Well this was totally predictable

There's suddenly been an uptick in unfamilar usernames using transactivist posting styles in FWR, either posting JAQ-off threads or posting in existing threads about relatively trivial matters, like pronouns at work or butch-looking women being challenged in the loos.

I wonder what they are trying to distract us from?

I wonder which thread they are trying to push down the Active list and off FWR's first page?

@OverlyFragrant May I suggest that you ask MNHQ to change the thread title to something like "Trans-identifying woman raped on men's psych ward" so that it's obvious what it's about?

Intensive care, and I think HDU, is except from the single sex ward regulations because patients aren't mobile or using loos and showers, because staffing ratios are much higher so they're never unobserved, and because both the staff and equipment are too specialist to make it feasible to double up.

Agreed.

I recall that when my husband had his triple bypass, both Intensive Care and the High Dependency Unit were mixed sex.

Do we know which trust? Because Mumsnetters did an EDI audit of every NHS trust recently...

Ah, as in the sarcastic form of "transactivists keep saying that people can't tell, but they can".

You missed the fourth, and IMO most likely, scenario:
d) "I can see she's a woman, but she says she's a man, and if I go against the policy and she complains, I'll get disciplined and fired".

Aka people weighing up the risk to their jobs from safeguarding her versus the risk to her from not safeguarding her, and choosing their jobs because a clear conscience doesn't pay the rent.

I wasn't meaning it to be answered. It was a rhetorical question.

It means if you have a condition which is perhaps less common and there is less specialist provision, they will put you in that ward.

For example you have a serious neurological condition and need to be cared for by neurological specialists, but there's only demand for a ward of six patients and there's not enough demand to open a male and female ward safely they'll shove you in together. The 'best interests' basically means they can't afford to operate two specialist female /male rrwards but you need specialist car.

I have had a lengthy conversation about the matter with BIL who high in the NHS food chain over the issue.

Unfortunately this is being used as an excuse to provide adequate and appropriate services in some cases too.

It's in the report: "No adam's apple, no adam's apple".

It's the wording, in that case. It would've been preferable if they said when it is unavoidable due to medical needs.

There are some examples in the single sex wards guidance, I think (which is really quite a sensible document apart from Annex B undermining the entire thing).

If someone needs to be on specialist ward - for example they need particular equipment that's not generally available - and there's no space in the specialist ward for their sex but is in the opposite-sex ward, then it would be in their best interests to ensure they have the optimum medical treatment. That would be an allowable exception, rather than prioritising single-sex accommodation and therefore putting them at higher medical risk.

[Edit] The intention was for this to be very much the exception, and to be a reportable incident even if justified.

How is saying women can commit rape more up to date, pray? Most of the world see rape as penetration with a penis of the vagina, anus or mouth. And penis havers (aka men) are the only perpetrators of this crime.

I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that because men rape each other in prison it is understandable or ok for rape to happen in a psychiatric ward?
(NB in the UK women cannot be charged with rape, only sexual assault or with aiding rape. Rape requires a penis.)

We, quite rightly, know nothing of these men’s medical conditions.

I never said I was referring to these men and sexualised behaviour can be part of someone’s presentation.

There is absolutely nothing in the article that suggests these males who committed the crime lacked mental capacity.

I’ll repeat myself from an earlier post, I work in NHS mental health (In England, which is where this crime took place) just because a patient is detained under the Mental Health Act- does NOT mean that they do not have mental capacity.

Men usually aren’t detained under the Mental Health Act for “sexualised behaviour”. People are detained under the MHA and admitted to secure units because there is a significant risk to themselves/others due to a severe mental health condition. Most are usually on a Section 2, which patients can be detained up to 28 days for assessment and acute treatment.

A report on the news tonight about Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS [ the top of the tree for the most batshit set of policies I have read] who were castigated for failures in the care of a patient who killed 3 people in a knife attack in Nottingham in June 2023. Not only have they failed to improve and still in special measures but are continuing to accommodating patients in dormitory style accommodation despite being told by the CQC to stop this in 2022!! FFS 😡

news.sky.com/story/families-of-nottingham-attack-victims-fear-further-disasters-are-inevitable-after-cqc-report-into-killer-valdo-calocane-13494176

That we know of so far...

At the risk of sounding like ‘what about the menz???’ Male patients in a secure unit lacking capacity should also be protected from being able to commit a criminal
offence. Some may be there for sexualised behaviour or other dangerous behaviours. The harm to a man without capacity committing rape is quite clearly very very different from that experienced by their victim but may still include prolonged incarceration, additional medication, criminal trial, personal guilt and depression. If they are deemed unable to make their own decisions then the psychiatric hospital should be protecting them from making poor ones in their own right (as well as quite clearly for the sake of potential victims). Putting a woman in their midst is a bit like handing matches to a pyromaniac.

There are some times when you may have to share accommodation or bathroom/toilets with members of the opposite sex but this only happens when it is in your best interest to do so'

What the ever loving fuck does that mean?

Can a middle-aged man be housed on the children's ward, if it's in his best interest to do so???

What about the teeny tiny issue of the other fucking people on the ward!

I also wonder how many of the staff members involved in her admission behind the scenes were even aware that they were dealing with a woman if her file states male. (Obviously I don’t know if it says male or female)

I hadn’t thought about the fact that the only reason we’re aware of this is because it’s got to court.

I wasn't suggesting that she should have been sent to prison. I was pointing out that the default for female prisoners who identify as men is to place them in a women's prison.ļ

No she wouldn’t.

She was sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Her medical needs, supervision and observations would not have been met in a prison. Even a women’s prison. Do you have any idea of the rates of suicide in prison?

This patient needed to be detained to a female-only secure inpatient ward.

https://slam.nhs.uk/same-sex-accommodation

'Most of our wards are male only or female only. But, if you are admitted into a mixed sex ward then we will place you into a same sex section of the ward and you will either have an ensuite bathroom or same sex bathroom and toilets will be available close by.

Times when patients of different sexes have to be mixed

There are some times when you may have to share accommodation or bathroom/toilets with members of the opposite sex but this only happens when it is in your best interest to do so'