Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Liz Truss writes in the Mail on Sunday

107 replies

Lowhum · 27/12/2020 03:53

...and also mentions women’s rights again.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9089985/LIZ-TRUSS-Equality-not-just-woke-warriors-favoured-few.html

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
UppityPuppity · 28/12/2020 09:59

Placement of transgender patients on opposite wards is not recorded as a breach - and not recorded at all - so the extent/impact on everyone else read women cannot be measured.

So, yet again, no data gathered = no problems with this policy hmm Exactly.

Remember that the 2009 guidance has been superseded by the EA 2010 exemptions.

We will get this turned around - eventually.

FannyCann · 28/12/2020 10:22

I think ward placements in general hospitals can be tricky to define (I have never worked in mental health and understand there may be differences). But most wards are divided into bays, the old nightingale wards barely exist if at all any more. There is usually availability of single rooms. Some of the newer hospitals, eg Southmead in Bristol has substantially (80%) single room provision. Some have a bathroom for each bay (mother's experience at Great Western in Swindon) others have rather poorer toilet and bathroom provision involving a short walk from the bay with designated male and female toilets, floor to ceiling walls/doors and integral wash basin, which is the case in my local hospital.
So I would say that generally it shouldn't be a problem and staff should be sensitive enough to ensure no one is discomfited.
That said, when beds are in short supply it is often the case that new admissions are placed wherever a bed is available and not on the ward most appropriate for their condition anyway. And non clinical bed managers can wield excessive power. I have been outraged by a bed manager demanding removal of a dying person from a single room to the main bay to allow for an admission of someone requiring isolation. Yes the other patient needed a single room but not at the cost of the comfort of the dying person and their family not to mention discomfiture of the other patients in the bay.

I also know that a male to female post operative patient was nursed on the gynaecology ward at my hospital. I don't know where on the ward but I would hope a single room was allocated. I don't understand why this wouldn't have been allocated to a general surgical / urology ward. This is not a gynaecological procedure. 🤷‍♀️
I've no idea who would have been responsible for that bed/ward allocation. I have my suspicions regarding the reasoning behind it.

Needmoresleep · 28/12/2020 10:56

One wonders who was behind this change of policy back in 2007. (I don't mean the political party but wider civil servants and NHS bigwigs.) There must have been a huge push to surreptitiously change policy after the adoption of the GRA in 2004

Which makes Liz Truss' achievements all the more remarkable. All the evidence points to the women and equalities bit of her portfolio being captured. There is little evidence that this is an issue that interested Boris and the boys, plus they had their plates full with Brexit and Covid. Yet she has managed to roll back some of those things that happened behind our backs, and establish a new, more reasonably, normal.

Which, for a female politician, is really impressive.

A direct contrast is the way the knives went out for Priti Patel. Here too was Minister who was trying to push a Department in ways it did not want to go. (Here MN sympathies may lie with the Civil Servants, but not a debate to get into.) And all out warfare with, as far as any of us can tell, both Minister and Civil Servants behaving badly.

The capture has been huge. Truss' achievements, regardless of party or politics, are significant.

Angryresister · 28/12/2020 11:17

The sales of council houses was good for those that bought them. But without replacements being built it was a disastrous policy for nearly everyone else . I generally don’t think the Tories have done much for a large number of the population. Why are the “difficult and humiliating process” of applying for a GRC seen as somehow more worthy than the vast numbers of people needing to claim benefits and submitting to all sorts of enquiries especially those for people with disabilities.

Needmoresleep · 28/12/2020 11:39

Why are the “difficult and humiliating process” of applying for a GRC seen as somehow more worthy than the vast numbers of people needing to claim benefits and submitting to all sorts of enquiries especially those for people with disabilities.

I have always wondered how people are gong to manage when they need a POA. The cost of both the financial and health and welfare ones, is roughly equivalent to the cost of a GRC, but older failing people who are less likely to have the money.

