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/

@NecessaryScene

New article from 4W on the subject, which talks with Gilly and another new woman.

UK: Women Recount Staff Denying there were Men in Single-Sex Hospital Spaces

'Lily was using a women’s toilet at the hospital she was in when a man came out of one of the cubicles. When she complained to staff about his presence there, she was told by one of the security guards that the hospital was “trans friendly” and was asked if the person was “dressed as a woman.” According to Lily, the guard also informed her that the definition of “woman” was “problematic.”'

Can't be right, surely this would never happen.

In the Delivering Same-Sex Accommodation NHS September 2019 document the other place where transgender is discussed is Question 18 in Annex C, Frequently Asked Questions. How can I ensure that the wishes of all patients in an area or on a ward/bay are considered when accommodating the wishes of a small number of those patients? The answer refers to the Equalities Act and Public Sector Equality Duty saying "This guidance clearly states that trans and non-binary people should be accommodated in line with their stated gender identity".

It talks about the rights of "trans patients" and "other patients" but not specifically about the rights of "women/female patients", and as well as talking about "detriment" it talks specifically about privacy and dignity but not safety.

It does say that there are "circumstances where it is lawful to provide a different service or exclude a trans person from a single sex ward of their preferred gender" which must be done on a "case by case" basis.

To be fair I can't see anything in the document that insists on total radio silence about the presence of a trans patient against all evidence (a need for evidence is referrred to in the answer to Q 18). Q18 says "In all cases staff should communicate to all patients and or their carers the situation that arises, ensuring sensitivity to all views and acting accordingly to protect the privacy and dignity of all patients." Unfortunately it then goes on to say "Where the situation, for example, relates to trans patients, staff should do everything they can to respond to the wishes of all patients, while still protecting the dignity and legal rights of the trans person." which left me worndering where the "dignity and legal rights" of other patients come in. I'm sure that was not the intention but I can see how this policy could end up in disaster.

Where the situation, for example, relates to trans patients, staff should do everything they can to respond to the wishes of all patients, while still protecting the dignity and legal rights of the trans person.

Very telling, only one set of patients has the right to dignity and legal rights, the good old sacred caste scenario.

@VestofAbsurdity

Where the situation, for example, relates to trans patients, staff should do everything they can to respond to the wishes of all patients, while still protecting the dignity and legal rights of the trans person.

Very telling, only one set of patients has the right to dignity and legal rights, the good old sacred caste scenario.

If there's an intersection, be absolutely sure that despite the safeguarding modules that are compulsory for everyone who works for the NHS or provides a service to them, despite the values of the NHS constitution, the NHS will support you in discarding the rights of women even if it involves active deceit and disregard for their dignity and welfare.

The NHS—disregarding women and discarding their legal rights one way or another for decades. Indifferent to it in the past, proud of it in the present.

@VestofAbsurdity

Where the situation, for example, relates to trans patients, staff should do everything they can to respond to the wishes of all patients, while still protecting the dignity and legal rights of the trans person.

Very telling, only one set of patients has the right to dignity and legal rights, the good old sacred caste scenario.

And therein is the basis of the discrimination claim.

Some of the females being excluded by this policy from access to health care will have protected characteristics.

(I mean we've already got in this document that no one cares about females, but the protected characteristics are a bit harder to jeer at with impunity)

I can't remember whether I've commented on this thread previously, but for those who are angry or despairing and want to take action.

Yes, you can write to your MP but there's also another avenue if it's something you're interested in and able to take part in.

Most hospital trusts, and the Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) who commission the services, and GP practices, have a type of patient engagement forum -
example here www.berkshirehealthcare.nhs.uk/get-involved/our-patient-participation-and-groups/

It could be a really powerful place for women to speak up, talk of their concerns around annex b etc.

To ask questions such as
-'did you do an Equality Impact Assessment when you implemented this policy, including the potential negative or positive impact on the people covered by the category 'sex' as a protected characteristic'?

• what groups did you consult when conducting the Equality Impact Assessment?

(I chose Berkshire NHS Trust at random. Funnily enough, whilst they list all the correct protected characteristics from the Equality Act, they then go on to say:
We’re committed to ensuring that no one receives less favourable treatment or discrimination on the grounds of their age, disability, if they are transitioning at work, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.
Oops, where's 'sex' gone?
www.berkshirehealthcare.nhs.uk/about-us/equality-diversity-and-inclusion/

People with lived experience are meant to co-design services in the NHS - maybe this is an opportunity to raise the voices of women with lived experience of being women to co-design back the principle of sex-specific wards where appropriate and feasible?

@OldCrone yes I can see that Annex B of the NHS policy plus the clauses 1-3 of the privacy part of the GRA could add up to a conspiracy of silence, but what about clause 4 of the privacy part:

(4)But it is not an offence under this section to disclose protected information relating to a person if—

(e)the disclosure is for the purpose of instituting, or otherwise for the purposes of, proceedings before a court or tribunal,
(f)the disclosure is for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime,

Shouldn't that cover it?

Shouldn't that cover it?

It should. But most organisations seem to get their training on this from Stonewall, who conveniently forget anything which doesn't promote their TWAW cause.

