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

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde withdraws trans advice for female-only wards - Times Scotland

66 replies

Igneococcus · 28/12/2020 08:54

Good news on this chilly morning:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6cf9add4-4891-11eb-9dbc-44d114c9d92d?shareToken=6281a2d28333a5b52bf5586ef503527d

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 28/12/2020 09:00

Good news, thanks for share token!

highame · 28/12/2020 09:14

Seems our good friends over the border are making their feelings felt Xmas Grin well done

Ereshkigalangcleg · 28/12/2020 09:15

That's encouraging.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 28/12/2020 09:17

What about this bullshit in the article though? Hmm

The decision to shelve the guidance was welcomed by groups that believe trans women should not be afforded full women’s rights or be given equal protection from discrimination as lesbian, gay and bisexual people.

RoyalCorgi · 28/12/2020 09:18

It's an improvement, in that nurses are not now being advised to berate women who don't want to share space with male-bodied people, but they are still allowing male-bodied people into women's wards:

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde issued guidance this year to staff which equated women who express concern about sleeping next to trans patients to people harbouring racial prejudice. The guidance was reviewed and the health board has confirmed that it has been shelved indefinitely.

Nurses are now advised to sort out disputes using their own judgment and to speak to management if they cannot be resolved.

allmywhat · 28/12/2020 09:22

The decision to shelve the guidance was welcomed by groups that believe trans women should not be afforded full women’s rights or be given equal protection from discrimination as lesbian, gay and bisexual people.

Very, very weird phrasing! I don't think the whole article is skewed like that - could whoever wrote it really not find a more accurate way to describe the concerns of LGB Alliance and For Women Scotland?

Good news that this terrible guidance has been scrapped, but is the policy still to put male trans people in women's wards? They just aren't instructing staff to gaslight and bully women who complain any more. I suppose that is something.

allmywhat · 28/12/2020 09:24

I see I cross-posted with the 2 posts before mine!

334bu · 28/12/2020 09:34

Good news I think. Our institutions mustn't any longer get away with implementing policies without proper EQIAs having been done.

Imnobody4 · 28/12/2020 09:39

It also says
Separately, transgender policies in Scottish prisons will be debated in a “series of conversations” by the Scottish Prison Service in the new year.

Let's hope 2021 actually turns this juggernaut around.

Imnobody4 · 28/12/2020 09:42

Was also going to say Stonewall's response is interesting. No TWAW.

Stonewall, which campaigns for lesbian, gay, bi and trans people, said: “Just like anyone seeking care, trans people must be able to access the healthcare they need in a timely and appropriate way, and we urge all healthcare services to provide training and guidance to equip staff to support all LGBT people.”

allmywhat · 28/12/2020 09:50

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

UppityPuppity · 28/12/2020 10:22

Was also going to say Stonewall's response is interesting. No TWAW.

Stonewall, which campaigns for lesbian, gay, bi and trans people, said: “Just like anyone seeking care, trans people must be able to access the healthcare they need in a timely and appropriate way, and we urge all healthcare services to provide training and guidance to equip staff to support all LGBT people.”

Yes - SW know no debate isn’t working. Their statement is utterly uncontroversial - but what they actually mean is highly controversial and they know it. More euphemistic statements from SW from now on.

And yes - lovely shielding with the LGB happy family bit.

Jintyfer · 28/12/2020 10:23

@Ereshkigalangcleg

What about this bullshit in the article though? Hmm

The decision to shelve the guidance was welcomed by groups that believe trans women should not be afforded full women’s rights or be given equal protection from discrimination as lesbian, gay and bisexual people.

Yeah I noticed that paragraph too. That is not the case at all. Such a bad misrepresentation. Poor poor journalism
Manderleyagain · 28/12/2020 10:40

It's good they've withdrawn that guidence, but staff and management need proper policies to follow. This just throws the difficulty back at the nurse. The public also need to understand what the policy is.

Strange stonewall quote. On one hand they are campaigning against world rugby keeping women's rugby female only, but here they darent say openly what they think should happen.

I want to know who advised them in the first place. Which lobby group wrote or advised on the guidence? I wonder if it was the group who failed to give a quote?

PlantMam · 28/12/2020 10:42

Good news. Shame they are just lumping the responsibility onto an already overworked, mostly female workforce though.

MichelleofzeResistance · 28/12/2020 10:51

The decision to shelve the guidance was welcomed by groups that believe trans women should not be afforded full women’s rights or be given equal protection from discrimination as lesbian, gay and bisexual people.

