Charity rejects disabled child for mother's GC views

Do you actually think that the hospital, the police or the victim would be giving details about a current criminal case to be spread on the internet?

Pop over to the NHS audit threads and #educateyourself. NHS hospitals have policies which explicitly state that staff have to pretend males are females if the males say so, and have to lie to the female patients who question that, or they will be disciplined and reported to the police for a hate crime. So yes the actual nurses who treated the patients would lie to cover it up, or risk losing their jobs.

You seem determined to believe that this was a data snafu, 'ooops we said James was Jane, soz'. It wasn't, it was deliberate policy to lie that men who said they were women, were women. Many NHS hospitals have not rescinded these illegal policies despite FWS.

The more you post the more ill informed on this topic you seem to be TBH. Yet you don't seem to want to learn from those who've been in the trenches on this for years.

I bet the commonality will be that these parents all hold pretty rigid gender views despite their belief that they do not.

Absolutely not. All the parents I have heard on this subject whose children have rejected them are accepting of various "gender expressions" but are concerned about where trans identity is leading their children - hormones and surgery (typically mastectomies). Their children (our children) have rejected us, or at least distanced themselves from us, for not affirming enthusiastically.

So I read this and had some questions because it seemed to lack some details. So I put it in Chat GPT and they said:

You said:
Did this happen: Hospital told police patient was not raped because alleged attacker was transgender
ChatGPT said:
You're asking whether the claim is true that a hospital told police a patient was not raped because the alleged attacker was transgender. Here's what actually happened, based on credible reports:
What’s the story?
In March 2022, Baroness Emma Nicholson of Winterbourne spoke in the House of Lords (UK Parliament) about an incident which had occurred approximately one year earlier.
She stated that a female patient reported being raped. The police contacted the unnamed hospital, which reportedly responded that the crime “could not have happened” because “there was no male in the hospital” — implying that the alleged attacker was a transgender man and therefore not considered male under their reasoning. YahooGB News.
According to Nicholson, this denial persisted for nearly a year, until CCTV footage, along with witness and staff testimony, clearly showed that a male-bodied individual had indeed been present—and the assault had taken place. YahooGB Newsmedicalbrief.co.za.
Nicholson linked this incident to what she called "Annex B," part of an NHS policy that directs staff to assign patients to single-sex wards based on gender identity, rather than biological sex. She argued this policy caused staff to mislead or deny the presence of male-bodied individuals on female wards. YahooSkeptics Stack ExchangeGB News.
Is the claim verified?
The only source of this claim is the speech by Baroness Nicholson in Parliament. Media coverage (e.g., by GB News, MedicalBrief, Ground News, etc.) largely echoed what she said, but no public hospital name or official documents have been released to independently verify the claim. National ReviewYahooGB Newsmedicalbrief.co.zaGround News.
A thorough examination on Skeptics Stack Exchange noted that the incident rests solely on Nicholson’s statement, and that media reports simply repeated it. They pointed out that there has been no further documentation or confirmation from the hospital or NHS beyond what was said in Parliament. Skeptics Stack Exchange.
Summary
What was claimed: A woman’s rape claim was initially dismissed by hospital staff/administration to police because the alleged attacker was trans and “there was no male in the hospital.”
Evidence: First voiced in a 2022 House of Lords speech by Baroness Nicholson, supported by media reports quoting her directly.
Verification: There has been no public confirmation from the hospital, NHS, or police beyond Baroness Nicholson’s parliamentary remarks. No hospital is named, and no official documentation has emerged.
So yes—the incident was reported to have happened, but it is based solely on one politician’s account without independent corroboration or official confirmation.

So because it is something that only one person reported to have happened and there are no verified sources of information to confirm it, I am left with questions.

For instance, who were these police officers told that there was no male? The management of the hospital. Specific nurses on that ward? Who checked this and how was it checked? It leads me back to a list with patient names and an F next to the name and someone high up just saying there were only women in the ward that day. Not the actual nurses who treated the victim and the perpetrator lying to cover it up.

The thing that I don't understand about this the most is that you don't have to identify as male to be convicted of rape, you only need to have a penis. So by today's standards, anyone with a penis can be convicted of rape if they penetrate someone without consent irrespective of their "gender identity". It leaves the possibility that the victim was sexually assaulted rather than being raped, and was reported in another case. This could be what she is referring to but in that case, it doesn't seem as if the person was not convicted of rape due to their gender identity, but because of what did and what didn't occur. It was a sexual assault.

Not estranged because they don't share beliefs about gender. Estranged because of their heresy in denying the belief system. Many parents whose stories I have heard directly (literally dozens) have not rejected their children, but have rejected their children's ideology; in return their children have rejected them, hence the estrangement. I know parents whose stories tell how they have disagreed on religion, on politics, on philosophy, on lifestyle, and it was only when the child took on a trans identity that the child cut himself or herself of from their parents. The ideology appears to demand this

Yes but remember that there are a lot of transgendered people who are estranged from their families because they dont share their beliefs about gender. So it isn't like everybody who identifies as trans was raised by a parent who was all for the ideology by any means. But I bet the commonality will be that these parents all hold pretty rigid gender views despite their belief that they do not.

