Mixed sex wards and trans women.

[sarsleypage]

I've opened a new account as the old one was too full of personal bits and someone could've connected the dots.

I am a medical student and we have a diversity lecture coming up, so I had a look at the LGBT slides. A lot of this seems to focus on trans.

I got curious about the requirements for sex-segregated wards, as I know this has been an issue for a while. Women want single-sex wards, both on wards for physical illness and those for mental illness, because they see themselves as vulnerable to abuse from men, especially whilst ill.

Fine. Nobody seems to oppose this, and it's become a requirement in pretty much all hospitals.

And then you see this: uktrans.info/attachments/article/5/trasngender_booklet_low%20res.pdf

"• Trans people should be accommodated according to
their presentation: the way they dress, and the name
and pronouns that they currently use.
• This may not always accord with the physical sex
appearance of the chest or genitalia;
• It does not depend upon their having a gender
recognition certificate (GRC) or legal name change;
• It applies to toilet and bathing facilities (except, for
instance, that pre-operative trans people should not
share open shower facilities); "

There's an example in the leaflet of a young female nurse refusing to wash a trans person because it was against her religion. This is held up as an example of trans discrimination.

I am struggling to square this away with feminism. In fact, I don't think it does square. Women have fought for this segregated space, based on female sexual characteristics (not a preference for make-up, long hair, but XY/vaginas/generally smaller in stature and weaker). But now, apparently, if you decide you feel like a woman, you're entitled to be on a woman's ward when women are at their most vulnerable.

It means if you're sectioned under the mental health act and a trans woman with a penis is on the ward, you have no legal argument to get them removed to make you feel safer.

How is this right?

Ego that doesn't quite make sense. Surely any medical professional would see your full medical history

I don't know if they go through all your records. If I was going to see a GP about some issues, I don't think they would always need to know if I was trans. (like they can't tell anyway )

But I always see my usual GP and she has been lovely.

BTW, she said she'd declined this as she had some ongoing health issue (separate to trans) that she thought doctors needed to know about.

This whole issue did piss me off. I want one completely irrelevant item removed from my records and this is absolutely impossible and can never happen and she is allowed to dump her entire medical history. Not her fault I know, just unfair in my eyes.

I have half seriously thought I should pretend to be trans to get round this.

I don't know how it works in England but in Scotland the front of the record/electronic and hard copy summarises the main points. Ops,diseases,allergies etc

She said she was then given the choice to have her old records archived so future medics would not have access to them

I really don't think that you can have the choice to have your old records archived so people can't access them.

You have to prove you are transitioning and part of that is getting your GP to change your name. When I did this, I was given a new NHS number - but obviously all my transitioning info, appointments, prescriptions and all communications with the clinic are on there.

I don't think you could transition without doing your name change at the GP and any new records would contain your surgery.

I don't know where my old records are.

They must have them ego or how would you prove immunisation etc

They must have them ego or how would you prove immunisation

I did ask my Dad about that and if I had had chickenpox when young. He just looked at me with a blank stare.

I did move around a lot when young so I have no idea if my records ever kept up with me.

That is a strong possibility, not so much now with electronic records.

I guess it must be like when we adopted DD: she got a new NHS number and her records were changed into her new name, but the old records still exist. HCPs are never supposed to use her old name / number, nor refer to her adopted status unless it is directly relevant. (Whether the records from her old surgery ever got transferred over to our GP, we don't know however...)

I would suggest to all that you request to view your record, it is within your rights.

When I was pregnant with my DS my midwife was going through my record checking family history etc. All was going well until she mentioned by heroin addiction! Another patients decharge notes from hospital (Similar name) had been put in mine. They had been there for 5 years! The individual had died in the 6 months before my appointment and yet I still had to argue that I was not KEA and was obviously still alive. Honestly, check your files..

I had a similar experience to Kua, my records were mixed up with those of another patient with the same name. I only realised when I was asked about the birth of a child I didn't have. Luckily, my GP had known me for a few years so quickly corrected it.

kua You would have no right to comment on what is to be a female.

Agreed. But not what I was doing. But anyway, I will leave it, because you lot seem hell-bent that there is some sort of global conspiracy against women by the evil patriarchy and the best solution would be to eradicate men. Talk about condescending and Prawn suggests without ever having read how I post or talk that it's me. Maybe Prawn try to argue a place different than MN...because yes, you have revealed a lot about yourself.

OlennasWimple I think you misunderstand the anger of many posters. It's not that we think all men are evil, nasty people (many, if not all of us, have wonderful men in our lives who we love dearly). It's that men as a class still have an upper hand over women as a class for no reason at all except that we are still living in a patriarchy.

I do not deny that (and thank you for actually posting something objectively, and I agree with others, Trump is horrendous and I do not understand how women could vote for him), but my point is that yes I am misunderstanding it - and how many others do you think will misunderstand it or purposefully so? To be frank, it sounds a bit like "I hate being a woman because of those evil guys with penises". And that is totally the wrong message (and as you said, not the one intended).

I have no idea at all how you get '...and the best solution would be to eradicate men' or 'I hate being a woman because of those evil guys with penises' from this thread.

Saying that there is a problem with male- bodied people being allowed access to places which for good reasons are sex segregated just because they claim to 'identify' as a woman is absolutely nothing like the same thing those bits of hyperbole. (And many of the men in our lives would agree).

dragon there is absolutely no point trying to engage pink in sensible discussion. I suggest you save yourself the frustration!

Hermione and yet you bothered to embolden my username. I guess it makes for an easy life to pretend people with differing opinions are best ignored.

"you lot seem hell-bent that there is some sort of global conspiracy against women by the evil patriarchy and the best solution would be to eradicate men"

I do hope (for your sake) that you are very young.

The alternative is not pleasant.

Pink you are so far out of your depth and you don't even realise it. You need to read some introductory books on feminism and stop imagining you know anything about it. I am sorry to be patronising but really, you have no idea how little you know right now.

And, you know, you will probably think I am saying that because I don't agree with you, but you have to actually understand and be able to articulate what you are disagreeing with, and you are not doing that.

Sounds like women who want to have a private room for labor and delivery should make sure they "identify as men" for long enough for a side room to be given to them. They can always identify back out of it afterward...

"you lot seem hell-bent that there is some sort of global conspiracy against women by the evil patriarchy and the best solution would be to eradicate men"

Point me at one place in this thread, or indeed in any thread anywhere on the feminism board where anyone has said anything even remotely like this. You are talking out of your arse, constructing a straw man with the aid of about half a piece of straw. Seriously, I want some of whatever you're smoking because it must be some strong shit for you to be so utterly unable to comprehend what other people are saying.

Sounds like women who want to have a private room for labor and delivery should make sure they "identify as men" for long enough for a side room to be given to them

That's a bit like the comments people make about immigrants / people on benefits etc. It dismisses totally what many trans people go through.

'Oh, I should just identify as a man'. A flippant comment.

"'Oh, I should just identify as a man'. A flippant comment...."
We're not the ones suggesting self-certification. It's the TRAs who are and whose suggestions are the reason for that comment -- hence it is actually far from flippant. It's totally relevant and the issue that is causing much disquiet to many on here.......................

because you lot seem hell-bent that there is some sort of global conspiracy against women by the evil patriarchy and the best solution would be to eradicate men.
Oh, bollocks.

Pink

On mumsnet emboldening a user's name, is a sign of courtesy. So the user can easily identify a reply.