Emma Nicholson in the Times

[Igneococcus]

On single sex wards:

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

Baroness Penn basically saying there's no point discussing due to the review being carried out.

As we know, though, that review may not be being carried out in a fair manner:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4506395-Fears-over-flawed-NHS-single-sex-wards-review-carried-out-by-trans-advocate?watched=1&msgid=115918883#115918883

@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.

This really does come back to no meaningful durable definitions.

I should think NB qua NB would not wish to be in a ward with anybody but NBs. Unless they are male or female presenting in which case there might be a preference.

However, if people are of the sort who experience themselves as gender fluid with a shift several times in a day, I doubt the NHS has the capacity to reserve 2 or more beds in different spots.

And questions about the fairness of the review raised by Lord Lucas:

'A review carried out by people so committed to a highly politicised organisation—one embracing the extremes of postmodernism in its attitudes to people—is entirely unsatisfactory'

All wound up at 2am.

Lord Etherton:
It is not a legitimate aim that some people feel uncomfortable sharing accommodation and facilities with trans people of the opposite birth sex. That would make a nonsense of having the statutory protected characteristic in the first place.

So according to him, any man is a woman if he says he is, and any woman who is uncomfortable about sharing a hospital ward with such a man has no legitimate reason for objecting. And the only reason for having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is so that men can self-identify into women only-spaces.

This was the first speech after Baroness Nicholson spoke about a woman who had been raped in hospital and was told that there were no men on the ward so this could not have happened.

It is not a legitimate aim that some people feel uncomfortable sharing accommodation and facilities with people of the opposite birth sex.

Aim? People feeling uncomfortable is an aim?

Either it is acceptable that there are sex segregated facilities that recognise that privacy, dignity, safety and the ability to recover which does involve feeling safe, involve not being alongside those of the opposite sex, or it isnt.

Either there are NO sex segregated facilities because it's never acceptable for anyone to have these feelings, or those feelings are acceptable and there are sex segregated facilities. It's one or the other.

Because how someone of the opposite sex identifies makes absolutely no practical difference to everyone else. They remain of the opposite sex.

And this will in practical terms exclude many females from any care so that these male people can have their preferences and identity recognised and validated.

Is that a legitimate aim? It's a really fantastically sexist and discriminatory one. Again, for the umpteenth time, the EqA2010 have NINE protected characteristics. Not one.

Presumably he'd written the speech before hearing about the rape on the ward. I think if it were me, I'd have probably made a few changes, but there you go.

So very much of what we hear when trans women’s rights & women’s rights are seen to conflict appears - to me - to be upside down/back to front (& not in a charming Edward Lear sort of way).

Here, we are being asked for proof of harm. Hard to come by, given it is deliberately concealed; & when provided, somehow inadequate. Safeguarding means proving (as far as one can) the safety of the measure before implementation - that never happened. As with sport, the burden of proof has been perversely flipped: trans women have invaded women’s spaces* & women are being expected to provide mountains of evidence to prove that they continue to have they have the rights that are enshrined in law as they attempt to evict these gatecrashers.

As well as all the times things are deliberately disguised &/or suppressed, there are going to be innumerable women who are simply never heard. The mere existence of some women of faith is evidence. I wonder if there is some formula for calculating how many women have been so badly traumatised by VAWG that such a situation would prove intolerable to them.

I posted about needing single-sex wards on another thread:

I wouldn’t feel safe sharing a bay with any male person, however they choose to identify, when in hospital. It is bad enough having other women hear - because they inevitably do, unless you’re in a side room - every last detail of your body’s [mal]functions. I have had the experience of another patient’s male relative staying in the Bay (he was not meant to be there, staff were not aware & patient was not - unlike me, as it happens - desperately unwell). I’m sure he was a perfectly nice man with no thought other than for his female relative (& perhaps his own comfort). Unfortunately, my lizard brain was not on board with this analysis. The stress did bring my blood pressure up towards normal, which was much-needed - but I literally couldn’t speak with terror. My nurse was in to me multiple times for obs & to switch over IV bags, I didn’t need to call them even, but I couldn’t speak. The idea is bad enough in the daytime, from a privacy, dignity & neurodivergency point of view. Dismissing my not wanting to be repeatedly retraumatised night after night as part of a “right-wing moral panic” is, to put it politely, grim. Not that it should have to be about any of the many women & girls who are survivors of male violence. Nor those women whose faith prohibits their sharing such a space with a male individual - again, however they identify. It is enough that women simply want to keep the single sex spaces that are there to protect them; & to take the utilitarian approach, which here, of course, means vigorously enforcing women’s rights to single sex spaces (“here” would of course apply to female sport, girls’ schools - & the charity commission making Girlguiding either revert to being single sex for young members or give up the “single gender” nonsense & be openly mixed sex).