So I read this and had some questions because it seemed to lack some details. So I put it in Chat GPT and they said:

You said:
Did this happen: Hospital told police patient was not raped because alleged attacker was transgender
ChatGPT said:
You're asking whether the claim is true that a hospital told police a patient was not raped because the alleged attacker was transgender. Here's what actually happened, based on credible reports:
What’s the story?
In March 2022, Baroness Emma Nicholson of Winterbourne spoke in the House of Lords (UK Parliament) about an incident which had occurred approximately one year earlier.
She stated that a female patient reported being raped. The police contacted the unnamed hospital, which reportedly responded that the crime “could not have happened” because “there was no male in the hospital” — implying that the alleged attacker was a transgender man and therefore not considered male under their reasoning. YahooGB News.
According to Nicholson, this denial persisted for nearly a year, until CCTV footage, along with witness and staff testimony, clearly showed that a male-bodied individual had indeed been present—and the assault had taken place. YahooGB Newsmedicalbrief.co.za.
Nicholson linked this incident to what she called "Annex B," part of an NHS policy that directs staff to assign patients to single-sex wards based on gender identity, rather than biological sex. She argued this policy caused staff to mislead or deny the presence of male-bodied individuals on female wards. YahooSkeptics Stack ExchangeGB News.
Is the claim verified?
The only source of this claim is the speech by Baroness Nicholson in Parliament. Media coverage (e.g., by GB News, MedicalBrief, Ground News, etc.) largely echoed what she said, but no public hospital name or official documents have been released to independently verify the claim. National ReviewYahooGB Newsmedicalbrief.co.zaGround News.
A thorough examination on Skeptics Stack Exchange noted that the incident rests solely on Nicholson’s statement, and that media reports simply repeated it. They pointed out that there has been no further documentation or confirmation from the hospital or NHS beyond what was said in Parliament. Skeptics Stack Exchange.
Summary
What was claimed: A woman’s rape claim was initially dismissed by hospital staff/administration to police because the alleged attacker was trans and “there was no male in the hospital.”
Evidence: First voiced in a 2022 House of Lords speech by Baroness Nicholson, supported by media reports quoting her directly.
Verification: There has been no public confirmation from the hospital, NHS, or police beyond Baroness Nicholson’s parliamentary remarks. No hospital is named, and no official documentation has emerged.
So yes—the incident was reported to have happened, but it is based solely on one politician’s account without independent corroboration or official confirmation.

So because it is something that only one person reported to have happened and there are no verified sources of information to confirm it, I am left with questions.

For instance, who were these police officers told that there was no male? The management of the hospital. Specific nurses on that ward? Who checked this and how was it checked? It leads me back to a list with patient names and an F next to the name and someone high up just saying there were only women in the ward that day. Not the actual nurses who treated the victim and the perpetrator lying to cover it up.

The thing that I don't understand about this the most is that you don't have to identify as male to be convicted of rape, you only need to have a penis. So by today's standards, anyone with a penis can be convicted of rape if they penetrate someone without consent irrespective of their "gender identity". It leaves the possibility that the victim was sexually assaulted rather than being raped, and was reported in another case. This could be what she is referring to but in that case, it doesn't seem as if the person was not convicted of rape due to their gender identity, but because of what did and what didn't occur. It was a sexual assault.

I made those assumptions based on the mother's behaviour. As I said, I'd have left it blank and felt I'd said enough. She's one of those people who really don't know where and when.

So I read this and had some questions because it seemed to lack some details. So I put it in Chat GPT and they said:

You said:
Did this happen: Hospital told police patient was not raped because alleged attacker was transgender
ChatGPT said:
You're asking whether the claim is true that a hospital told police a patient was not raped because the alleged attacker was transgender. Here's what actually happened, based on credible reports:
What’s the story?
In March 2022, Baroness Emma Nicholson of Winterbourne spoke in the House of Lords (UK Parliament) about an incident which had occurred approximately one year earlier.
She stated that a female patient reported being raped. The police contacted the unnamed hospital, which reportedly responded that the crime “could not have happened” because “there was no male in the hospital” — implying that the alleged attacker was a transgender man and therefore not considered male under their reasoning. YahooGB News.
According to Nicholson, this denial persisted for nearly a year, until CCTV footage, along with witness and staff testimony, clearly showed that a male-bodied individual had indeed been present—and the assault had taken place. YahooGB Newsmedicalbrief.co.za.
Nicholson linked this incident to what she called "Annex B," part of an NHS policy that directs staff to assign patients to single-sex wards based on gender identity, rather than biological sex. She argued this policy caused staff to mislead or deny the presence of male-bodied individuals on female wards. YahooSkeptics Stack ExchangeGB News.
Is the claim verified?
The only source of this claim is the speech by Baroness Nicholson in Parliament. Media coverage (e.g., by GB News, MedicalBrief, Ground News, etc.) largely echoed what she said, but no public hospital name or official documents have been released to independently verify the claim. National ReviewYahooGB Newsmedicalbrief.co.zaGround News.
A thorough examination on Skeptics Stack Exchange noted that the incident rests solely on Nicholson’s statement, and that media reports simply repeated it. They pointed out that there has been no further documentation or confirmation from the hospital or NHS beyond what was said in Parliament. Skeptics Stack Exchange.
Summary
What was claimed: A woman’s rape claim was initially dismissed by hospital staff/administration to police because the alleged attacker was trans and “there was no male in the hospital.”
Evidence: First voiced in a 2022 House of Lords speech by Baroness Nicholson, supported by media reports quoting her directly.
Verification: There has been no public confirmation from the hospital, NHS, or police beyond Baroness Nicholson’s parliamentary remarks. No hospital is named, and no official documentation has emerged.
So yes—the incident was reported to have happened, but it is based solely on one politician’s account without independent corroboration or official confirmation.

