Learning-disabled girls & women must accept men providing intimate care

[MrsOvertonsWindow]

This dreadful account from Transgender Trend is no doubt replicated all over the country as schools / social care / the NHS remove the rights to sex based care for these vulnerable young women, allowing men to provide intimate / personal care. Prioritising (yet again) the demands of this toxic lobby insisting that the safety, privacy and rights of women and girls no longer matter.

Warning - contains information about rape / HIV

www.transgendertrend.com/severely-learning-disabled-girl-sex-based-rights-under-threat/

What I think is that you're pushing this 'poor us, bloody awful practice is justified' in order to force through a political desire that it be made somehow ok for TQ+ male people to intimately handle non consenting females. Which is revolting.

If you have a large number of female clients who need female carers you recruit accordingly. And yes, thank you, I have a grip on harsh reality, and on serious case reviews, and on turning around situations where staff have sunk into these really appalling attitudes towards their clients and it's time for a major inspection. This is not justifiable practice.

@Artichokeleaves your tone is very aggressive here. I asked you have you ever done this type of work yourself. The answer is NO yet you are sat giving advice so angrily and making all types of accusations.

All I have to say is perhaps you yourself are lacking empathy, why are YOU not working in the care industry yourself... since you have all the ideas! It's easy to talk but if you haven't done this type of work.... you would know why people leave! I absolutely loved working in a care home but I was fed up. Fed up of the shitty working conditions, little pay and it was relentless. That is not an abusive opinion to hold at all. Your being very defensive!

Where did I say no? I'd have thought it was fairly obvious I was speaking from hands on experience.

Has Adelicious vanished now that it’s been pointed out that he’s either bullshitting, or confessing to serious crimes?

oh well, thank goodness tiits is here to take over.

Yes bits like tagteaming isn’t it….

Before he/she/fae left, did I get an answer on what number of disabled women being subjected to rape was considered an acceptable cost to ensure men weren't discriminated against in the workplace by being...

deprived of the... chance to wash disabled women's vulvas?

Disabled people are given intimate care for their comfort. So why would you want to assign male carers to do it when it will distress the patient? Patient-centred care is a concept, because patients are people!

On this thread, Adelishious has been acting as if intimate care is provided solely to provide opportunities for health care workers' career progression, or something. It's bizarre. Male workers don't need access to female patients. That would be staff-centred care, love.

I had no idea that sex rights in this field weren't being protected as default. I will be starting a new role as a support worker with people who have a learning disability. I will be keen to enquire about this.

Managers should organise the rostering better. Recruit more women if there are persistent issues.

Not to mention a manager is there to protect their workforce as well as provide acceptable standards of care for their clients. If they send out a male worker to a female client who has been very clear they require same sex care, the male worker is being put in an extremely vulnerable position.

Obviously you'd contact the client and their family to discuss if on a particular day you were in crisis and unable to provide care, and see if you could organise something that would work rather than just leave your worker and client to encounter each other and muddle through. Since you're likely to end up with a complete mess, serious complaints or worse if you do something that badly thought out. But yes, recruitment has to reflect the population you are working with.

And this still does not justify enforcing a political belief that TQ+ male people are entitled to provide intimate care to females against their consent. Which is what this thread is about.

On this thread, Adelishious has been acting as if intimate care is provided solely to provide opportunities for health care workers' career progression, or something

I think it’s “or something” quite frankly. 🤬

Reading this thread has made me feel empathy for the families and friends advocating for the vulnerable women they love.

I had no idea that people utterly devoid of compassion exist.

Advocate “she is at increased risk of rape and she has communicated that her preference is to only have females provide intimate care”

manager <sucks through teeth> “well, problem with that is the rota I made has got blokes on it, and dignity’s expensive, innit?”

it must be exhausting to deal with this level of bullshit all the time.

I think there's quite a gap between fantasy and reality in much of this. Most managers/carers are deeply concerned with their clients' needs, feelings, quality of care and good practice. And not having to deal with serious complaints and investigations, that also tends to rate quite highly.

The thing to remember is that this is another incarnation of a political lobby having a desired outcome and then hunting around to find problems that might justify this outcome.

The desired outcome - female people's consent, bodily autonomy, privacy, dignity and safety be removed and discarded, and no longer regarded as important in law or society. (Because it is presenting a boundary to TQ+ male people's transition.)

The problem trying to be created from this particular angle to justify this outcome?

