situation we would recognise mutual discomfort and campaign together for a solution to meet all needs. I think that is unarguable. Throwing words like vile around is simply a refusal to engage on an adult basis.

I'm baffled. Are transwomen asking for access to female spaces, or are transwomen asking to not be placed in male spaces?

If it's the former... Why?! For what possible reason?

If it's the latter... Surely the claim would be for safety reasons? They don't feel safe with the other men. So how can they not understand this is exactly how women feel and exactly why there are same sex spaces to begin with.

If the NHS suddenly think it's ok to have mixed sex spaces then just open the whole thing up. To hell with it. They'd save a lot of logistics.

OK, but where is the evidence of the present NHS arrangements causing harm?

Which says really all you need to know about the point of engaging further. Obviously someone who believes that females can never have needs that justify the absolute freedoms and supremacy of interest of biological males is not going to agree that females should have rights.

Very well put. Rarely have we been treated to such an unequivocal statement from this poster laying out all out quite so...openly. There is normally at least lip service paid to some semblance of support for women's rights. I wonder what it is that prompted this (involuntary?) disclosure.

I had a family member in a semi-conscious and then all but unconscious state last year getting distressed if she heard a man's voice when she had to be cleaned and changed. It struck me then just how visceral our need for privacy and dignity is and how important female-only intimate care is for us. Especially since she reacted in this way even to the voices of her beloved son and grandsons.

I will never forget seeing that.

Superbly clear and well-reasoned article. Thank you so much Baroness for your courage on this.