So because it is something that only one person reported to have happened and there are no verified sources of information to confirm it, I am left with questions.

For instance, who were these police officers told that there was no male? The management of the hospital. Specific nurses on that ward? Who checked this and how was it checked? It leads me back to a list with patient names and an F next to the name and someone high up just saying there were only women in the ward that day. Not the actual nurses who treated the victim and the perpetrator lying to cover it up.

The thing that I don't understand about this the most is that you don't have to identify as male to be convicted of rape, you only need to have a penis. So by today's standards, anyone with a penis can be convicted of rape if they penetrate someone without consent irrespective of their "gender identity". It leaves the possibility that the victim was sexually assaulted rather than being raped, and was reported in another case. This could be what she is referring to but in that case, it doesn't seem as if the person was not convicted of rape due to their gender identity, but because of what did and what didn't occur. It was a sexual assault.

Yes but remember that there are a lot of transgendered people who are estranged from their families because they dont share their beliefs about gender. So it isn't like everybody who identifies as trans was raised by a parent who was all for the ideology by any means. But I bet the commonality will be that these parents all hold pretty rigid gender views despite their belief that they do not.

The hospital is not the subject of this thread, but I will comment that then and now, excuses for the management only work, if you accept that casual level of investigation into all rapes.

Suppose the ward had been truly female-only, and the rapist had been a man who sneaked onto the grounds and posed as a patient in the early hours of the morning?

Would it be acceptable to tell his victim that she couldn't have been raped because all the people documented to be present were female? Would it be normal practice? I don't think it would. I think it's standard to investigate for intruders.

So how come hospital management just shut it down with "no men present" that time? Well, I'd say it's because they knew who she meant.

Here you are:
Hospital told police patient was not raped because alleged attacker was transgender

This thread is absolutely WILD. Thank you all you wonderful wims who know about safeguarding and protecting children's understanding of reality. But truly, it must be exhausting.

Do you not think that the response from the organisation was a tiny bit over the top? The mother had written "Seriously?" on the form. That triggered a phone call to tell her off for questioning their inclusivity. I have no doubt that they were looking for repentance for her blatant transphobia in being disrespectful to their gender beliefs.

No, she wasn't safeguarding her child by stating her sociopolitical views on a form asking the personal details of her child for a summer camp.

She might have been if she enquired about mixed sex environments and how that would be handled. She chose to make this about her and what she has to say on the matter rather than practical steps to safeguard her child. Now her child isn't going at all.

Yep. However, women on this board have, over the years, helped to inform people about safeguarding, and help prompt people to consider why it's important, why/how people try to circumvent it, what the risks are, etc.

One of the main things I've learned is that safeguarding is never 'done'. It's always necessary to keep asking questions, challenging narratives, educating, informing, etc. (oneself as much as others)

This thread is absolutely WILD. Thank you all you wonderful wims who know about safeguarding and protecting children's understanding of reality. But truly, it must be exhausting.

‘Especially today, in the ways we communicate, it may not always be clear whether someone is male or female. Such as right now online.’

It funny, because right now, I’m not actually finding it unclear at all. It seems pretty obvious.

If someone was referring to me and said "he said", it would be fine for me to say that those aren't my pronouns because I am a woman.

Nobody would say that unless they been never in gender identity. Any ordinary, rational woman would simply say "I'm a woman" without any of the 'my pronouns' nonsense.

'My pronouns' - what complete and utter nonsense. My pronouns are the ones I utter about myself. Telling other people what pronouns to use, particularly telling others to deny the evidence of their senses and use incorrect, wrong-sex pronouns, is nothing more than coercive control.

You are claiming that you would not have a problem with your child
• being taught to lie to you
• being told-off or sanctioned for correctly sexing a child
• being instructed by adults to obey instructions without question when you know said staff would openly lie knowing your child understood they were being lied to.

And you dont see any safeguarding problems wih that or with organisations who have those actions as core ethos values.