Oh ffs.

Running that through the universal bullshit translator, let's actually confront the real issue here.

It is a very sad reality of transition that however a male born and male bodied person perceives themselves, and however much people wish to support the male person's freedom and rights to be themselves, there are limits as to how far this can be taken when female people are in a state of vulnerability and undress.

Female people cannot be compelled to view a male person as not male if this goes against their independent, objective perception, because compelled speech and thought isn't a thing in the UK and shouldn't be.

The distress of female people who may be ill, immobile, undressed, in a state of acute indignity and vulnerability, cannot be waved away on the grounds that the male person's wishes to be in their presence regardless of impact on them is more important. Because the inequality and unfairness of this is blatantly obvious.

The need of female people for female only facilities is unquestioned; it cannot be made conditional on a male patient not wanting to be among female patients for their own needs.

It is perfectly possible to accomodate a male patient away from male wards if this is their choice and preference; such options should be increased. However the right to have identity respected and different accomodation to other males offered when needed does NOT have to automatically equate to removal of right of privacy, dignity and single sex provision for all females, unless this is not about the right to have identity recognised and catered for, but instead about the right to be among females whether or not those females consent. Two different things that should not be conflated.

Stonewall believe that the wishes and feelings of TW should always be held as more important than the needs of any female, and that any female not willing to subordinate their own needs and feelings or any female whose disability, trauma or culture/faith means they cannot do so, should rightfully be warned, if necessary excluded and this should go to the extent of them being refused medical care as punishment for their intransigence.

Let's be honest about the issues here in plain bloody English like grown ups.

teawamutu · 28/12/2020 10:53

I left a comment questioning the wording. It hasn't been published yet, is greyed out with a red exclamation mark. Does that mean it's being reviewed, or removed?

Datun · 28/12/2020 10:55

Not 'trans patients', male patients, not 'trans people', male people, stonewall.

Nothing to do with being trans and everything to do with being male. The determination to pretend it's just about discrimination typically faced by gay people, or black people, is just too slippery for words. (Especially now when they assert gay people can be what everyone thinks of as heterosexual).

Hospitals have discriminated based on sex, since forever. What's the difference now?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 28/12/2020 10:56

I can't see any comments at all.

Igneococcus · 28/12/2020 10:57

It means it's wating for approval TeAwamutu I have one pending as well.

I think it's one of those articles where the comments will be a lot more informative than the article itself.

OP posts:
ColourMagic · 28/12/2020 10:59

@teawamutu ....

There was a Comment on the article, for a good few minutes, I don't know if it was your Comment. I just returned to the site intending to respond to the Comment but it's gone, no sign of it ever having been there.. It was a very good Comment.

Igneococcus · 28/12/2020 11:05

Sometimes comments are visible during the time (5 min?) a comment can be edited. It should come back once the moderators are working on this article.

OP posts:
TheGreatSloth · 28/12/2020 11:07

So what will happen when nurses use their judgement?

I can't see a nurse moving a male patient out of a female ward, if he claims to have a female identity (whatever that is). That would put the nurse right in the firing line of publicity and personal criticism. They'd be accused of bigotry, transphobia, there would be complaints to their work, possible disciplinary procedures. No one who wants to protect their job will do that.

I suspect this means the males will stay, and that women will be made to feel bad about not wanting to have them in their wards. In other words, exactly the same but done by the back door.

For it to be real progress the trust would need to have come out and said, no males will ever be accommodated in woman's wards, regardless of how they identify - and specify their plans for males who for whatever reason don't want to be accommodated on the ordinary men's wards. (Because of course huge importance will be placed on their feelings about this - whereas none at all is placed on women's.)

I actually think this is very disingenuous of them and not an improvement.

ArabellaScott · 28/12/2020 11:08

trans women should not be afforded full women’s rights or be given equal protection from discrimination as lesbian, gay and bisexual people.

As far as I understand it, I think given that transwomen are by definition, male, one could rewrite that as:

'males should not be afforded full women’s rights', I think that common-or-garden-men, the kind without magical female essence, or who are not in 'girl mode', would also be included in that. That seems reasonable to me, or have I missed something?

aliasundercover · 28/12/2020 11:16

The article seems to have been altered - the version I'm looking at reads:

The decision to shelve the guidance was welcomed by groups that believe trans women should not be afforded full women’s rights

the rest of the original sentence does not appear.

Swipe left for the next trending thread