This is just vile NHS again

[IcakethereforeIam]

I'm hoping it'll be swiftly withdrawn but someone should be fired for this. Notice it's about making women comply.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12370811/NHS-managers-told-not-offer-sympathy-female-colleagues-worried-sharing-toilets-biological-men-woke-handbook.html

Fucking racist ablist twats

Racist as it disproportionately effects women of colour.

Ablist as it discriminates against those with disabilities.

Twats because they are racist and ablist which makes you a fucking twat

This is why there is discussion ATM about clarifying the EA - sex is a protected characteristic, but it can be argued that this means legal sex, or self ID sex, rather than biological sex.

Clearly when the Act was written it meant biological sex.

Some people want 'sex' to be de facto self ID. Then the provision for any single sex spaces in law would fall apart.

I have to take issue with your assertion that the EqA meant biological sex. It was written 6 years after the GRA which was clear that acquiring a GRC meant acquiring that legal sex. There were a number of critical thinkers who pointed out the problems but, sadly, they were described as trogdalytes and ignored.

This.
Sadly.

It took me years, actual years, of talking about this issue to make my DH take any notice. It didn’t bother him, so he didn’t care.

I am so sorry the NHS is so captured.
Looking from the outside in now, it is horrifying to see the decline, and then they choose to spend funds on this shit.

I take your point that GRCs were already in existence when the Act was granted Royal assent back in 2010.

But what is clear is that clarification is now required.

And there is a worrying push now for sex to mean self ID, not even legal sex meaning those with a GRC. I doubt this is what was intended by the Act because as I said, it would render the single sex exemption utterly pointless.

I'm with you 100%. I think that the EqA needs to be clear that any reference to sex is a reference to biological sex; that the biological sex of a person is the sex that a reasonable person would believe to be the sex of that person; that single sex spaces are mandatory unless there is a legitimate reason why they should not be and that any space or service that is advertised as single sex, e.g. a toilet with 'women' on the door, will be open only to the advertised single sex.

This again, they've no shame

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12398761/Row-patients-temporarily-identify-female-share-single-sex-NHS-spaces-Health-Secretary-pressure-change-shocking-guidance-allows-presenting-transwomen-womens-wards-without-questions.html?ico=related-replace

There also another article about the push to erase 'mother' for 'birthing person'. It's pretty much covered in this article though.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12398993/Midwives-call-trans-patients-birthing-people-instead-mothers-case-damages-mental-health-says-NHS.html

I don't see anything new in the DM story apart from towards the end where they mention asking the hospital Trusts about their policies on this. They say how many replies they got (out of how many?) and, not surprisingly, these read as though they were written by Tara Hewitt.

One of the comments asks why women are putting up with this! Some people have no idea, do they?

''The Mental Capacity Act was preloaded against ideological distortion of policies such as Annex B. If NHS staff allowed a man to sleep alongside a woman who lacked legal capacity, and an assault occurred, they could spend 5 years in prison for the offence of wilful neglect.''
https://twitter.com/DearRebelAda/status/1678854032788529153

You can lack capacity temporarily, for example if you are unconscious, or have been prescribed sedating meds or an anaesthetic.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/contents

Just parking the here for the sake of completeness. I admit I'm finding it scarcely credible, but there are things even more batshit that have turned out to be true.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12400921/Hello-999-pronoun-require-Emergency-operators-warned-ask-callers-want-referred-misgendering-based-voices.html

So a service that requires immediate important information on the patient and symptoms has to play the pronouns game! And when the wrong sex/ gender box gets ticked and sends the computer down the wrong path will the NHS also be forced to then pay out for killing uncle Trevor with his heart attack because uncle Trevor said he was she/her and called Tamsin and therefore skewed the data?

(Note: i have no idea if the fact that someone is male it female makes a difference in heart attacks, it is just an example illness)

Yes but the 'sex' but in the 2010 Act was in place of the 1970s Sex Discrimination Act where it definitely only meant biological sex. So in the absence of a changed definition for the protected characteristic of sex in the 2010 act, I think it is clear that biological sex was meant. We now need clarification because of bad faith actors and captured judges, officials and politicians.