A real example of the cherry picking of equalities that Truss refers to.

And that is before I get started on either applying for Attendance Allowance, or applying to the Court of Protection. I am pretty good at paperwork but both applications completely defeated me.

Given the disproportionate sums of money to go into charities supporting the "T" surely the money/advice could have been found somehow.

Instead these charities clearly want politicians to nod towards the specialness of their clause.

Username642243 · 28/12/2020 11:51

Important to remember that much of this sh**show happened under the Tories though. They moan about Labour not defending women's rights, but defending them against whom? The tories are in government!

Also I think moaning about Labour run councils not supporting tory government policy is unnecessary. And obviously misses new Labour's massive push on education. The tories have a huge majority but to read that defensive article you wouldn't think it.
The anti-woke sentiment is a very compelling argument that stands alone without point scoring.

The problem with Starmer is that he's a good guy but trying to please everyone. He doesn't have a strong ideology, is just a decent manager. He's trying to be nice by going along with the woke, but actually just looks weak. I would prefer him to be prime minister obviously but is it better to have a government of bad people doing good things or one of good people doing bad things?

Needmoresleep · 28/12/2020 12:13

To early to judge Stamer, though there seems little evidence that he is a conviction politician. I think he is playing a long game. Lie low and let the difficult big characters in his party find their own nooses. Better to pick them off one by one than risk all out open warfare.

He is looking at the next election and aiming to have a party that is electable. If he is successful, it will be an election that the Tories might lose themselves with him never lifting his head above the parapet.

Will we know by then what he stands for? Probably not. Does he stand for anything? I have no idea. The point is you can probably make it all the way to the top by being less objectionable than the competition.

Username642243 · 28/12/2020 12:23

'If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything' springs to mind.

I just don't get any clarity from him, although I appreciate it's early days. I know it's not popular but I think Tony Blair was a great PM and definitely sold a vision, despite being centrist.

Floisme · 28/12/2020 12:30

I agree about Starmer playing a long game. He's a former prosecutor so he'll know all about picking his battles and waiting for the right moment.
I have my doubts as to whether he can sort out this mess but equally I don't hold him responsible for it.

MichelleofzeResistance · 28/12/2020 12:34

I have no doubt Starmer holds much the same views as the four women who stood for election with him. He was just sufficiently cunning hot to say it, and it's worked, as people have not given up in the hope that his silence might possibly mean he would stand for things they agree with.

I had more respect for the four women with sufficient integrity to be clear on what they believed, stood for and would do if in power. All four of them were insane, but at least they were honest about it.

ClaireP20 · 28/12/2020 12:53

@queenofknives

Yes! What a brilliant article and great defence of our rights and freedoms.

God, never thought I'd be so keen on a Tory, but she definitely seems to get what's at stake here and I really like her defence of diversity against the identity politics of the left. This gives me hope. Go on Liz!

Me too
ClaireP20 · 28/12/2020 12:54

@Username642243

'If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything' springs to mind.

I just don't get any clarity from him, although I appreciate it's early days. I know it's not popular but I think Tony Blair was a great PM and definitely sold a vision, despite being centrist.

I liked him because he was centrist, not despite, and completely agree with you regarding the lack of clarity.
ListeningQuietly · 28/12/2020 12:57

Liz Truss is one of the authors of Brittannia Unchained

she is NOT a friend of women's rights
boring stuff like maternity pay and sick pay and child benefit have long been in her sights

your enemy's enemy is not always your friend

highame · 28/12/2020 13:26

Don't forget, Teresa May thought this (TWAW) was her David Cameron gay marriage moment, until she looked at the fine print

Floisme · 28/12/2020 13:29

My hopes - if that's the right word - about Starmer are entirely hinged around him demonstrating that he was astute enough to read a document before signing it. For me that put a smidgeon of twilight between him and other candidates - I don't believe they were being any more honest, I think they were saying what they thought they needed to say. I do agree it's not a high bar.

