Baroness Nicholson on twitter

[Winesalot]

I have been lurking on twitter lately and noticed Baroness Nicholson has been very active recently. Amongst her tweets are quite a few gems - letters to Liz Truss, tweets asking for evidence about Stonewall’s involvement CPS guidance just to name two.

This tweet I found very encouraging too.

It is imperative to restore the rights of women.I foresee a single issue, cluster approach;we make a new Women’s Rights movement lasting one year,solely to rescue womanhood from its destruction through today’s legal and social denial of our existence.Emma,BNoW

She has today written to Liz Truss again but this time with her concerns about the gross misinterpretation of the ECHR in the trans toolkits used in schools and recommends that such toolkits are removed from use now. Such support is great news.

twitter.com/baroness_nichol/status/1256326753850556418?s=21

I will try to post the letter for those not on twitter.

I look forward to seeing what what happens next.

There are loads of Duffy Parliamentary awards around but it would be particularly lovely if she got one of these: www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/commons/house-of-commons-commission/hoc-diversity-inclusion-strategy/house-of-commons-diversity-and-inclusion-awards/

Oh wait sorry that’s an internal one.. guess it’s the Spectator then or one of the Women in Parliament ones. Or we invent our own again like at the end of 2019

Shes on a mission!

I'm a little bit in love...

Does the Royal Pharmaceutical Society use the same criteria when considering the impact of drugs on the human body?

I think companies just let the kids man the twitter account. Silly silly silly 😝

Itsy bitsy questions, mild and polite, will instantly and permanently show up the gargantuan bollocks that this entire premise is based on.

Crushing on a Baroness. Never saw that one coming. 😄

I would love someone in power to ask for a list of the 'gendered behaviours' that underpin the 'gender variance'.

What behaviours do they think come under 'male' and what come under 'female'. Let's get down to brass tacks and see exactly what it is they claim constitutes boy behaviour and therefore makes a girl trans, and vice versa.

Apologies in advance for not researching this myself, not trying to be a dick but I’m not on Twitter and I am very time poor at the moment. I avoided using the TellZoe app because it wasn’t collecting sex based data correctly and I am also worried about government data collection being done incorrectly.

Is Baroness Nicholson interested in trying to correct instances of potentially medically and scientifically dangerous, inappropriately politicised, ambiguously written, and/or perhaps Stonelaw-influenced (feeling of legal obligation) around the interchangeable usage of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in regards to COVID 19? It’s in government communications.

Example here:
www.gov.uk/government/news/review-into-factors-impacting-health-outcomes-from-covid-19

I will email my MP in politer language to ask them to ask the department not to do this fudge and to remind them that they have an important duty to be clear what they mean, and to ask for a statement of when they will use each term, but it’s really worrying me.

If even the government can’t be clear with everyone what we mean during a pandemic when they are (presumably) looking for information about biological sex-based differences, which can affect human death rates, what are they waiting for before this will ever become important enough to clarify?

Eg Looking at gendered social behaviour sounds a sensible thing to do in COVID- related research but that is VERY different from looking at ‘gender’ as a category scheme for human beings, unless they make it clear they are talking about biological-sex-reality-based research which might also ask about opposite sex hormone use etc eg as part of questions about ‘gender identity’. Which would be asked only where relevant and if that information was ever needed. Etc.

This is not a time for providing social validation as a priority over clarity and accuracy, or for perpetuating legal or social fudge as a means to achieving a political aim. Nor for government statements to continue to be written by anyone who thinks it’s rude to use the word ‘sex’, or who is content to be ignorant on this issue, or who is inappropriately cautious not to offend anyone; or by anyone who think it’s beneath them to engage in this debate between silly social factions or whatever other nonsense is going on at the level that these things are written.

This is a time for putting a clear explanation of why accurate biological sex-based data collection is needed first and foremost. That where appropriate, information can be asked about behaviour or medicines use that may be influenced by ‘gender’ feelings or ‘how you identify’. But to emphasise that none of that ^ is offensive or prejudice just fact based because COVID doesn’t respect anyone’s ‘identity’ of any kind and to fight it we have to work to together with the best factual information that we have available.

