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.

Cock-up or conspiracy?

The effects on female patients' welfare are the same and the NHS has been exposed to considerable liability as a consequence. The idea that there were only approximately 5000 people who would be diagnosed as transsexual came from the lobbyists. Parliament failed to do due diligence and scrutinise the claims and impact of the legislation.

Placing any one of the >5000 male patients with a GRC on a female ward carries with it the same risk/compromise to female patients' welfare as with any man.

The effects on female patients were never considered. So probably not cock up or conspiracy , just institutionalised sexism.

2019 thread I wrote,

"I saw this comment by Ray Blanchard recently and have been thinking for some time about that gatekeeping 'test' of 'living in gender role for two years'

As the vast majority of people presenting to the early proponants of medical 'sex change' surgery were males, I have often wondered how much sexism/misogyny was involved in the male doctors requirement for males to perform female sex-based stereotypes, access female single-sex spaces etc.

It also seems a rather unusual diagnostic tool. Rather than supportively unpicking the potential issues driving an individual's drive to be/be seen as the opposite sex, it just establishes that this is powerful and ongoing whilst promoting the requirement that society validates this."
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3500657-Can-transsexuals-truly-be-allies-to-women?msgid=84739275#prettyPhoto

NB Blanchard has also described how he (and his colleagues) provided letters for his male patients for them to offer up in the event they were challenged in female single sex spaces during the 'living in role test'. A 'permission note' so to speak.

Whilst many saw the doctors role as 'gatekeepers' of desired surgery/medical intervention, the doctors also acted unilaterally as gatekeepers to women's spaces & services. They opened the gate without women's consent. The impact on girls and women was not considered.

Why surprise to anyone about mixed sex. Abusive councils try to put vulnerable victims of domestic violence in mixed sex B&Bs with violent men and maybe also violent women. Openly mixed sex so nothing to do with trans. There's no safety for some vulnerable women and I wouldn't mind as much if they didn't lie. They need to be honest and stop pretending they care about vulnerable women. They're lying.

That's interesting @R0wantrees

So basically a 'gentleman's agreement' (to behave decently in female spaces) for men who no longer wished to be gentlemen.

I cannot help feeling (and know this will have been said many times before) that, to most men, the idea of a man wanting to be a woman, with all the low status and existence as an object of many men's disgust that that entails, seems so shocking, so degrading, that they cannot imagine him being anything other than completely sincere, completely other, therefore utterly un-masculine, that he could not possibly be any sort of threat to women.

So a commitment based upon mutual masculine social status, to behave in a way that instantly rejects and is able to slough off all masculine socialisation.

So basically a 'gentleman's agreement' (to behave decently in female spaces) for men who no longer wished to be gentlemen.

I'm not sure it was even that. The primary purpose of the letter was to protect the male patient in the event he was challenged. All of the focus appeared to be whether a man could tolerate 'living in role as a woman'. This proof was required before hormones and/or surgery was made available.

@lottiegarbanzo

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?

We know that activists have been working on the backgrounds for years, lobbying quietly behind the scenes.

The no more mixed wards was a big deal at the time. Widely reported, massively welcome. I think there are fines if mixed sex happened (outside of ICU etc).

The fact it was mixed gender- and the govt dept meant gender not sex- and that there are documents to show that the NHS said ??? are you sure. And govt said yes. But it's always got to be referred to as mixed sex to avoid confusion.

That surely suggests that they had someone/ people in their ear pushing it? It was not a thing known at all and I v much doubt that Lansbury civil servants etc thought of it by themselves. (Unless an advocate was working in the dept).

No, I see. I suppose I think a lot of bad behaviour, if reported, would have discredited the programme.

For the rest though, I suppose I'd adjust my comments above to say that, to a lot of men, the idea of wanting to be feminine and feminised marks a person out as 'not man' and, for reasons best known to themselves, they see this as placing them in the category 'women'.

I don't doubt at all that the feelings and responses of women was not given the slightest thought.

We're oh so accommodating, comforting and supportive, aren't we. One big universal mummy figure.

The levels of sex offences committed in hosp is high isn't it?

Yes-

'Hundreds of vulnerable women and men are being sexually assaulted by other patients while staying on NHS wards – at a rate of one attack every day, data has revealed.

At least 1,019 sexual assaults were reported by male and female patients on mixed sex mental health wards between April 2017 and October 2019, according to figures obtained by the Health Service Journal.'

www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-sexual-assault-patients-mental-health-mixed-sex-wards-a9273656.html

'The Department of Health and Social Care said: “Sexual abuse in the NHS will never be tolerated. We take every allegation of abuse extremely seriously and we expect every report of sexual assault on patients or staff to be immediately investigated by trusts.

“Men and women should not share hospital accommodation and we’ve cut mixed-sex accommodation breaches by over 85 per cent since 2010.”'

???!!!

The DOH never had a single sex policy. Single gender. Public lied to.

And they're still lying!!!

Jesus Christ.