Emma Nicholson in the Times

[Igneococcus]

On single sex wards:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f6f6c84a-a499-11ec-b05a-8d7b276f1397?shareToken=1c8f4c99404e08ae113db7787fb3686e

Robin it is males not respecting female only spaces which is vile. Not Emma Nicholson’s amendment.

Well done Baroness.

Adooting a 'lady' name and 'lady' clothes does not transform males into females.

the need for this exercise in prejudice.

Could you explain what exactly you see as "prejudice" here? What belief is unsubstantiated by evidence/reality?

I do hope you're not suggesting that men who don't say they're women are more of a risk and more threatening to women than men who do say they're women?

That would seem immensely prejudiced against us, and demonstrably untrue, and I will not accept that unevidenced slur from you.

I accept that men are a risk to women, because of the indisputable evidence for that, and I accept that a limited number of female-only spaces are a practical least-harm solution.

I will never accept that "transwomen" are not at least the same risk and need to be treated the same way as other men as long as either (a) "transwoman" merely means "any man who says he's a woman" - which appears to be de facto policy here, or (b) the stats show typical male-pattern violent and sexual offending rates (or worse), which they do.

If you want to limit transwomen to a strictly defined group with strict gatekeeping, so women could be reassured that these weren't random blokes, and can then could demonstrate actual female-pattern behaviour from that gatekept subset, maybe we could talk. But that's not the real world.

So it's has to be hard exclusion of self-identified "transwomen". That is the inevitable consequence of "self ID". If anyone can opt into the group, the group cannot receive special privileges.

And all of this is permitted by the Equality Act - even "transwomen" with GRCs can be excluded from female-only spaces.

Because they're female-only. (duh) And the authors of the EA2010 knew perfectly well that getting a GRC did not make a male female.

Here is something that I think is always missed when we are tiptoeing around safeguarding regarding this issue.

Trans women, of course, need protections and safety themselves, of course they do, and a right to live as they wish. I don't think trans women, just because they are trans, pose a threat to women and if there was a process by which they could be assessed against a set of criteria, I would have no problem at all sharing safe spaces with them (though I only speak for myself, not other women).

However, right now it is not only trans women who are able to identify as women, is it? Who is in this other group of men identifying as women? What are their reasons? Because a man's reasons for identifying as a woman if he is not trans can only be nefarious. Therefore, any man identifying as a woman IS a threat unless there is a sure fire way of knowing whether or not he is trans, isn't he?

We do the same for teachers. Anyone who says they are a teacher when they are not must be doing it for nefarious reasons. Anyone who says they are a police officer when they are not must only have nefarious reasons.

Why is this huge safeguarding chasm so difficult to bridge.

Hard to fathom the prejudices one must have to think that women and girls should be forced against their will to lie (partially undressed) in the same room as men.

At her last attempt to promote this vile amendment, AN was asked by the government Minister what evidence she had to justify the need for this exercise in prejudice.

That 'vile' and 'prejudiced' thing would be women's equality, access and inclusion.

Which says really all you need to know about the point of engaging further. Obviously someone who believes that females can never have needs that justify the absolute freedoms and supremacy of interest of biological males is not going to agree that females should have rights.

They will also never agree that there is evidence or need or anything else from the female half of the human race: as witnessed by the many, many threads trying to explain the issues to this poster. They are absolutely unable to hear or care about anyone female or ever find any reason why their voice should be granted credence.

In my mind actually that is vile prejudice against females. Particularly when the justification is supposed to be that sex is irrelevant and no identifier of women.

It's absolutely the identifier of the subordinate sub class, no one seems remotely confused about that.

who believes that females can never have needs that justify limiting* the absolute freedoms and supremacy of interest of biological males is not going to agree that females should have rights.

it has a duty of honesty and candour to all patients, not some above others.
How is it honest, how is it best practice, how is it medically justifiable to ignore the sex of any patients?

“Vile” dear me, what an hysterical over reaction to the point that single sex wards are perfectly legal & that the NHS can’t disregard that just because they’re stonewalled to the eyeballs & beyond

It surely doesn't take that much imagination to see that anybody admitted to hospital is in a vulnerable state. You lose your dignity and privacy as you are wearing a flimsy robe, handled and examined by a series of complete strangers, worried about whatever is happening in the body to warrant medical attention, having to deal with excretion and hygiene in a semi-public space shared with other complete strangers, and so on and so forth.

It's unconscionable to add to that the additional anxiety of being in a mixed sex space while one is so vulnerable.

