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/

Also, I expect that those with vulnerable relatives are familiar with the tone of some of the posts. It's those of us who have never considered the situation of vulnerable women who are likely to be surprised and upset by the need for family's constant vigilance.

It must be exhausting and frightening.

I’m shocked this thread is still running!

To answer @oviraptor21 with your quote (and everyone else banging on about recruiting more female carers):-

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

Right; here we go. There is a massive, I repeat massive shortage of carers.

During Covid, I popped a one line ad somewhere looking for care work as I was desperate for extra work (think The Lady but online), and I was inundated with requests for interview with many bonuses/golden hellos offered from many a care company. Of the interviews I attend, the jobs were offered to me on the spot.

Because- although I was unsuitable as someone with sensory issues who hates touching other people- they were utterly desperate.

Many women do not want to do this work for many reasons. Some men can and do do this work, often foreign men- new to this country- who need money and often work hours Brits can’t or won’t. I know some won’t like this but most of these male carers are excellent and don’t complain. They just get on with it.

As I said previously, my great aunt is in an extremely prestigious home and is often taken to the loo by a male carer. She can’t wait and is grateful to whomever kindly assists her. Because it is their job, male or female.

But seriously, where do all of you experts think these decent, compassionate, dedicated, devoted female carers will be coming from?

I’m sorry but although you’re allowed an opinion on the state of the industry and how inappropriate it seems having male carers touch females in private places (and it is awful for traumatized/frightened women) unless you’re going to step in and become part of the new wave of female carers, you’re part of the problem.

This article about Nancy Kelly, the chief executive of Stonewall, throws up some pointers to contradictory thinking from TRAs concerning the rights of trans women - that they should be accepted in all women’s spaces - given the interesting fact that she herself began by working with ‘the disability movement’.

The alignment of Stonewall’s cause with Kelley’s own life was one of the things that attracted her to the chief executive role. She describes herself as “born and raised in the voluntary sector” and began her career in the disability movement, the sector that coined the maxim: “Nothing about us, without us, is for us”.

This, Kelley says, helped to shape her belief in “a sector that is centred in and led by, not exclusively but as often as possible, people who have that direct lived experience”.

She knew she wanted to lead a human rights charity, and Stonewall, she says, is the one that changed her life.

Thinking about the statement,
”Nothing about us, without us, is for us”…..
if applied to disabled women and girls, would mean that of course care for them must take into account their preferences.

In this article it is not absolutely clear whether this saying was quoting N K but it would seem to be. If so, it is ironic that she hasn’t been able to see the inevitable contradiction created by the presumption that trans women should be allowed in all women’s spaces.

i wonder what she would say if directly asked about the this question regarding very vulnerable women and girls? Maybe she would even agree with the idea of sex based exemptions.
www.thirdsector.co.uk/nancy-kelley-as-organisation-lived-before/management/article/1722343

But seriously, where do all of you experts think these decent, compassionate, dedicated, devoted female carers will be coming from?

Simple. As a society we have to acknowledge that care work is demanding work, that our society needs. And having done that, we need to offer more money.

There is no mystery to this. It's a job that entails in-person tangible responsibility for others and is therefore psychologically intense, and also requires physical exertion and manual handling in order to support those you care for, and with long shifts, too!

And they expect all this for minimum wage or just above it, and you don't even get the morale boosting lift of social status.

If you are a young woman or man who wants to be in the care sector to start with, you'd be well advised to consider if you can qualify as a nurse and then specialise in gerontological nursing later.

As a result, care is one of the range of jobs that ends up being taken by people who speak English as an additional language, who can't get a job that pays better/has better working conditions. This is something I know a surprising amount about, as many of my jobs have been in warehouse work, which has similar demographics. (And also pays better per hour than care work!) I've done that because I have a disability that affects hearing, and you'd be amazed at how unusual I'm not amongst the staff whose first language is English. People who have good spoken communication skills use them to get into jobs that either pay more or involve less heavy lifting.

So there you go. Pay more.

I've had to rely on 24/7 carer provided in a nursing home, hospital & my own home. I'm also female carers only, &, for good reason won't allow anything else.

I cannot tell you the number of times I've been "encouraged", or bullied into having care staff of the opposite sex. I've had to wait, which is fine by me although sometimes uncomfortable & even had to refuse essential care repeatedly to make it very clear it very clear I mean NO.

This has led to the odd argument, & I do feel bad, but I just can't allow a male to turn/hoist/assist with personal care, it can be difficult enough with females.

I'm well aware of the shortages in care, it's something that desperately needs solving for many reasons. At the end of the day people's ability to eat, drink, wash & live whatever existence adult social care consider acceptable. Life is hard enough relying on others for support like this without the person providing it making it harder. I appreciate you cannot help being male, I cannot help being disabled, so...

For those finding this post later on please avocate for family members in advance if possible, be that on admission/starting with a new care company.

You can documente your wishes in an advanced decision to refuse treatment.

Check your loved ones care plan, see who has been providing their care, ask questions, keep checking. Keep telling those providing care, from management down. Most staff will go out of their way to make service users as comfortable as possible.

