NHS bans transwomen from female space

You are conflating a trauma trigger with a sperm injector. They are not the same thing. Excluding all instances of the former from changing rooms isn't possible. Excluding all instances of the former is.

Women often want to cover themselves around men as a reaction to rape culture in which a dress is framed as a yes. We are basically saying no to men with clothing. A changing room is a space where we cannot do that. It's entirely reasonable for a professor of criminology to talk about what her field names as "safety work", the constant labour performed by women to try to manage the risk that men pose to us. Her discussion of female modesty was in the context of safety work.

Whether men are innately more violent than women is irrelevant. The point is that they have the means to make us pregnant by force and observable, verifiable offending rates indicate that they commit the overwhelming proportion of violent and sexual offending. It doesn't matter whether that's through nature, nurture, or both, the reality is that men pose a real risk to women that is easily mitigated by creating women-only spaces.

It's easier to hit someone if they are smaller and you are more likely to kill them than someone of your own size.

It's only possible to rape if you have a penis.

The risk assessment is based on what men as a class can do, not what a given man will choose to do.

@selffellatingouroborosofhate great posts. Thank you.

He thinks women's rights are ' pointless' and 'insane'

I dont actually know who he is, though. Should I?

The guidance says clinical need > trans feelings. So he's going to be bitterly disappointed about that.

I’m quite happy for “trans people” to take second place to the immuno compromised in terms of who gets the private rooms Ian, don’t you worry your head about that.

So he thinks trans people should be put on opposite sex wards even though this might be uncomfortable and outing or actively dangerous if they are a female? Or does he tbink they should just be able to choose but only their comfort and safety should be considered?

In 2015 he was the ‘go to’ person on things like explaining the customs Union. Quoted often on MN. Now I wonder if he knew what he was talking about.

What is Dunt imagining? No single sex wards? (A difficult political sell…) Women are asked if they want to share with a man and if they don’t they each get a private room?

You wait to see whether the other patients click that somebody is trans and then move them? Is this ‘being kind’ to anyone?

It does need to be noted that if the trauma trigger is after-shave, since a man wearing after-shave really ought not to be in a women's sss and very few women wear after-shave of any sort, it might be quite easy to exclude the trauma trigger by excluding men.

Mind you, I don't suppose TIMs wear after-shave either, because it wouldn't be feminine enough for the LARP. So excluding all men wouldn't be necessary for totino's friend to benefit from the exclusion. This may explain why totino doesn't care about excluding all men; it's only the ones with after-shave on who trigger the particular victim about whom totino feels some sort of vague concern.

Seeing as we can have issues with the actual staff in the NHS who are enhanced DBS checked etc such as the former "trans liason lead" nurse and Chair of Swindon & Wiltshire Pride https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clymmgmxnd8o (a surprising amount of predators appear to insert themselves into LGBTQ organsisations and positions of influence, or perhaps not so surprising seeing as we know predators are keen to access vulnerable people in whatever areas they can), I would remind people like @totino that safeguarding is not about targeting any specific individuals it's about reducing risks,including risks to trans people themselves. Safeguarding in hospitals is about protecting all people's privacy,safety and dignity - the person with dementia who tries to get in bed with another patient thinking it's their wife, the person with confusion and a UTI who takes their nightie off in the middle of a bay or wanders around with their bottom out of a surgical gown, the person with acquired brain injury who is openly masturbating, the married person in psychiatric care in the grip of psychosis who may have a so- called "consensual" sexual liason with another patient that they would never dream of when they are stable. Trans people also deserve safety and their dignity protected when they are in the midst of an illness that doesn't leave them in their right minds.

The NHS had to be forced back to single sex wards. I don't think they believe in privacy and dignity at all just efficiency.

Despite the amount of noise they are making anyway transgender people make up 1 out of every 200 people and even then not all of these will care about being on sex based ward especially the biological women.

So it's not really a significant number of side rooms now needed for them.

If the rooms are needed for immuno compromised patients they are still the priority and the transgender patient will have to go elsewhere, most likely mixed wards will be in place anyway if it is that busy.

Sorry, not read all of the thead but has this Guardian report been mentioned?

Notice how it's only an unattributed internal report. What's the betting that it's a handful of TRAs making a noise?

Never mind that the new guidance is a welcome improvement for both women and men.

Isn't it funny how there were no mixed-sex wards (possibly with the exception of A&E: did that count as a ward?) until the 1980s and the NHS somehow managed to struggle along without them?

The assessment is ridiculous. For example, it is ludicrous to claim that a side room risks outing someone, when the alternative is placing them on a ward for the sex they aren’t.

On a shared ward, there’s the risk of being outed through physical differences, changing clothes or overheard medical conversations.

In a side room, there could be any number of reasons for someone’s placement, and it’s nobody else’s business why. Being in a side room doesn’t, in itself, reveal anything about someone’s sex.

It should be noted that in a side room reduces the change of outing and gains privacy for trans people, which logically they should want.

Where patients are very sick they are always accommodated on mixed sex wards. Examples would be High Dependency Unit (HDU) Intensive Therapy Unit (ITU) or Coronary Care Unit (CCU). All of these patients will be bed-bound.@

At this point, anything at all in the way of change to anything that has been given to trans people with no consideration for anyone else is going to cause some (probably not all) trans people to throw a hissy fit and claim that whatever-it-is will be an affront to their "rights", out them, and quite possibly literally kill them. I think that needs to be ignored, quite honestly; if the worst that happens to them is that someone clocks what their biological sex is, as opposed to that of their LARP character, they are having an easy life.

From that article:

He was not a qualified children's nurse but requested to work in the paediatric area of the emergency department.

Well I never.

I wonder if they did an equivalent equality impact assessment for women?

stupid question, of course they didn't

It looks as if they did actually give some consideration to women and the disabled, though it may only have been lip-service.

"The document considered the impact of new NHS guidance on single-sex spaces across all protected characteristics, including age, disability and sex.

"It also highlighted benefits for women who are pregnant or breastfeeding, people with certain religious beliefs and minority-ethnic groups."

The strong emphasis in the linked article being on the trans aspect may be the result of cherry-picking by The Guardian.

My dying MIL was in a bay opposite the nurses station. She hadn't a clue who her visiting sons actually were, she just knew she quite liked them and wanted to hold their hands. Then a man was placed in the bed next to her as he also had a medical need to be in sight- and she was immediately screaming because she didn't want a man to see her like that. There was no way that man was getting out of his bed to harm her. But he was a man and she was abused as a child and it didn't matter, she just didn't want him there. Being surrounded by her sons also didn't matter. Her discomfort meant she was moved onto a ward where her family was no longer allowed to visit due to Covid. My DH didn't get to see her again.

Quite.

I know one of this year's court judgments - I think the SCJ but could have been another judgment? - looked at the whole 'outing' argument and concluded that a) it often was not a reasonable or rational argument anyway and b) it did not outweigh the interest of everybody else. It could not be used as a reason to refuse women single sex spaces. The HR article 'outing' relies on is a qualified right, and dependent on its relationship with the interests and rights of others.