Emma Nicholson in the Times

At her last attempt to promote this vile amendment, AN was asked by the government Minister what evidence she had to justify the need for this exercise in prejudice.

The equality act allows provision for single sex spaces. I will assume you only think its vile because this provision doesn't give born males a free pass to single sex spaces for women.

For anyone claiming that there is no evidence of harm, I need to point out that the policy in many hospitals is to record trans people as the sex they select on entry (obviously some may have already changed it in their NHS records - there are no barriers to this). This policy includes those who identify as female ‘on a part-time basis’.

Therefore there is no record kept of how many trans people are placed on which ward. Any attacks/harassment by the individual will be recorded as carried out by a female and all evidence ‘disappears’.

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.

Obviously the policies state that if staff admit to anyone else that a patient is trans or male then the policy states that they will be disciplined and/or face police action.

Any assaults that required police action will have been recorded as committed by a female as per policy in any force areas. As we know there is a 98.2% chance they WON’T be prosecuted, however good the evidence.

We know that women are actually being harmed by this yet policymakers are enabling it instead of trying to prevent harm.

It surely doesn't take that much imagination to see that anybody admitted to hospital is in a vulnerable state. You lose your dignity and privacy as you are wearing a flimsy robe, handled and examined by a series of complete strangers, worried about whatever is happening in the body to warrant medical attention, having to deal with excretion and hygiene in a semi-public space shared with other complete strangers, and so on and so forth.

It's unconscionable to add to that the additional anxiety of being in a mixed sex space while one is so vulnerable.

There must be many patients from religious groups who are not allowed by their religion to share space in this way with members of the opposite sex from outside their family. What about their needs? That's a protected characteristic.

I count myself fortunate that I gave birth in the early 90s before the NHS started allowing new fathers to spend the night on the postnatal ward with partner and baby. I would have hated that. If the NHS offered private rooms for every family, fair enough, but my understanding is that this happens on wards where the beds are separated by flimsy curtains, so women are struggling with breastfeeding and shuffling to the loo to deal with lochia at one of the most vulnerable times of their lives in full view of various strange men.

We deserve better.

“Vile” dear me, what an hysterical over reaction to the point that single sex wards are perfectly legal & that the NHS can’t disregard that just because they’re stonewalled to the eyeballs & beyond

it has a duty of honesty and candour to all patients, not some above others.
How is it honest, how is it best practice, how is it medically justifiable to ignore the sex of any patients?

who believes that females can never have needs that justify limiting* the absolute freedoms and supremacy of interest of biological males is not going to agree that females should have rights.

At her last attempt to promote this vile amendment, AN was asked by the government Minister what evidence she had to justify the need for this exercise in prejudice.

That 'vile' and 'prejudiced' thing would be women's equality, access and inclusion.

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.

They will also never agree that there is evidence or need or anything else from the female half of the human race: as witnessed by the many, many threads trying to explain the issues to this poster. They are absolutely unable to hear or care about anyone female or ever find any reason why their voice should be granted credence.

In my mind actually that is vile prejudice against females. Particularly when the justification is supposed to be that sex is irrelevant and no identifier of women.

It's absolutely the identifier of the subordinate sub class, no one seems remotely confused about that.

Hard to fathom the prejudices one must have to think that women and girls should be forced against their will to lie (partially undressed) in the same room as men.

Here is something that I think is always missed when we are tiptoeing around safeguarding regarding this issue.

Trans women, of course, need protections and safety themselves, of course they do, and a right to live as they wish. I don't think trans women, just because they are trans, pose a threat to women and if there was a process by which they could be assessed against a set of criteria, I would have no problem at all sharing safe spaces with them (though I only speak for myself, not other women).

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?

We do the same for teachers. Anyone who says they are a teacher when they are not must be doing it for nefarious reasons. Anyone who says they are a police officer when they are not must only have nefarious reasons.

Why is this huge safeguarding chasm so difficult to bridge.

the need for this exercise in prejudice.

Could you explain what exactly you see as "prejudice" here? What belief is unsubstantiated by evidence/reality?

I do hope you're not suggesting that men who don't say they're women are more of a risk and more threatening to women than men who do say they're women?

That would seem immensely prejudiced against us, and demonstrably untrue, and I will not accept that unevidenced slur from you.

I accept that men are a risk to women, because of the indisputable evidence for that, and I accept that a limited number of female-only spaces are a practical least-harm solution.

I will never accept that "transwomen" are not at least the same risk and need to be treated the same way as other men as long as either (a) "transwoman" merely means "any man who says he's a woman" - which appears to be de facto policy here, or (b) the stats show typical male-pattern violent and sexual offending rates (or worse), which they do.

If you want to limit transwomen to a strictly defined group with strict gatekeeping, so women could be reassured that these weren't random blokes, and can then could demonstrate actual female-pattern behaviour from that gatekept subset, maybe we could talk. But that's not the real world.

