Emma Nicholson in the Times

[Igneococcus]

On single sex wards:

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

Mixed sex wards is one thing - but being told that the ward you are in is single sex and it being evident that it isn’t really is just cruel.

I think Robin’s position is essentially ‘women who care aren’t people I care about’.

Male people in supposedly female-only facilities are disconcerting at least, distressing often, and actively dangerous in some cases, to many women and girls.

What about the evidence of my feelings that I don’t want to be on a mixed sex ward? The whole existence of trans people is prefaced on feelings. Is it just that my feelings as a woman don’t count?

@RobinMoiraWhite

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

Did you not see this in ElPolloLoco's post this morning?

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.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4506091-Emma-Nicholson-in-the-Times?msgid=115890430

Last time I was in hospital I was on a woman’s ward - almost all of the women in there were there because of gynae issues. Womens medical issues.

Just a reminder that for some posters no evidence of harm causing is ever enough. Even if every single woman was harmed they would still prioritise male feelings

So fuck your "it never happens" because what you really mean is "I don't care who it happens to."

Is about the extend anyone needs to understand when reading those posters contributions. It is a common theme these days.

So fuck your "it never happens" because what you really mean is "I don't care who it happens to."

Absolutely spot on. I'm sorry that happened to your mother in law.

@Helleofabore

So fuck your "it never happens" because what you really mean is "I don't care who it happens to."

Is about the extend anyone needs to understand when reading those posters contributions. It is a common theme these days.

I'm beginning to wonder how much evidence of misogyny, and lack of attention to detail RMW is willing to tolerate in personal branding. On the latter point, it doesn't seem to be restricted to lack of engagement with this thread or affecting not to notice that several reports and sources have been mentioned.

The first point to note is that the book lacks a consistent sense of purpose, wandering between summarising the law, setting out statutory and non-statutory guidance and policy material, charting the development of the law and social attitudes in this area, and legal analysis. Perhaps as a result, its structure is choppy and repetitious…The book is poorly proof-read, with minor errors sprinkled throughout the text and one instance where a section of nearly a page and a half appears in two different places.

The book’s defects of structure, clarity of purpose and editing might have been forgiven if the authors had been able to offer helpful insights on some of the undoubtedly tricky problems in this area. But the book is equally disappointing in almost all matters of substance.

legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/02/a-practical-guide/

The CQC report (CQC is the regulator, so a reliable source) from 2018 on sexual assault on mixed sex mental health wards provides a great deal of evidence of harm occurring in a mixed sex environment.

www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/20180911c_sexualsafetymh_report.pdf

@Theeyeballsinthesky

Just a reminder that for some posters no evidence of harm causing is ever enough. Even if every single woman was harmed they would still prioritise male feelings

Indeed yes.

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

Are you blind? Not only are there reported incidences, but it seems we are also now seeing the ‘n+1’ equation in full action.

If only one incident had happened, it means that the policy is ‘causing harm’. If transitioned males need protection and privacy away from other males, go and campaign for safe spaces that are not imposing on female single sex spaces.

And yes, I also witnessed my very ill mother with dementia suffer from a male sharing a four bedroom ward. There was nothing we could do because the country she was in allowed mixed sex wards. But her distress was great. She was a victim of domestic violence.

And no. Transitioned males rarely pass so please don’t try that trope again either.

It simply doesn’t matter, males of any gender should not be accommodated in female wards. Nothing ‘vile’ and nothing ‘prejudiced’ about it. Except it is vile and prejudiced against females to deny single sex wards.

@rabbitwoman

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.

For me, it's straightforward.

Single sex safeguarding is to protect females because males are unequivocally a risk to females. We have no way of knowing which males, so in order to keep females safe, safeguarding has to be based on the premise that males are a risk. Therefore we have single sex spaces. Whatever someone identifies as must never change that.

@Voice0fReason

Baroness Nicholson is doing a fantastic job raising these issues.

I have no interest in the opinions of men who object to women having single-sex spaces. Their motives are never focused on women's needs.

This^

Baroness Nicholson is doing fabulous work protecting women and children.

But the book is equally disappointing in almost all matters of substance.

Thanks for the reminder embarassing. I think this sentence does a great deal of work, no?

RobinMoiraWhite

A simple question for you: Do you think that all wards should be mixed? If not, why not?

So that is an account of a difficulty on one occasion where a known safeguarding risk was not actioned. And with that you want to alter a policy for every trans person’s n in every NHS hospital?

You might want to be careful about knee-jerk policy making based on single instances.

That isn’t evidence-based policy making.

*How little regard

Robin, you appear to be a barrister and yet you seem to be unaware of the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act 2010.

I've taken a screenshot.

@RobinMoiraWhite

So that is an account of a difficulty on one occasion where a known safeguarding risk was not actioned. And with that you want to alter a policy for every trans person’s n in every NHS hospital?

You might want to be careful about knee-jerk policy making based on single instances.

That isn’t evidence-based policy making.

The current policy says people can go into whatever ward they want based on how they identify (or, horror, how they are dressed... I'll be in the male wards then with my jeans and trainers).

Is this evidence based? Genuinely asking. I'm curious what the evidence behind this could possibly be.

N+1. Every time.

Never heard of Chestertons fence?

Before you change something, ask yourself why it is there.

Why do we have single sex wards?

Privacy, dignity, safety for both women and men, but primarily for women.

What effect does changing from “single sex” to “single gender” have?

Everything becomes by default mixed sex.

It’s really very simple. Anyone with moral fibre could grasp it, respect it, and then campaign to have trans people accommodated with dignity in the accommodation that belongs to their sex- side bays, single occupancy rooms etc. So everyone is catered for.

But no. Some people won’t do that.

Because they don’t think women matter.