Emma Nicholson in the Times

[Igneococcus]

On single sex wards:

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

@EricCartmansMagicalUnderpants

Someone who has absolutely no idea what it's like to be an actual woman...

This is true. I would add to that, someone who doesn't care what it's like to be an actual woman. Apart from their version of womanhood. Which takes all the bits they see as best, and leaving the shit bits and more for actual women.

A quick look at RMW's blog tells you all you need to know about what RMW thinks being a woman is.

15 years ago when I was breastfeeding my first born, who was 2 months old, I needed emergency surgery. I needed my son to stay with me in the NHS hospital so that I could breastfeed. His dad was present to look after him while I actually had the surgery and grandparents came to help.

There was no space available on the women's surgical ward at that time so I had to go in a side room on the men's surgical ward.

The NHS hospital emphasised that I was staying in the men's ward with my baby at my own risk. Even though I was in an entirely separate room with private bathroom arrangements.

It beggars belief that now any one of those men could simply declare to be a woman and demand to go on to a women's ward. Why does declaring oneself a woman mean that a man is no longer a risk? We know that this simply isn't true.

I don't think this is about safety of trans women either because it's not enough for them to be kept safe which could happen by having separate spaces in hospitals. It's about validating their feelings. Which is ironic given that they don't give two hoots about the valid feelings of women who are being put in the exact circumstances that they are saying they need to be removed from for their safety.

I'm sure the couple in question above wanted to swap their leave. Who knows whether or not the father wanted it more than the mother. We don't have that information.

The point is the NHS should not be in a position where they can rewrite their own policy to satisfy an ideology, to the detriment of the mother and baby.

@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

Quite.

There is zero point trying to explain this or put forward women's needs and voices. You will never, never make yourself heard.

This a position of extreme misogyny, that proudly broadcasts its derision for females while demanding unlimited service and nurture from them.

No. Mummy will not be picking you up, and my ears only hear nice words.

@Datun

This is what women staying no looks like.

A fiction is being imposed on other patients, their concerns disregarded, even being smeared as bigotry. Nurses are left in a difficult position.

This is insulting to patients and a safeguarding disaster.

For 35 years, debates in parliament have said there should be single-sex wards. There was a huge fight 20 years ago to stop mixed-sex wards. Yet here we are: the NHS, captured by lobbyists, is implementing, outside its authority, a one-sided policy.

These hard-won rights are vital for patients at their most vulnerable.

Thank you, Baroness.

The answer is no.

Absolutely Datun

Men really need to learn to accept when women say no, even the sainted males with special identities.

@Datun

I'm sure the couple in question above wanted to swap their leave. Who knows whether or not the father wanted it more than the mother. We don't have that information.

The point is the NHS should not be in a position where they can rewrite their own policy to satisfy an ideology, to the detriment of the mother and baby.

I'm quoting myself, I didn't mean the NHS, I meant the company involved.

For those who are up, the amendment on single-sex wards is still to be heard tonight; it's a late one.

www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/e641961d-c10c-4bde-a7d6-95d18dc0ab3c

[quote IsitM]For those who are up, the amendment on single-sex wards is still to be heard tonight; it's a late one.

www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/e641961d-c10c-4bde-a7d6-95d18dc0ab3c[/quote]
I have it on, but the subtitles appear to not be on.

I think the amendment was withdrawn

mobile.twitter.com/Baroness_Nichol/status/1504291805541580801?cxt=HHwWgoCyvarbqOApAAAA

They usually are withdrawn. Each time this is debated, more support is gained.

Each time this is debated another issue is highlighted. This time the fact that the NHS project team seems to have a bias and an activist involved is writing emails assuring a particular outcome.

At the very least that person should be removed from the project for that action. And if there is no confidence in the impartiality or the balance of the group it should be abandoned and restarted.

By the sounds, the group has been ill run since the start.

I agree. And from what's been reported, the end "no change" policy will not survive a judicial review anyway. For example the "well we HAD TO ask women's groups" kind of frankness on email. There may be more such emails.

