Telegraph - Patient safety fears as NHS allows trans sex offenders in female-only wards

[OvaHere]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/02/safety-fears-patients-nhs-allows-trans-sex-offenders-female/

archive.vn/cWKxb

Good but horrifying article about NHS guidelines that not only put women at risk but also champion the adoption of very draconian, punitive measures aimed at women and/or staff who raise concerns or complain.

www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/experts/legal/transgender-rights-in-the-workplace#gref

So in effect, we have self ID every way except legal documents.

So sex offenders feelings are more important than women’s? We really are at the bottom of the pile, aren’t are

So in effect, we have self ID every way except legal documents.

Self ID exists for legal documents. These can all be changed with support from those private clinicians who follow 'affirmative practice' principles eg self ID.

So all of that fuss last year about how the self ID laws would not pass was a smokescreen for the fact it isnt necessary anyhow?

A great template letter with all the links on how to find who in the NHS in your locality to send a letter to is here:

docs.google.com/document/d/1YaacyWCeXwK001LDY0mW57LdHMzpDwFsaypxyrmTUkc/edit

@Chickenyhead

So all of that fuss last year about how the self ID laws would not pass was a smokescreen for the fact it isnt necessary anyhow?

The introduction of self ID to the GRA would have made rowing back on the policies that enable it in other situations (contrary to the law) almost impossible.

For historical background the thread below is useful.
AngryAttackKittens wrote, Thu 03-Jan-19
"I'm going to point every "but the nice, harmless old school transsexuals whose movement has been unfairly appropriated by the nasty transgender people" person to this thread from now on.

All the same elements we're seeing now were there in that old BBC roundtable from the 70s with the 4 transwomen, the politician, and the doctor. None of this is new."
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

@r0wantrees

Thanks, I will keep reading it, but that story of the 88yo woman made me teary. How on earth is this right?

No dignity.
No respect.
No humanity.

Chickenyhead It is difficult reading, however the more of us who are aware and demand the re-establishment of Safeguarding principles and policies that protect children and women the sooner dignity, respect and humanity will be restored.

Unless a prisoner is transferred to hospital , how would the medical staff know if someone had previously been convicted of a sex crime? Safeguarding should always be based on worst case scenario and that is why the single sex policy was introduced. Male patients were assessed as presenting a certain problem when mixed with female patients, so all males are excluded and as transwomen are all males , that should include them

Male patients were assessed as presenting a certain problem when mixed with female patients, so all males are excluded and as transwomen are all males , that should include them

NHS single sex policies are gender [identity] policies and as such they are currently unable to exclude male patients from female single sex accomodation. In fact excluding male patients who identify as women and vice versa would incur financial penalties to the hospital trust.
What has happened is that policies have been shaped by the demands of lobbyists for individual males' 'rights' to affirmation of gender identity rather than the recognition of responsibility to Safeguard female patients.

Vulvamort (via Twitter)

"About NHS single sex wards.
Let me explain something.

The 2010 policy which is called "Eliminating Mixed Sex Accommodation" (MSA) is based upon Gender, NOT sex.
It's CALLED sex.
That's the PR.
But it is based on gender.

And it involves financial fines for breaches.

It means that if you have a ward of 5 cervix-havers and a 6th cervix-haver joins them, the hospital will be fined for a breach if the 6th identifies as 'a man'.
That would be a mixed gender breach.

But if you place a penis-haver in amongst them, that's no breach, if he identifies as 'a woman'.
This would be a single gender ward.

The 5 women's 'genders' are assumed for them.

And the policy reports on 'gender'."

twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1422501854970253337

NHS single sex policies are gender [identity] policies and as such they are currently unable to exclude male patients from female single sex accomodation. In fact excluding male patients who identify as women and vice versa would incur financial penalties to the hospital trust.

FFS!!!

@334bu

*NHS single sex policies are gender [identity] policies and as such they are currently unable to exclude male patients from female single sex accomodation. In fact excluding male patients who identify as women and vice versa would incur financial penalties to the hospital trust.*

FFS!!!

H/t Vulvamort via Twitter

"Andrew Lansley, as Health Secretary in 2010, ordered the NHS to segregate wards by gender identity, but to tell the public it was by sex.

Fines are imposed for breaches.

This is documented in meeting minutes of the time. And I've spoken to people who remember the discussions."

twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1422505032579264512

Are we really going to have to campaign for the right to have single sex facilities- in 2021?

Are we really going to have to campaign for the right to have single sex facilities- in 2021?

We do yes, and as a matter of extreme urgency.

Just to highlight part of previous post.

Health Secretary in 2010.

That's eleven years ago.

The public was actively lied to during the big political single sex wards promise.

They were never single sex.

I can't imagine Andrew Lansley did this off his own bat.

So why was it done? Eleven years ago!

I'm not one for conspiracy theories. But that fact is really extraordinary and incredibly sinister.

Okay. My gender identity is “not the same gender as any people with penises” - is my gender identity going to be respected if wards are assigned based on gender, or is it only penis people’s genders that matter?

It’s been about 10 years since I worked in A&E or emergency admissions to an adult ward but in all the years before that I have never once as a medical professional asked or been told about whether the patient I am admitting has a history of offending. That includes when prisoners were admitted while in custody.
The only time it has ever been discussed or disclosed is in the context of admitting psychiatric patients.
Similarly never in the years since I became a GP have I known or disclosed the offending history of a patient I’ve referred to hospital.
There is no way to ‘risk assess’ these people. To say it can be done is as a sop to those who object. To try and obfuscate a policy which even activists know is completely inexcusable and violates the human rights of women.

"Andrew Lansley, as Health Secretary in 2010, ordered the NHS to segregate wards by gender identity, but to tell the public it was by sex.

Outrageous.

Sajid Javid via Twitter

(Member of Parliament for Bromsgrove & Secretary of State for Health and Social Care)

"All patients, including women and transgender people, should feel comfortable and safe in hospital.

It's not wrong to look at whether guidance is right, or how it's being applied, to reassure everyone.

I’ve asked @DHSCgovuk for fresh advice."

7:20 PM · Aug 3, 2021

twitter.com/sajidjavid/status/1422623414196576256

current thread
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4313843-Game-on-Sajid-Javid-bites

Yeah yeah look at it..

This has been in place since 2010 ish. Public were lied to.

There's been stuff in the news eg MH inpatient facility for women having man.

Nope.

I think everything was in place well before 2010 when Lansley signed it off.

It is a shame there wasn't more scrutiny. Could say the same about all of this mess

Yes, the gaslighting, the cruelty, the sheer vindictiveness. The woman-hate just shines out of these policies.

No other word for it. And these are the people responsible for our care when we are sick or injured. We’re in their power when we are most powerless. God, what a travesty of the NHS.

Is there a 'more innocent' explanation for this, that the lead up to 2010 was within the timeframe following the law-change (in mid-2000s?) that was based on the idea that there were only about 5,000 transgender people who would want a GRC?

So the sex / gender cover-up may have been along the lines of 'gender is the correct term, if we're being precise and pedantic about it but we're talking about so few people, who have all had their bits chopped off and the frequency of those people staying as hospital inpatients will be so low, that this really isn't a detail we need to bring to people's attention, so causing unnecessary confusion.'

Or, maybe it was Tory cronies seeking profits for their big pharma friends (and the shareholding, non-exec selves), who were probably already some years into development of drugs to support a transhuman future.

Plus, it was entirely possible to address the issues and recognise the problem in principle, even if, at that time, there were few people with GRCs and no idea of self-ID.

Cock-up or conspiracy?