This needs a clean up of existing COVID-related statements and a government statement in clear layperson’s English with a ministerial commitment to get politicians, civil servants and the NHS not to conflate sex with gender and to always be completely clear what they mean when they use those terms. (Whether in a COVID context or on any subject) ideally this statement would give guide examples of how to use the words ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ and how not to use them, so they know they can’t use ignore and obscure biological sex differences for whatever reason, on purpose or not. I hope anyone with an interest in FWR can see this is necessary because without debate or consensus, language has already been changed, organisations are captured and clarity now has to be urgently re-established. Yes this might not sit well with the language developed to accommodate the legal fiction of the GRA but that’s tough. Acknowledge that publicly and talk about it. We always said it would be dangerous for governments to kick that issue into the long grass indefinitely.

Regulatory capture of institutions is potentially having a bad effect on wider public health. It’s always failed the growing number of individuals who have been caught up on this bandwagon of course.

Glad to see that Oxman have deleted their piece on Womxn or Wxman or whatever the heck the word is.

Answers overdue to these questions from the Baroness:
members.parliament.uk/member/1164/writtenquestions

she's on a roll...

God she's brilliant isn't she?

Go Baroness! We've had these questions for a very long time.

What behaviours do they think come under 'male' and what come under 'female'. Let's get down to brass tacks and see exactly what it is they claim constitutes boy behaviour

Oh oh I know this one!

It's colours and what toys you like and whether or not you're naturally and innately subservient and codependent, and whether you like football and tractors or knitting and dollies, and whether you have long hair and like pretty dresses and high heels n' stuff. I have read it/been told it many times.

Followed by, when pointed out that pink was a male colour until quite recently historically, and if you walk into Tescos most women will have short hair/wear trousers/not have makeup on/be wearing 'boys clothes' and not looking feminine, and many women play rugby and football and like tractors and how can it be justified to suggest that female people shouldn't do these things...…?

The answer is generally along the lines of the privilege of female people who don't have to do all this stuff/ look that way to be identified by others as female, which means female people should shut up and stop pointing this stuff out. Despite it all being extremely sexist and harmful to female people to encode all this stuff for the additional freedoms of male people.

It's colours and what toys you like and whether or not you're naturally and innately subservient and codependent, and whether you like football and tractors or knitting and dollies, and whether you have long hair and like pretty dresses and high heels n' stuff. I have read it/been told it many times.

It is michelle! Ten out of ten.

However, that is a big, fat secret. Can't wait to see the baroness being let in on it.

Tue 16-Oct-18 22:06:57 OP Barracker wrote

"We've been lied to about 'Single SEX' wards since 2010.

medium.com/@anneharperwright/sex-gender-the-nhs-1e8f4e6363a6

They were ALWAYS based upon 'gender'.
The evidence is in NHS documents from 2010.
And the Department of Health were told, by the NHS team, not to tell people wards were segregated by sex, because they knew the policy was based on gender.

But the DOH purposefully used the word sex to the public instead.

We've been deliberately misled."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3396859-Weve-been-lied-to-about-Single-SEX-wards-since-2010

Michelle. Owning womxnhood 💪💪🔥🔥

Go Baroness! We've had these questions for a very long time.

Asking questions is going to be so revealing.

They can't get away with the bollocks answers talking about inclusion and diversity, whilst utterly ignoring the actual question.

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
Question for Department of Health and Social Care
Hospital Wards: Gender
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether hospitals are required to provide single-sex services to patients.

Asked 21 April 2020
Answer overdue: was due for answer by 5 May 2020
members.parliament.uk/member/1164/writtenquestions

Mon 30-Sep-19 OP LukewarmCustard wrote

"New NHS guidance on same sex accommodation

The guidance starts out well. '1.2 Guidance statement: Providers of NHS-funded care are expected to have a zero-tolerance approach to mixed-sex accommodation, except where it is in the overall best interest of all patients affected.'