PotholeParadies · 28/12/2020 15:56

There is an interesting picture floating around of Starmer and Heather Peto.

Starmer does not look at ease at all, and it contrasts with images of Lily Madigan with Angela Rayner and Corbyn, in which they did look at ease.

WhereYouLeftIt · 28/12/2020 16:10

@PotholeParadies

There is an interesting picture floating around of Starmer and Heather Peto.

Starmer does not look at ease at all, and it contrasts with images of Lily Madigan with Angela Rayner and Corbyn, in which they did look at ease.

This picture?

Peto looks perfectly at ease, facing the camera. Starmer not so much, leaning in at the neck rather than the body, and it's hard to tell but from the stance I suspect his hips are facing away from Peto.

Corbyn's body language looks OK, his face is a bit of a grimace; but I've never thought he looked fully at ease in any photo.

Rayner is the only one who looks fully at ease with Madigan. Body and face leaning in. Madigan looks positively triumphant.

Liz Truss writes in the Mail on Sunday
Liz Truss writes in the Mail on Sunday
Liz Truss writes in the Mail on Sunday
PotholeParadies · 28/12/2020 18:16

That's them. It's interesting.

If one could have seen inside Starmer's head at that moment, I don't think he would have been thinking the approved mantra at all.

Floisme · 28/12/2020 18:45

Interesting but - cod psychology alert! - I disagree that Rayner looks the most at ease. She's leaning in towards Madigan, far more than Madigan's leaning towards her. I think Madigan looks like the one in control.

I actually think that, of the 3 MPs, Corbyn looks the most comfortable.

Floisme · 28/12/2020 19:46

In fact the more I look at those photos, the funnier they are:
Corbyn looks like he has no idea who Madigan is, Rayner like she's going 'Please, please, please be my friend', and Starmer like he's asking 'Can I go now?'

MoleSmokes · 28/12/2020 20:33

beargrass I can’t show enough of the document to enable verification because that would identify the very small Dept and the NHS Trust involved, so would either instantly out me and/or potentially subject colleagues to harassment.

It is a pure fluke that I have a copy of the electronic file from 2007. This is due to a member of Admin staff emailing it to me at my NHS.net address at the time, asking if the "Sample" form (as shown in image attached) should be released as a Final document. I downloaded the form at home to proof-read it and forgot to delete the file.

However, I am very glad you asked because my memory was playing tricks with me - it was over 13 years ago, after all Smile.

The change I was required to make by Medical Records in 2007 was to replace "Sex" with "Gender". Medical Records said that they had received a Directive that the "Sex" Field in NHS Electronic Records must be replaced by "Gender" and that patients must be asked every time they were seen whether they had "changed gender" in order to update medical records if necessary.

The rationale I was given, when I dissented, was that it was important to have the correct gender recorded if the patient should be admitted as an In-Patient. That made no sense as, according to Medical Records, the patient would anyway be asked at the point of admission whether they had "changed gender".

This all occurred two years before the Dept of Health Directive to the NHS as a whole. The implication from Medical Records was that they had received a Directive in 2007. Possibly this related only to Mental Health Trusts? Perhaps it came from somewhere other than the Dept of Health? In any event, I did not get the impression that this was a decision at Trust level but rather that it had "come down" from somewhere else.

UppityPuppity The EA2010 should have over-ridden the 2009 Dept of Health Directive. The whole point of the Mumsnet thread that I linked to is to demonstrate that it did not do this. Despite EA2010 the NHS continued with the fiction that single-sex actually meant single-sex, not single-gender, and Self-ID continued to be enshrined in Dept of Health and NHS policy, ie in breach of EA2010.

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

Just because something is against the law does not stop people doing it. This is yet another example of Policy Capture within Whitehall determining local statutory services, just like the MoD and Criminal Justice System adopted Self-ID in breach of EA2010. There is a despicable history of statutory services deciding that anyone who "self-declares" should enjoy the rights that legally should only have been accorded to those holding a GRC and of ignoring the exemptions that applied to those holding a GRC.