It's dangerous for them to take Stonewall's word for anything, because if any of this ends in a court case, the actual law will be applied, not the law as Stonewall wants it to be.

@OldCrone

Shouldn't that cover it?

It should. But most organisations seem to get their training on this from Stonewall, who conveniently forget anything which doesn't promote their TWAW cause.

It's dangerous for them to take Stonewall's word for anything, because if any of this ends in a court case, the actual law will be applied, not the law as Stonewall wants it to be.

It definitely is our modern secular version of the priests/doctors who are prepared to sacrifice themselves sooner than breach the sanctity of the confessional or doctor-patient relationship.

[quote ResisterRex]@DdraigGoch that's interesting. I must try to find where he said that. [/quote]
@ResisterRex I've only just seen your post. He said it on Question Time, around October 2021.

The rights of Transwomen trump that of Birth Women, it seems.
It just feels very wrong.
Is it because Men make the laws?
Real Women’s rights to safety and privacy and dignity are ground into the floor because Transwomen are deemed more important and what they want matters far more than what women want?
Who makes up these rules?
Men, Most likely.
Men are creeping into women’s spaces,and sports and the woke laws allow it?
It seems grossly unfair.

What didn’t happen?

@DisgustedofManchester

Didn't happen.

Total lies made up by transphobes. The whole 'we didn;t record it because it wasn't a rape' mental gymnastics that means serious sexual assaults are not recorded is just infantile. I am surprised that this post is allowed to stay up but then who on Mumsnet would report a transphobic post?

Shame on you, a man coming into a community of women with your offensive rape denial allegations. This is an active police case and the details we're allowed to know make it very clear it did happen. Men like you are part of the problem when you promote tropes like this.

DisgusetdOfManchester Are you being sarcastic? If so irony doesn't come across on the Internet. Assuming you mean it literally, you may be uncomfortable to learn that the case was raised in the House of Lords last week and it will come to court. The peers who opposed the change to the NHS guidance did not argue the case was invented, nor that the rape didn't happen, nor that the year-long denial by the hospital didn't happen. They only argued that the existing law and guidance were sufficient in spite of cases like this.

Are you being sarcastic? If so irony doesn't come across on the Internet

I wondered the same, Amaryllis, but whether it's sincere or not it's a sad fact that there really are some so wedded to "the cause" that reality's just something to be denied

In many ways it's an extension of "It'll never happen", and now that it has they'll grasp at anything to shut it down, no matter how ridiculous

Didn't happen.

Total lies made up by transphobes

You said the exact same thing about the Wi Spa incident, didn't you, Disgusted?

@DisgustedofManchester

Didn't happen.

Total lies made up by transphobes. The whole 'we didn;t record it because it wasn't a rape' mental gymnastics that means serious sexual assaults are not recorded is just infantile. I am surprised that this post is allowed to stay up but then who on Mumsnet would report a transphobic post?

Someone seems rattled.

How much longer are MNHQ going to tolerate a rape denialist and apologist on here? Whatever happened to the We believe you campaign of MN?

How much longer are MNHQ going to tolerate a rape denialist and apologist on here?

It's a fair question, but if we're assuming the remark was meant, part of me almost wants it to stay so this kind of view can be out there and seen for what it is

There's so much twisting done by activists in pursuit of their manic agenda that a rare indication of just how far they're prepared to go has a certain value, at least IMO

@DisgustedofManchester

Didn't happen.

Total lies made up by transphobes. The whole 'we didn;t record it because it wasn't a rape' mental gymnastics that means serious sexual assaults are not recorded is just infantile. I am surprised that this post is allowed to stay up but then who on Mumsnet would report a transphobic post?

Your comments have just proved our point. Your script is predictable, the old trope of “ it didn’t happen” or “ it did happen but it wasn’t a “ true “ trans woman involved “ etc , etc. We see you and others and know exactly what you are up to. Just carry on and show the true colours of the men’s rights movement in all it misogyny.

@DisgustedofManchester

Didn't happen.

Total lies made up by transphobes. The whole 'we didn;t record it because it wasn't a rape' mental gymnastics that means serious sexual assaults are not recorded is just infantile. I am surprised that this post is allowed to stay up but then who on Mumsnet would report a transphobic post?

Oh look everyone, beardy Kevin has turned up to mansplain.

@VestofAbsurdity

How much longer are MNHQ going to tolerate a rape denialist and apologist on here? Whatever happened to the We believe you campaign of MN?

We've seen a few of them in recent weeks. I think I'm in agreement of letting their words stand. The recent rape apology thread was eventually deleted - it did show how determined born males are to remove women's agency, boundaries and rights to say no to men which is useful in demonstrating to lurkers the extremist views held by some tras.

@DdraigGoch I think that would be 14 Oct then. That's when he mentioned biology and Fiona Bruce went

Invoking Bunbury, and speaking generally I've noticed it's a common tactic that when what is being argued for results in a predictably bad situation (e.g. some political decisions) people that argued for them find it easier to just try and tell everyone it's made up than address what's happened and how.

I know covid deniers who were against vaccines who took this tactic. It's no skin off their nose and it helps them bury any cognitive dissonance even deeper. Their views are irrelevant once you realise they have to constantly lie to maintain the charade.