But then there is Annex B, which says 'Trans people should be accommodated according to their presentation: the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use. This may not always accord with the physical sex appearance of the chest or genitalia. It does not depend on their having a gender recognition certificate (GRC) or legal name change. It applies to toilet and bathing facilities (except, for instance, that preoperative trans people should not share open shower facilities).' Annex B was apparently written with input from the Government Equalities Office.

NHS accommodation is now mixed sex accommodation with allocations based on pronouns."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3705528-New-NHS-guidance-on-same-sex-accommodation

Wed 06-Mar-19 OP stumbledin wrote:

"Health secretary ‘looking at’ excluding some trans women from female NHS wards

Just saw this article in Pink News.

Only skim read.

But is it possible the message is getting through.

A small victory that a Tory Cabinet member would even say this out loud.

Maybe he could have a word with Penny Mordaunt!

www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/03/05/health-secretary-matt-hancock-excluding-trans-women-nhs-wards/

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3525497-Health-secretary-looking-at-excluding-some-trans-women-from-female-NHS-wards

July 2017 Guardian by Catherine Bennett
'Mixed-sex wards endanger and humiliate women'

Even as gender-neutral spaces grow, hospitals show that in some areas men and women are best kept apart'
(extract)
"The unacceptability of mixed-sex wards has been a cherished theme for every opposition since Tony Blair alighted, in 1996, on what is still, universally, agreed to be a valid cause of public upset.

Mixed wards, he said “cause indignity, upset people”. Subsequent studies, including a 2008 examination of nurse and patient perspectives, confirmed he had not exaggerated. There were patients, it confirmed, of both sexes and of varied ages, who “experienced a lack of privacy, worried about bodily exposure and felt uncomfortable”. Nurses entirely sympathised. “Mixed-sex accommodation,” it concluded, “is an unacceptable solution to bed shortages.”

Moreover, investigations showed, objections go far beyond the allegedly trivial ones, according to more disinhibited patients, of commodes, Carry On! gowns, proximity to men who might resemble, to pick one or two names at random, the Pimlico Plumber and twat-detector Charlie Mullins or the BBC star and famed beauty connoisseur, John Inverdale.

Patients and their relatives attested to intrusion, exhibitionism and leering from nearby beds, even with staff around. In 2009, Channel 4 discovered that almost two-thirds of sexual assaults by patients in hospitals (21 out of 33 in 2007/8), occurred in mixed-sex wards. Variations on Blair’s question to an evasive John Major – “Is it beyond the collective wit of the government and the health administrators to deal with that problem?” – was a reliable line in opposition outrage until Jeremy Hunt declared in 2014 that this indignity was “nearly”, or “virtually”, history.

Regulations introduced by the coalition government in 2010 compelled hospital trusts to report their figures for mixed-ward occupation, then fined them £250 per night for breaches. “We want to see the end of mixed-sex wards,” Nick Clegg said. “Everybody knows this has got to end.” As recently as his 2015 conference speech, a key part of Hunt’s claims to representing “the party of the NHS” was the unqualified triumph: “mixed sex wards eliminated”. (continues)

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/30/mixed-sexed-wards-endanger-and-humiliate-women

Is anyone good at 'short and sweet'? I need to explain politely why Womxn is not good (and why charities should behave themselves). Left up to me it will be long and take days to write. Any takers?

Lord, given that it's unpronounceable, it makes us literally unnameable?

There's a lot more to it but I too am terrible at being concise. I reckon it's an important point to get in there though.

I’m sure someone can condense it into a couple of sentences (no swears)!

‘Womxn’ makes it clear you are, in fact, not talking about women, but anyone and everyone who fancies calling themselves a woman, for longer or shorter duration, for any reason (or non).

It is a way of pretending to talk about women, without talking about actual women.

Oh Baroness...