There must be many patients from religious groups who are not allowed by their religion to share space in this way with members of the opposite sex from outside their family. What about their needs? That's a protected characteristic.

I count myself fortunate that I gave birth in the early 90s before the NHS started allowing new fathers to spend the night on the postnatal ward with partner and baby. I would have hated that. If the NHS offered private rooms for every family, fair enough, but my understanding is that this happens on wards where the beds are separated by flimsy curtains, so women are struggling with breastfeeding and shuffling to the loo to deal with lochia at one of the most vulnerable times of their lives in full view of various strange men.

We deserve better.

For anyone claiming that there is no evidence of harm, I need to point out that the policy in many hospitals is to record trans people as the sex they select on entry (obviously some may have already changed it in their NHS records - there are no barriers to this). This policy includes those who identify as female ‘on a part-time basis’.

Therefore there is no record kept of how many trans people are placed on which ward. Any attacks/harassment by the individual will be recorded as carried out by a female and all evidence ‘disappears’.

A nurse reported on the GRA evidence submission that on her ward there were four abusive males who either sexually assaulted female patients, masturbated openly or were otherwise abusive to staff and patients and had to be removed by security. This was in a two year period.

Obviously the policies state that if staff admit to anyone else that a patient is trans or male then the policy states that they will be disciplined and/or face police action.

Any assaults that required police action will have been recorded as committed by a female as per policy in any force areas. As we know there is a 98.2% chance they WON’T be prosecuted, however good the evidence.

We know that women are actually being harmed by this yet policymakers are enabling it instead of trying to prevent harm.

At her last attempt to promote this vile amendment, AN was asked by the government Minister what evidence she had to justify the need for this exercise in prejudice.

The equality act allows provision for single sex spaces. I will assume you only think its vile because this provision doesn't give born males a free pass to single sex spaces for women.

Superbly clear and well-reasoned article. Thank you so much Baroness for your courage on this.

Which says really all you need to know about the point of engaging further. Obviously someone who believes that females can never have needs that justify the absolute freedoms and supremacy of interest of biological males is not going to agree that females should have rights.

Very well put. Rarely have we been treated to such an unequivocal statement from this poster laying out all out quite so...openly. There is normally at least lip service paid to some semblance of support for women's rights. I wonder what it is that prompted this (involuntary?) disclosure.

I had a family member in a semi-conscious and then all but unconscious state last year getting distressed if she heard a man's voice when she had to be cleaned and changed. It struck me then just how visceral our need for privacy and dignity is and how important female-only intimate care is for us. Especially since she reacted in this way even to the voices of her beloved son and grandsons.

I will never forget seeing that.

OK, but where is the evidence of the present NHS arrangements causing harm?

I'm baffled. Are transwomen asking for access to female spaces, or are transwomen asking to not be placed in male spaces?

If it's the former... Why?! For what possible reason?

If it's the latter... Surely the claim would be for safety reasons? They don't feel safe with the other men. So how can they not understand this is exactly how women feel and exactly why there are same sex spaces to begin with.

If the NHS suddenly think it's ok to have mixed sex spaces then just open the whole thing up. To hell with it. They'd save a lot of logistics.

I can understand why a trans woman would feel uncomfortable in a men's ward. Why then, is it so difficult for Robin to understand that many women feel uncomfortable accommodating a trans woman in their space. The issue is the same issue. In an ideal situation we would recognise mutual discomfort and campaign together for a solution to meet all needs. I think that is unarguable. Throwing words like vile around is simply a refusal to engage on an adult basis.

What evidence is collected? Is that evidence permitted to be collected by sex? Or does everyone have to be polite and pretend, in order to receive healthcare and keep their jobs?

However, right now it is not only trans women who are able to identify as women, is it? Who is in this other group of men identifying as women? What are their reasons? Because a man's reasons for identifying as a woman if he is not trans can only be nefarious. Therefore, any man identifying as a woman IS a threat unless there is a sure fire way of knowing whether or not he is trans, isn't he?

I don't think we can ever really know that. And there is a contradiction here with the assertion that anyone who says they are trans is trans, so there can be no fake transwomen. A man is a woman if he says he is.

If a transwoman is any man who says he is, then those who identify as transwomen for nefarious purposes are just as genuinely trans as those who hold a sincere belief that they are women.

If it's only those who hold a sincere belief, how do we know that they sincerely hold that belief? Some people can lie very convincingly.

What is a transwoman? Do we have a definition?