Emma Nicholson in the Times

[Igneococcus]

On single sex wards:

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

@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.

How very familiar to be upbraided on the matter of evidence-based policy making by somebody adopting the stance that you do on this and every other thread in which you are present yet fail to engage. It's almost as if there's a belief in innate superiority and knowledge in play for some unaccountable reason.

However, given the review of your book, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. Your style and attention to detail don't seem to be distinctive of only your social media activity.

If only #NoDebate were not still some people's preferred mode of engagement we might have had some useful conversations about safeguarding and the NHS. Instead, so much has been done by stealth, and we have people like Mark Bradley assuring his allies that listening to women is a pro forma activity.

Wow, just wow. “…an account of a difficulty on one occasion where a known safeguarding risk was not actioned.” Can you even hear yourself? MEN are the known safeguarding risks. Keeping wards single sex is the very definition of actioning a known safeguarding risk.

As for the idea that the existing evidence of harm is not enough evidence of harm, bring me more harmed women…well, that’s just grim.

@RobinMoiraWhite

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

What do you define as 'harm'?

Are women harmed when men barge in demanding evidence of harm?

Yes, yes we are. We do not have to evidence it. The fact that men do it, is harm enough. The fact that men even ask the question is harm enough. What sort of men even do that?

I would be caused harm if I refused to remain in hospital, or be admitted in the first place, because there was a male on the ward. I'd just be listed as a 'bigot' though.

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?

What defines a 'trans person' Robin?

Who falls into this category of 'trans'? Is it everyone who says they are, or are there other criteria? if so, what?

@OldCrone

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?

What defines a 'trans person' Robin?

Who falls into this category of 'trans'? Is it everyone who says they are, or are there other criteria? if so, what?

I look forward to Robin ignoring this like all the other times you’ve asked on multiple other threads OldCrone.

That isn’t evidence-based policy making.

Yes it is evidence based. Even if you hate the fact that gender identity does not offer up all women's sex segregated space up to those born males who say they identify as women.

Maybe those born males identifying as women could try identifying with women for a change. Rather than making it all about them and only them.

I won’t post them, but I think we can all remember some of the terms and phrases that this poster has used for women who disagree with them on this forum.

Somebody was in a strop yesterday. I wonder why?

[quote Rightsraptor]@RobinMoiraWhite: it's for anyone changing any existing arrangements to prove that the new ones do not cause harm and are, they might hope, actually beneficial. Who benefits from males on women's wards? Not women, that's for sure.

You, Robin, are the one who was recently boasting how you'd sorted out the parental leave arrangements for a confused-sex couple, where the 'man' was the one actually pregnant and going to give birth. You arranged for this person to have the paternity leave (do correct me if I got this wrong) and the ejaculator to have the maternity leave. So the 'birthing parent' would have two weeks off work after the birth and you seemed to think that fine and dandy.

Those of us here who have given birth and/or have worked within its sphere will know how brutal that is. You did that, Robin, unknowingly maybe as you have zero experience of it yourself. You did that brutal act. That was vile.[/quote]
That's difficult to believe.

A female who's given birth gets two weeks off, because of trans ideology? And the father gets the full maternity leave instead?

Dear god.

Robin, you obviously don't know this, but even if everything goes according to plan, it takes a year for a female's body to recover from growing and producing an entirely new human.

This is male supremacism.

There isn't a single, solitary benefit for women. None.

My opinion of someone who deliberately helps to prevent a mother from having maternity leave because of an ideology that only benefits males, could not be lower.

Unless I've got this all wrong? Someone tell me I've got it wrong, because I really am having trouble believing it.

What sort of person would seek to remove the birth recovery time from a woman and send her back to work early, so that the male can take her recovery time and use it for himself. That's fucking grim.

Unless I've got this all wrong? Someone tell me I've got it wrong, because I really am having trouble believing it.

No. You are not wrong.

When women say no, and the response is:

• to keep badgering with "but but but"
• to exclude us from decision making
• to lament that some of us unfortunately HAD TO be asked
• to ignore the clear evidence of the dangers

And so on. I cannot help but wonder why "no means no" is railed against, and sneakily worked around at every opposition.

And as a woman who's learned from a very young age about the dangers males present to me - and experienced it - and who knows that loophole after loophole will be found and exploited...well I wonder why when all this is presented, some people cannot or will not take no for an answer.

If you think women and girls don't have the right to say no then you've no place in discussions about our dignity and safety and rights.

HTH.

As for the idea that the existing evidence of harm is not enough evidence of harm, bring me more harmed women…well, that’s just grim.

It says such as lot about RMW doesn't it. I especially note that in one of the incidents discussed, there was a very vulnerable young woman in a psychiatric facility and that leaves RMW unmoved.

It's a personal branding choice.

Someone who is unable to extend compassion to women in this situation must, I think, have one of the following motivations:

Women's distress and fear and concern is something they are unable to hear, understand, or unable to imagine. Even when it's spelled out.

Women's distress, fear and concern is something that they don't care about. Even when the law makes provision for it.

The last possibility I hesitate to include because it is, I hope, unlikely: Women's distress, fear and concern is something that they enjoy.

@RobinMoiraWhite

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

How many women being harmed will be too many? At what number would you agree that 'enough' harm had been done? What form would that harm come in? Would fear, apprehension, anxiety be enough? Or would that 'just' be a woman's prejudice?

Come on Robin. How many women must be harmed before you can agree that no man belongs in single sex female spaces?

And with that you want to alter a policy for every trans person’s n in every NHS hospital?

No. We actually want the NHS to apply the law, their own policies as they actually are. Which is what Baroness Nicholson is saying.

What's the name for someone demanding statistics that they and their mates have ensured are unavailable? As even the most dangerous of male born sex offenders is classed as a woman by the NHS if they say they're one then all incidents will be hushed up recorded as committed by a woman.

The policy is surely, very simply 'no males'.

Two words.

@EricCartmansMagicalUnderpants

What sort of person would seek to remove the birth recovery time from a woman and send her back to work early, so that the male can take her recovery time and use it for himself. That's fucking grim.

It's repugnant.

And you have to wonder what sort of mindset then leads them to imagine that their opinion about anything to do with women should even be heard, much less addressed.