Until the recent boom in young girls deciding that they are really men, these policies almost exclusively privileged males at the expense of the dignity, privacy and safety of women.

I have to wonder if the NHS would have been so keen to assign In-Patients to wards based on self-declared gender if the impact of this policy would have resulted primarily in teenage girls and young women being placed on Men's Wards? If that had been the case, surely there would have been pause for thought about the wisdom of covertly implementing a "single gender" policy?

Liz Truss writes in the Mail on Sunday
PotholeParadies · 28/12/2020 20:40

I wonder. Rayner could be over-compensating in that picture; trying to fake an ease for the cameras she didn't feel. Now I'm looking, it does look a bit like an I'm-definitely-having-a-great-time fixed expression, of the sort seen on photos of compulsory events.

I also think that Starmer's body is turned away from Peto, who is being invasively proprietoral. Boundaries, Peto, boundaries. You just don't drape your arms over the shoulders of a bloke senior to you, you just don't, and Sir Keir would definitely have been that.

beargrass · 28/12/2020 20:58

@MoleSmokes, thank you and I understand. I was just curious, is all! I wonder if a lack of oversight has allowed this to happen more easily? In local government, you have councillors who'd take an interest for example, or who'd get letters from local people. But in the NHS and all its different parts, you have none of that. Even if things come from Whitehall, the route to a Minister must be long and winding. It's not like it's easy for the public to complain or to raise issues.

FannyCann · 28/12/2020 21:14

Medical Records said that they had received a Directive that the "Sex" Field in NHS Electronic Records must be replaced by "Gender" and that patients must be asked every time they were seen whether they had "changed gender" in order to update medical records if necessary.

I wonder if it was different for mental health trusts? I neither make nor mean to imply any judgement there, and if there was then it was the trusts that were making those judgements/assumptions.
But within general hospital nhs I have never been required to check if someone has changed gender since their last visit.
Not have I ever been asked that question myself.
Interesting.

MoleSmokes · 29/12/2020 01:15

beargrass - You are right. Even though NHS Trusts have non-executive directors, patient advisory groups, etc. raising something like this would be difficult if it "came from above".

It reminds of an infuriating directive "from above" that NHS staff should not display tattoos so that Trust Uniform Policies must provide individual "sleeves" for anyone wearing a short-sleeved uniform who had tattoos on their arms. Any staff failing to hide tattoos would be subject to disciplinary action for breach of national NHS Uniform Policy.

In de-industrialised parts of the country where men who had worked in heavy industry were retraining as nurses and healthcare assistants it was not uncommon for staff to have tattooed arms. Most patients were not bothered because their fathers, husbands, brothers, etc. were likely to have tattoos.

This ridiculous directive, affecting the whole of the NHS, was due to one "Patient Satisfaction Survey", conducted at St Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, where "visible tattoos" were mentioned by, if IIRC, 26 patients as negatively affecting their views of the "professionalism" of NHS Staff.

I have got steam coming out of my ears right now just thinking about it! Angry The waste of money was only part of it - the threat of disciplinary action was what really got my goat. Talk about lack of cultural awareness!

FannyCann - "I wonder if it was different for mental health trusts? I neither make nor mean to imply any judgement there, and if there was then it was the trusts that were making those judgements/assumptions."

I did wonder that myself, FannyCann. I don't think it is an unreasonable thing to "wonder" as one of the reasons that someone might declare that they believe that they are the opposite sex is due to psychosis.

The extra tricky thing for my Dept was that this was an NHS Mental Health Trust that had swallowed up several other organisations that did not provide mental health health services. Parts of the Trust that were nothing to do with Mental Heath found themselves saddled with all sorts of policies and procedures that were irrelevant and/or inappropriate outside of mental health.