Hospital told police patient not raped because attacker transgender

[Snoodsy]

A hospital told the police that a patient could not have been raped because her alleged attacker was trans, the House of Lords has heard.

The attack took place a year ago and the woman reported it but when officers contacted the hospital, which has not been named, they were told “that there was no male in the hospital, therefore the rape could not have happened”.

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, who raised the issue during a debate on single-sex wards, continued: “They forgot that there was CCTV, nurses and observers.

“None the less, it has taken nearly a year for the hospital to agree that there was a male on the ward and, yes, this rape happened.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220317203204/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/17/hospital-told-police-patient-not-raped-alleged-attacker-transgender/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20220317203204/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/17/hospital-told-police-patient-not-raped-alleged-attacker-transgender/

I haven't read the whole thread but if the hospital told the police there was no rape as there was no man present does that mean that the patient was denied any forensic examination and the opportunity of obtaining evidence was missed?

Sorry if this has been discussed. I'm at work and can't keep up!

So are they saying that if a cis female sexually assaults another woman on a ward that no assault could have happened ? Because that is just following their "logic" to its ultimate conclusion.
It looks as though we are either going to have to agree that anyone with a a penis and testicle (formerly known as male genitalia) will be treated in criminal cases as a "man" and anyone not in possession of such articles will be treated under the same circumstances as a "woman" regardless of how they were defined at birth ,or just accept that no one will be guaranteed safe in hospital regardless of sex, gender or sexual preferences and that predators of all persuasions will be allowed to run riot with no consequences to them.

C** is nonsense.

A born female is called a woman. No prefix or qualification needed.

On everything else, yep. It was always going to go this way. That’s why it all needs throwing out.

Done. NO MORE.

I have just talked about this case to my DH who has actually accused me of having transphobic tendencies. I despair.

My heart goes out to that poor woman having to endure such gaslighting abusive behaviour from the NHS after being attacked. I hope she is now receiving all the support she needs to recover.

Gratitude to Baroness Nicholson for continuing to speak up for women and raise these issues. Devastating that even though organisations were warned this would happen they simply don’t care and continue to prioritise the feelings of ‘penis people’ over the safety and dignity of women.

@MaeveKerrigan

I have just talked about this case to my DH who has actually accused me of having transphobic tendencies. I despair.

Wow that's some take.

@FunnyTalks
The whole debate is here:
hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2022-03-16/debates/84C9B6AA-0214-4CEF-A41D-302373BDC190/HealthAndCareBill

Scroll down to 1.04am.

This thing about Stonewall briefing/blah blah blah, is that recorded or online anywhere? I know someone who is still convinced that raising money for Stonewall is a good idea because of their work in the past, and this would be a very straightforward way of showing that they are not what they used to be.

[quote ChopinBoard]@Cheshirecatwoman and others who are new and asking 'how the fuck did we get here?!' this thread may help

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me[/quote]
Thanks

I see they've taken down all comments on the Telegraph article.

Gender identities have nothing to do with rape & the law around sexual assault (it's not called gender assault).
Biological males can rape anyone of either sex no matter what they identify as for a gender.

Rape is a sex crime, not a gender crime.

It is another reason why sex needs to be consistently acknowledged as a separate state of being which requires data to be held on it irrespective of what someone thinks their gender might be.

You can have a hundred genders because they are essentially meaningless considering you can pick one to adopt for breakfast time then change it before you leave the house later the same morning.

There are only two sexes & you cannot pick which one you are because it's based on reality.

This is appalling. How many more women has this happened to that haven’t reported it? How many more women have reported it and been called a liar? How many terrified abused women might forgo medical treatment because they are too terrified to be on a ward with a male? Thank god for the Baroness.

@AeroMocha

This thing about Stonewall briefing/blah blah blah, is that recorded or online anywhere? I know someone who is still convinced that raising money for Stonewall is a good idea because of their work in the past, and this would be a very straightforward way of showing that they are not what they used to be.

I'd like to know this too. My DP gives Stonewall money.

@AeroMocha

This thing about Stonewall briefing/blah blah blah, is that recorded or online anywhere? I know someone who is still convinced that raising money for Stonewall is a good idea because of their work in the past, and this would be a very straightforward way of showing that they are not what they used to be.

Matthew Parris, one of my favourite Times correspondents, recently wrote an article where he announced that he was officially withdrawing his support for Stonewall, an organisation that he co-founded at a time when gay men were a much-maligned minority during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s.

He was saddened at its shift from an organisation promoting love and understanding towards a minority group, to one that espoused hate and vitriol to anyone that voiced an opinion that wasn't theirs. He said Stonewall had changed out of all proportion and he disagreed with their narrow focus of pushing this new agenda of putting trans people before all else.

I totally agree with him.

@ScribblingPixie

I see they've taken down all comments on the Telegraph article.

God forbid women should be allowed a voice to say NO.

Over and over we see: the desperate efforts to shut down and silence any opportunity for women to have an opinion, to even be involved in the planning of these policies that affect them and why?

Because they know exactly what the answer will be!