Were supposed to be grateful for care that we obviously need or y'know we would do it ourselves.
Boy you are scraping the bottom of the barrel here.
I will respect anyone who willingly cares for a person in a person centred way for the completely shit wages they get. I do not have to be grateful, certainly not grateful they sent the wrong sexed carer to someone it matters to.
I know it's already been said, some women wont care what sex is sent to care for them. Lots more will care and to them it matters.

"gratitude" - be the right sort of dependent, ladies.

Be grateful.

Be quiet.

Aquiesce.

Think of all the nice men who might be sad that you don't want them.

Thank you, @KittenKins for your insight. We could all need the level of care you have relied on. It is helpful to be reminded of that. I am fighting this nonsense for the vulnerable women that I know, but, also, if I'm honest, because one day...it might be me.

Oh my lord, how can a right be removed if it didn't exist to begin with. No one has the 'right' to single sex care!! I can't see this changing as it would be such a monumental change to the way we do things, that is we understand men and women can do a care job just as well as one another and that requests will be listened to but if not possible people will have to accept the sex of carer available or opt out of care until the next available carer of the sex they prefer. Care is a need. Sex of carer is a want, however one may try to wangle it otherwise.

Everyone has the right to refuse consent to any treatment or care for any reason, unless that individual lacks capacity in which case others will make the decisions on their behalf with their best interests being at the centre of the decision making.

Are you ok?

www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/decision-making-and-consent/the-seven-principles-of-decision-making-and-consent

From the Equality Act, Schedule 3, section 27: single sex exceptions

(5) The condition is that the service is provided at a place which is, or is part of—
(a) a hospital, or
(b) another establishment for persons requiring special care, supervision or attention.

(6)The condition is that—
(a) the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b) the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.

(7)The condition is that—
(a) there is likely to be physical contact between a person (A) to whom the service is provided and another person (B), and
(b) B might reasonably object if A were not of the same sex as B.

So yes, it is written in law that any woman (female) can reject any man (male including a man who claims he is a woman) and vice versa , in such circumstances.

"So yes, it is written in law that any woman (female) can reject any man (male including a man who claims he is a woman) and vice versa , in such circumstances."

I accept that a woman can reject any man.... That's not that same as having the 'right' to a same sex carer, far from it in fact!

Erm, yes it is.

The right to reject an opposite sex carer +/= the right to have a same sex carer.

You are wrong.

Sometimes I think banging my head against a brick wall would work better.
YES its enshrined in law that people of both sexes are entitled to same sex care.
If they want that.

Yup. Enshrined in law. No male bodied person will be providing intimate care to any of my female relatives. Or me if I become severely disabled by MS

Terfydactyl, banging your head against a brick wall won't provide a better medium of communication.

So these places are committing offences by not providing same sex care??

I'm afraid one doesn't equal the other. Easy to see how people are getting confused elsewhere now.

Just because you have the right to refuse, doesn't automatically give you the right for an alternative if your choosing. This simply means you have the right to refuse the care full stop.

Just because you have the right to refuse, doesn't automatically give you the right for an alternative if your choosing. This simply means you have the right to refuse the care full stop.

Failure to provide care that recognises the need for safety, privacy and dignity would be sex and disability discrimination under the equality act. It may also be religious discrimination. It would also be a breach of their human rights. Failure to provide care is potentially criminal neglect.

@Adelishious This is incorrect. A client / patient can require the provision of an alternative. The client is paying for the service. So yes, women can specify only female carers and this must be provided. No male, including those who claim they are female and may even have a GRC, should ever handle a female client in any way in that situation. To do otherwise puts the management of the provider organisation at risk of litigation or even criminal charge since an employer is legally liable for what its employees do while working.

It is most definitely not in the interest of any provider to ignore such a requirement. The law specifically allows us to reject a man and the provider organisation has to adhere to that.

So what's all the fuss and why aren't people taking care homes and similar to court for breaching patients rights. That woukd seem the sensible thing to do.

Who is confused?
Certainly not all of us who know the law.
As has now been said about eleventy billion times, some women (and men) will not care who provides the care. Those who do care require and MUST HAVE same sex carers.
It matters not if its paid for or free (does anyone get free care?) The law in the UK is the law, trying to find a way around that will lead to court cases, many many court cases.

I think you'll find that they are via the Court of Protection, which is held in private.

When criminal offences like sexual assault or rape occur these are, of course, heard in public in the Criminal Court.

So why are there none in court at the moment?

Well, @Adelishious continually fighting for your loved one's rights is exhausting, and routine. It's not just the sex of carers, it's accessing the right benefits, the respite, the school/college places, the reasonable adjustments, the medication, the endless admin, the appointments, the grants, the worry.

Balancing all of that against the risk of losing their placement/being The Difficult Family/losing the good carers/their loved one's routine/a million other risks...plus their own job/other family members needs/their own needs - it's a lot to make space for a court case as well.

The people who tirelessly advocate for the most vulnerable in our society are absolute badasses. However, not everyone has a family who is loving, or able to step up and fight for their rights and so that is why the law is very clear.

Yes but why are we even arguing about it, if its set in law, and laws are being broken, then the courts will have no option but to side with patients and they'll get what they want. What's the fuss here if its in law as a protection.?