Women’s minister insists PPE not gender-specific despite doctors warning gear designed for men putting female health workers at risk

[stumbledin]

Another sign that the Women's Minister doesn't actually care about women and / or doesn't understand women's issues.

" ... The UK’s minister for women and equalities has downplayed concerns that female NHS staff are being placed at increased risk during the coronavirus crisis because protective gear has been designed for men.

Liz Truss insisted health workers required “the same protection ... regardless of what gender you are”, despite the leading doctors’ body warning women were being forced to wear ill-fitting and “inadequate” personal protective equipment (PPE). ... "

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-ppe-women-wrong-size-liz-truss-a9478201.html

Liz Truss isn't the brightest spark in the box. Someone needs to send her a copy of Invisible Women.

Does she mean gender as in sex or gender as in gender identity?

I imagine the former. How can she be so silly?

Nowhere near as life threatening or dramatic, but: I can confirm from personal experience that men just are the "norm" re. anything wearable and that it does put women at a disadvantage in ways that aren't immediately obvious from personal experience.

I'm a corporate executive by profession. I'm also female and rather slender even in comparison to other women - never mind my male peers! A while back, my employer enthusiastically jumped onto the augmented reality bandwagon and got us to hold certain meetings with AR glasses. Most colleagues thought it was rather gimmicky but also quite enjoyed themselves in an "adults at a playdate" sort of sense. To me, it was actually hampering my ability to interact as - even though my device was a size S - I was constantly holding on to it with one hand so as to prevent it from slipping off my head, which kept me from using both hands to shove virtual figures around a 3d space the way I was meant to.

I can very well imagine that PPE would work much the same.

On the upside: the AR craze died down - but now before I got a good conversation about structural sexism in with my (white, male, very ideally shaped and sized for an M device) boss.

I took my class on Residential (either Kingswood or PGL) - one of the group leaders was saying how hard it was to adapt the uniform because it was made with men in mind. She particularly found the shorts difficult, and the length of the sleeves on her fleece were way too long.

Well she's right, though. It doesn't come in pink and blue, so it's not gender-specific. I mean, if it did, that would really be a problem, because men of course cannot wear pink PPE, and it wouldn't be right for women to wear the blue PPE, because then there might not be enough for the men.

Most PPE is designed for the default male. It's really evident in respiratory protective equipment, as about 20% of women have faces too small for the FFP3s widely available. So they end up wearing powered hood respirators also designed for the default male, and they work but are heavy and increase risk of musculo skeletal disorder, particularly neck pain.
Smaller hoods and FFP3s are usually available but supply chain disruptions mean they aren't there now.
Good employers respond by not sending their staff in if they are unprotected.

Further discussion:

Is this a misinterpretation of her remarks maybe?

She didn't say “the same size ... regardless of what gender you are”, she said " “the same protection ... regardless of what gender you are”.

Isn't it possible that this could be interpreted at face value? That both sexes deserve the same protection?
Which is served by having appropriate sizes to fit.

Of course, the fact she incorrectly used 'gender' coupled with the fact that she didn't directly address the issue of wrong sizing, suggests she may not have understood the nature of the question at all.

Crossed posts with MrsSnippyPants - it looks like this is what she meant.