So something will have to change as the way it's been done has been exposed already. Plus as the Baroness says - the 35 years' worth of promises!

Good news. Thank you to all those with inside information for explaining and highlighting the issues.

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

I cant quite believe that this happened, I mean I can of course , look who sorted it, but did no one actually say hang on, the birth giver needs the time off to recover?
Not one person felt able to say this is all kinds of wrong, it's so wrong we wont do it?
All contrary opinions just fell by the wayside because trans?

I mean why did women campaign ever so slowly to increase maternity leave ( I got 4 weeks, and I still suffer now with things that had they had time to heal wouldnt give me grief now) up to a full year if really it's not needed.

Ffs

Why would you just want two weeks off after giving birth??? Hooray me, they must’ve thought…

@Artichokeleaves

did no one actually say hang on, the birth giver needs the time off to recover?

It's a biological female thing.

So offensive that it exists at all, and has never impacted male people and is wholly irrelevant to male people, so therefore has no importance. I'm sure Robin would ask at this point where is the evidence that birth trauma, birth injury etc actually exists - no not that huge pile of evidence because it's mostly women's voices, not male gathered, male approved, peer reviewed, buried in soft peat for three months and sent to Alpha Centuri for review kind of evidence.

This abysmal sexism and how very, very successful it is and how totally without conscience it is, shows exactly why female people must have legal protections and an identity as a sex class, and the power to keep male people from controlling things that have nothing to do with them.

Yeah I've had a couple deletions so using the mangled language that wont get me deleted again Agree with all of this, pretty sure we only got better maternity only after women got into positions where they could pressure for it.

Out of curiosity is it the same couple who had a short video of the "mother" trying to breast feed unsuccessfully and the " father" looking on which I wont link to cos it makes me feel vomitous.

I cant quite believe that this happened, I mean I can of course , look who sorted it, but did no one actually say hang on, the birth giver needs the time off to recover?

Birth giver was now a 'man' therefore maternity rights do not count.

Keep up! People on here have been pointing out what the erasure of women in law means for several years now. You are just seeing it played out in real life. No matter that there may not have even been risk assessments on the pregnant man in the first place to protect them and their child, now the giver of birth has to return to normal duties just 2 weeks after giving birth.

It is what feminists wanted all along right, equality?

[Don't @ me, I know].

So let me try to understand this.

The person who went through 9 months of pregnancy and have birth - gets the leave that would usually go to a person who just was there for ten mins or so 9 months ago?

So they don’t have any of the aches, pains, sleep deprivation, PND… then just because? But the person who is the biological father (no pregnancy, no swollen ankles, haemorrhoids, high blood pressure, tears n stitches) needs the full maternity leave?

What was the argument for this exactly? Are they going to take on the full ‘baby duties’ whilst the person who gave birth gets to sleep through the night, dodge changing nappies, and go to work (with a need to pump breast milk, soft cushion to sit on, and have physical checkups?).

Debated at 1am in the HoL, on Hansard now:

hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2022-03-16/debates/84C9B6AA-0214-4CEF-A41D-302373BDC190/HealthAndCareBill

All praise to those who stayed up til an ungodly hour to debate this.

'“Non-binary individuals, who do not identify as being male or female, should also be asked discreetly about their preferences, and allocated to the male or female ward according to their choice.”

Being non-binary is not a protected characteristic, so what on earth is it doing in annexe B?'

Lord Clement-Jones.

Lord Lucas:

'It is absolutely clear in the definitions in the Equality Act that trans women are men. So if you have a trans woman in a female ward, that is a man in a female ward and that is against what female wards were intended for'

@DomesticatedZombie

'“Non-binary individuals, who do not identify as being male or female, should also be asked discreetly about their preferences, and allocated to the male or female ward according to their choice.”

Being non-binary is not a protected characteristic, so what on earth is it doing in annexe B?'

Lord Clement-Jones.

He obviously hasnt kept up with the law...