• it's too haaaard to staff/too busy/people should just be grateful/dignity and consent are only for rich females who can pay for it
• female people wanting same sex provision have unreasonable and stupid expectations and need to be 'appropriately managed' (which is a very interesting way to say 'punished'.)
• there should be no right to same sex care in any situation (because that neatly gets over the barrier for all males rather like gender neutral loos)
• it's good for female people to have their boundaries broken until they learn to love it instead of resist it

And other equally disturbing ideas.

No thankyou.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11040417/Families-shocked-biological-males-allowed-provide-intimate-care-vulnerable-women.html#comments

Good article by Sanchez Manning and Jill Foster.

And ive argued there could be people who said they didn't want anyone touching them at all. What do you do then? Leave them to die in their own soil in agony? Some people really don't know what issues they could be faced with in care homes and the like.

A theoretically sufficiently distressed person who states they do not want to be touched at all is not an acceptable reason to tell females they cannot have same sex care at all because it places boundaries on male TQ+ people's transition.

Someone in that state would have a very specific care plan, carefully managed by the staff involved, who would know the underlying reasons for this degree of distress and how best to help. The answer is not ever to just crack on and assault them, and say it's for their own good so it doesn't matter that they said no.

You cannot make this an acceptable way to treat females. God knows we already have enough problems in maternity with complaints against staff who continued examinations without getting proper consent or refusing to stop on request during a birth, and broke their own protocols.

The endless manipulative wangling of boundaries is really unpleasant. I find it so on every front, but this one is particularly grubby.

I do hope you have nothing to do with vulnerable people Adelishious as your determination to ignore someone's right to consent is so worrying. Artichokeleaves (with all her relevant experience) has explained how an individual refusing touch from anyone would be dealt with. I'd just point out that there's a common thread that runs through all the serious case reviews / reports into institutional abuse in hospitals / care homes / children's homes. It's where a toxic culture exists where adults are enabled to ignore the rights of those they care for. Instead they disrespect, bully and sometimes physically and sexually abuse the vulnerable - aided and abetted by a culture that belittles the rights of those they care for.

I'm tempted to ask MNHQ to delete the thread - it must be so distressing for those with vulnerable relatives to witness such a crass dismissal of their rights to dignity and safety.
Grubby is a good description. 😠

I know what you mean but it is one of those 'never happens' things that this thread is showing absolutely does happen and there are people who will try everything to justify men being able to sexually assault vulnerable individuals. I think the thread needs to remain to show why vigilance is important.

Vigilance is indeed important. And it must be very hard for people reading this with all the silly misrepresentation of male carers only doing the job to sexual assault patients, it's truly awful.
No one should be forced to accept a particular carer. If they refuse the care, they refuse the care, that is how it stands.

I agree that everyone should have a same-sex carer if they want. But those working in care say that is impossible does not surprise me.
Elderly and disabled women often have to accept opposite-sex carers if they want any care. They can either lie in faeces or accept a man changing them. Social care is in crisis and yet the public keep voting for the Tories. Even some women on this thread have voted conservative. This is the result. It does not matter if service providers know who a woman is if the services themselves are broken.
Truth is most people do not care about the most vulnerable. So these services will continue to be shit and women will continue to have to accept male carers.

Please point to the post misrepresenting male carers only doing the job to sexually assault clients? I haven't seen it.

If a person has a care package that means someone arrives, if the person says no the carer leaves without providing the care, then that's a care package that is not working.

Obviously the reasons why the person refused will be key to identifying a better fit.

It still does not justify a carer enforcing care against the person's will and consent. It further does not justify the real purpose of this conversation which is attempting to remove the right to single sex care from females to benefit the TQ+ political agenda.

I didn‘t read all the comments here, so maybe it has come up but:
what I can‘t wrap my head around is, why in Cassie‘s case, which is clearly a rape case, male staff hasn‘t been screened for HIV to catch the rapist.
A Crime has been committed After all, and the circle of potential offenders can‘t be big.

There's so much talk of force being used here also. If you don't want the care then don't have it, no ones going to force you, but I feel there's a certain lack of gratitude to the great carers out there that do a wonderful job, male and female.

Scraping the barrel Adelishious If you want thanks from Mumsnetters for carers then start your own thread and stop derailing this one.

Most of us are perfectly capable of criticising dangerous policies that harm vulnerable women while retaining a respect for carers who undertake a difficult job. We also reserve the right to criticise those toxic adults who display a dangerous lack of respect for boundaries and the right to consent.