So it's has to be hard exclusion of self-identified "transwomen". That is the inevitable consequence of "self ID". If anyone can opt into the group, the group cannot receive special privileges.

And all of this is permitted by the Equality Act - even "transwomen" with GRCs can be excluded from female-only spaces.

Because they're female-only. (duh) And the authors of the EA2010 knew perfectly well that getting a GRC did not make a male female.

Well done Baroness.

Adooting a 'lady' name and 'lady' clothes does not transform males into females.

Robin it is males not respecting female only spaces which is vile. Not Emma Nicholson’s amendment.

''Vile amendment'' 🙄

Give your head a wobble, there's nothing vile about considering the needs of women.

This is vile 👇

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nhs-gaslights-women-who-want-single-sex-wards-as-transphobes-claims-nurse-9xntx69p5

Speaking at a fringe meeting at the Conservative Party conference on Tuesday, Helyar said doctors working for at least one trust had been told to “reiterate . . . that there are no men present” if questioned why a transgender patient was on a single-sex ward

--

" In one mental health trust, a male who identifies as a woman was placed on a female ward with observation. This patient complained that the observation was discriminatory, and it was removed.
“ The patient went on to sexually assault two women patients. The same patient was placed on a female ward on a subsequent admission, and each time assaulted women. Staff concerns were ignored "

Baroness Nicholson is doing a fantastic job raising these issues.

I have no interest in the opinions of men who object to women having single-sex spaces. Their motives are never focused on women's needs.

My hidden post quoted the other hidden post. I'm not reproducing the archive link to the Telegraph item so my post is below.

Earlier this month, Dr Brady contacted Trans NHS asking for its input and was asked whether groups which have advocated for female-only spaces had been consulted.

He responded: “Some of those groups have been engaged with. To be honest we had no choice and there have been many more LGBT organisations (Stonewall, Mermaids, LGBT Foundation etc), intersectional organisations and organisations representing protected characteristics who have contributed very helpfully.”

The contempt for women is so strong here and it shouldn't surprise me. However, I am naive enough to think somebody in Brady's position who has signed up to Nolan Principles should care about transparency and fairness and setting aside personal ideology when Brady bears in mind that one of the principles is selflessness.

www.good-governance.org.uk/publications/insights/the-nolan-principles

Telegraph article details:
Fears over ‘flawed’ NHS single-sex wards review carried out by ‘trans advocate’
LGBT adviser Dr Michael Brady told campaigners in an email that rules that allow patients to self-identify their gender would not be changed
By
Hayley Dixon,
SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
15 March 2022 • 10:00pm

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/15/fears-flawed-nhs-single-sex-wards-review-carried-trans-advocate/

Thank you for that Tiphaine. It's worth remembering that some NHS Trusts have special policies for ensuring that even convicted sex offenders (like Julie I mentioned earlier) can access new victims in women's wards aided and abetted by NHS staff. And they don't see anything wrong with it

[quote Tiphaine]Article focusing on Dr Brady's conflict of interests calling into question the validity of the current NHS review into forcing mixed sex wards:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/15/fears-flawed-nhs-single-sex-wards-review-carried-trans-advocate/

And archive: archive.ph/hAzF4[/quote]
Earlier this month, Dr Brady contacted Trans NHS asking for its input and was asked whether groups which have advocated for female-only spaces had been consulted.

He responded: “Some of those groups have been engaged with. To be honest we had no choice and there have been many more LGBT organisations (Stonewall, Mermaids, LGBT Foundation etc), intersectional organisations and organisations representing protected characteristics who have contributed very helpfully.”

The contempt for women is so strong here and it shouldn't surprise me. However, I am naive enough to think somebody in Brady's position who has signed up to Nolan Principles should care about transparency and fairness and setting aside personal ideology when Brady bears in mind that one of the principles is selflessness.

www.good-governance.org.uk/publications/insights/the-nolan-principles

Did anyone work out why we can't see the comments any more when accessing a shared article from an iPhone?

Article focusing on Dr Brady's conflict of interests calling into question the validity of the current NHS review into forcing mixed sex wards:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/15/fears-flawed-nhs-single-sex-wards-review-carried-trans-advocate/

And archive: archive.ph/hAzF4

Who is AN?

Thank you for the link, Ig. As always, much appreciated.

(Ignores the sea lion)

Commentators doing a grand job.

I expect the NHS specifically arranged for this trans paedophile with many previous sex offences to be in a women's hospital ward while they used the wi fi to watch their extensive collection of child sex abuse images. Women are considered bigots if we fail to welcome Julie sleeping alongside us in hospital

thebridgehead.ca/2020/07/17/bbc-reports-on-disturbing-female-pedophilia-case-the-catch-shes-not-really-female/

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3830943-aibu-to-think-that-a-paedophile-s-sex-is-actually-relevant-when-they-re-convicted

If it wishes to recognise gender self-ID it has a duty to report to parliament

Is this a legal duty?