Nobody’s asked for my views, my opinion, my input. Unless the Trust in question were to consider it relevant (doubtful, given the indirect relationship) it would take someone trawling these boards to find this evidence. Which some would be all to ready to dismiss, I know, because TWAW & I couldn’t possibly ever know. Tell that to my lizard brain.

• it’s all so neo-colonialist I’m surprised they’re not wearing pith helmets - TRAs make the most zealous Victorian missionaries look positively laid back about evangelising & proselytising though

This was the first speech after Baroness Nicholson spoke about a woman who had been raped in hospital and was told that there were no men on the ward so this could not have happened.

I suppose this is quite a useful strategy really.

"Mr Johnson, what will you do about the fact that due to gas prices, many of my constituents cannot afford to heat their homes?"

"There is no gas, it does not exist, so this doesn't happen."

"I'd like to ask my learned friend how many people died in speeding related accidents last year and what he plans to do about this?"

"There are no cars, so there is no speeding, this never happens."

The looney land bus stops here.

Artichoke more than one peer made it very clear that the EA should not be prioritising one protected characteristic over others. And that women have rights that must be respected.

Of course, there seems to be a few willing to stand up and argue against thta simple point, but hopefully more are coming to agree that yes, women do indeed have rights and protections.

It's quite handy to say 'nobody objects to this rule, and if they do object, they must be mad or bigoted, so we won't listen anyway', isn't it?

Here, we are being asked for proof of harm. Hard to come by, given it is deliberately concealed; & when provided, somehow inadequate.

Or the proof can't be mentioned because of the potential consequences for those who have witnessed the harm. This is from Baroness Nicholson's opening speech:

Finally, I draw to the House’s attention the fact that I have been requested on a number of occasions by the Minister and others to give examples of what I am talking about. This is not at all easy, because all the examples given to me have been given in confidence. Whereas I know who they are—some are medical professionals and some have already had their jobs threatened—I can see why they do not want to be known.

@OldCrone

Here, we are being asked for proof of harm. Hard to come by, given it is deliberately concealed; & when provided, somehow inadequate.

Or the proof can't be mentioned because of the potential consequences for those who have witnessed the harm. This is from Baroness Nicholson's opening speech:

Finally, I draw to the House’s attention the fact that I have been requested on a number of occasions by the Minister and others to give examples of what I am talking about. This is not at all easy, because all the examples given to me have been given in confidence. Whereas I know who they are—some are medical professionals and some have already had their jobs threatened—I can see why they do not want to be known.

This is the problem. The Baroness mentioned the rape victim where the hospital flatly denied that a male was present and there wasn’t a rape. This was obviously proven to be a lie by cctv and actual evidence and once the police realised the hospital was lying they proceeded to take her seriously.

The hospital held their line for an entire year. That is a year of lying to a woman who was raped while in their care. This hasn’t hit the headlines as the newspapers are strongly discouraged by IPSO from reporting on such issues.

Hospitals do not gather the data on this. There is no evidence because they are deliberately preventing the collection of evidence but we know it is happening because we are hearing from the women it is happening to and the nurses that are observing it happening.

@SamphiretheStickerist

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.

Did you watch the debate? Lord Etherton set the law out quite clearly.

I do like Emma Nicholson. Very intelligent, unlike some.

So Robin do you believe that women have no right to have single sex spaces when they are vulnerable?

Yes. Some women can only access single sex spaces. And will be excluded if this is denied to them because male people feel that they are so much more important.

You're starting to get the problem here.

A women was raped in hospital. The hospital said there was no man there for a year. From the baroness

Some women - a clear minority

It's not a minority of women at all. There's not many women who would be happy to share space with men where they are undressing or vulnerable. Why on earth would they? Not even those who identify as (but certainly not with) women. It's not about segregating by gender identity. It's about segregating by biological sex. For the dignity, privacy and safeguarding of women and children.

I asked for evidence, not anecdote.

Evidence has clearly been provided in this thread. Did you not bother to read it properly because it doesn't suit your narrative?

@RobinMoiraWhite

I asked for evidence, not anecdote.

And I’m entirely happy to stand by my comments and work record.

Dear god!

The oft repeated refrain... give me evidence, no not that evidence, other evidence. No, not that evidence either!

You can stand on or bay whatever you want. Many of us have seen how you interpret the EA2010, have tried to discuss it with you here. Your own bias makes your view excruciatingly narrow and personalised.

We are not extensions of RMW World. We are women who are saying NO!!!

@RobinMoiraWhite. Where is your evidence for ‘a clear minority’?

Not outdated or bogus surveys where it is not made clear that trans woman does not necessarily mean post-surgery, but current data from a statistically sound sample of women who were asked how they feel about sharing currently single-sex spaces with people with penises.