That they don't want to hear it does not make it go away. Controlling words and closing eyes to unpleasant bits of reality does not change reality . That has to be faced up to by everyone concerned.

having transphobic tendencies

If refusing to subordinate all women to the interests of less than 1% of male people is 'transphobic tendencies' then whatever. Name call away.

That term has lost all meaning and its time it lost all power.

@MaeveKerrigan

I have just talked about this case to my DH who has actually accused me of having transphobic tendencies. I despair.

Will no one think of the rapists???

On what grounds does he think you’re in the wrong?

I saw this earlier.

I honestly thought I was at the point I couldn’t be surprised at the utter insanity of this movement. Yet here we are.

Women who have been RAPED being gaslit by the police to suit an ideological position.

I’m so fucking angry.

I have just talked about this case to my DH who has actually accused me of having transphobic tendencies. I despair

It's the attack on his cognitive dissonance. He finds it uncomfortable to consider that he might have got it wrong, and the price for being unwoke is a high one. People will do anything to avoid thinking about it too deeply.

Some DH’s need to wake the fuck up and actually THINK about what this means for their wives, daughters, mothers, all women. And what it means for children of both sexes, young people of both sexes and furthermore for the moral wellbeing of humanity as a whole.

The staff should be investigated by the police. They covered up a crime. The Gender Recognition Act does not support them;

20 Gender-specific offences
(1)Where (apart from this subsection) a relevant gender-specific offence could be committed or attempted only if the gender of a person to whom a full gender recognition certificate has been issued were not the acquired gender, the fact that the person’s gender has become the acquired gender does not prevent the offence being committed or attempted.
(2)An offence is a “relevant gender-specific offence” if—
(a)either or both of the conditions in subsection (3) are satisfied, and
(b)the commission of the offence involves the accused engaging in sexual activity.
(3)The conditions are—
(a)that the offence may be committed only by a person of a particular gender, and
(b)that the offence may be committed only on, or in relation to, a person of a particular gender,and the references to a particular gender include a gender identified by reference to the gender of the other person involved.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/20

@AlisonDonut

I remember Ian Huntley wanted to transfer to female only prison. I’m not sure if his request was granted. Are those kinds of requests ever granted?

I think this was made up, there was a thread on here about it and there were people saying 'if huntley IDs as a women then she should be blah blah blah'...but the point being that DBS checks only came in because of Huntley and if he changed his name and got out he could apply for another school job, just not tell people his old name. Because there is a massive loophole that relies on people being honest...I know I know I know...

Thank you for that @AlisonDonut.

This has been brewing for years. My hospital's policy on trans has been to let anyone self ID onto wards for years, (it used to say regardless of appearance or dress but they seem to have dropped that bit). They expect staff to police the reactions of other patients who may object. It's an imbalanced mess of a policy.

In the last year they have moved from having sex (ie biological) on patient records to replacing it with gender (but only giving 2 out of the 100+ options funnily enough). But rather than using man woman boy girl they have kept male /female. Thus taking over the term for bio sex. Thus making this unclear when it's used by staff whether gender id or actual sez is being referres to.

Now any instance where sex matters, eg if you need to check pregnancy status, you need to hope someone privy to the real data on sex will share that with you as it's considered private info. This won't work though as referrers don't have the knowledge of what all staff do or need to know. So it's a bodge job. Cue the transman whose pregnancy was missed with bad consequences.

Staff aren't being given a choice, it's driven from the top & enforced by the local staff lgbtqi+ interest group & self-appointed lgbtq+ 'champions' who search out policies with verboten words like woman & female & try to have them changed. Staff are fearful of getting into trouble for daring to speak up against it, it's like a tidal wave of science-denying misogynistic nonsense but it is being pushed by women as well as men. I give the Trust both barrels each time they send the staff survey out, have seen some recent small positive changes, but this is like a juggernaut that will take a lot of resistance & fight to turn around.

Too many Trusts let Saville run free in their hospitals for many years, now they can't see they're doing something very similar, but on a massive scale. I feel like screaming at the cognitive dissonance of supposedly senior intelligent people who promote such harms. Many issues stem from accepting the change in language when we still need the terms relating to sex to be clearly distinct from gender ID. Transwoman or transman should be perfectly acceptable descriptors to be owned & be proud of, but now the extremists want to obliterate the meaning of woman & female this is leading to intended and unintended consequences, as nobody is retrospectively changing sex based laws or policies to keep up with the language erosion. Thus protections & rights as well as language for females is being dismantled in retrospect. Not acceptable. Not ever. Not as long as females exist, which will be a long time yet & far after this sociological bollocks is a dim distant memory.

For anyone who thinks stonewall is still the organisation it was, I suggest listening to the Nolan podcast.

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p09yjp0d

I thought I was pretty up to speed on how embedded they are in our national institutions but it's astounding to see (hear) it all laid out so clearly.

You might also want to look into why matthew Parris ( www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stonewall-should-stay-out-of-trans-rights-war-xcz25nhdt ), and Simon fanshawe, two of the original founders of stonewall, no longer want anything to do with it.

The ‘Blah blah blah’ response is detailed here as part of Baroness Nicholson’s speech

www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2022-03-16a.427.0&s=prison