The staff are just as bad for accepting this. All of them. They will strike for better pay (which I'm absolutely fine about) But they are too scared to lobby their unions or refuse to accept these policies? They need to grow a backbone and stop this shit from being implemented in the first place! I'm baffled by people who are such wetwipes! Speak up!!!

This.

I agree with a PP who said ‘sex realist’ was a better term than ‘gender critical’, but Helen Joyce and the Sex Matters team are very intelligently strategic and include very clear thinking and sharp lawyers. They are leveraging Maya’s victory and working within the law of the EA together with the art of the possible. Appalling that going to battle against discrimination against a protected belief might be more effective than fighting discrimination against women as a sex, but that seems to be where we are just now.

Well, who'd a thunk

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12402885/Trans-group-Stonewall-helps-write-gender-policies-30-NHS-trusts-prompting-fury.html

The DM are going ham for this. I doubt it's entirely to benefit women, but it's widely read and if the Guardian won't step up fat chance it'll have to do.

It's staggering that, after all the negative reportage and losses they've had, of late, all the big organisations giving them the cold shoulder, that they are still being used by the NHS.

As they have willingly and knowingly misrepresented the law, in order to further their agenda, I wonder why they haven't been banned from being involved with any official organisation.

The DM is like a dog with a bone on this. I think some of it is reheated from previous articles

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12406055/Colonialism-blame-imposing-male-female-divide-society-NHS-staff-told-official-hospital-policies.html

Of the selection of bonkers at the end, this might be my favourite, from South East ambulance

The ambulance trust states: ‘Those who are cisgender have little or no discordance between their gender identity and their gender role or sex anatomy. These factors are well aligned in a cisgendered person.
‘Trans people who have completed transition to the point that they are comfortable, may then be regarded as cisgender.’

It's a wonder their paramedics they can see to drive from all the eye rolling stuff like this must cause.

I think IW must have written it.

It's not that simple. If you work in a captured organisation, you risk bullying and damage to your career for taking a stand, even though you would be legally in the right.

The law protects your right to strike and you would have the backing of your union. All the bloody public sector unions are captured.

I applaud people who take a stand but we shouldn't decry those who don't feel they can. I mean, look what happened to JKR.

I do appreciate that. I still find it frustrating though, because I wont keep quite about things I strongly disagree with, so I struggle to understand that mindset. I also can't believe people don't have colleagues, who they are friendly enough with to ask "What do you think of this madness?" And then it spreads from there. I still think the majority of people are against these changes. All it takes is a bit of bravery to find the others who feel the same and then you have a movement within the organisation. Silence doesn't help anybody.

The way the word diversity is used now is completely bizarre. It seems every corporate, government, charitable group, uses it in every context where they want you to think something is good.

My workplace is doing a project where they are working with architects on a major renovation, I didn't count how many times the word "diverse" appeared in their proposal, but it was a lot. Some places it really was an irrelevancy, in others they could have said, Different". As in, this space is used frequently by groups with different needs, and we've designed it to accommodate that. But instead it's "diverse people' who are, of course, vibrant.

It never seems to occur to them that diversity isn't always inherently good, it can often be a neutral value, and some times might be bad.

It's got to be the right kind of diverse, mind.

They generally don't seem to be interested in old people, poor people or women. Not cool / sexy enough.

I really applaud your attitude, you're right, silence doesn't help. It's all a bit like the Emperors new clothes.

Given that the punishment for dissent can be so harsh in the current climate, I do get why people feel they just can't speak up. It's not right in a democracy that people feel they can't express their legally held beliefs, but here we are. It's institutional gaslighting, people are trained to think that if they disagree, they must be awful people.

At least the tide is turning, thanks to Maya and others 💐

(As an aside, I work in the NHS and recently challenged HR on the use of c1s is their policies. If any of this other sexist sh1t comes near me, I will challenge that too. I do feel like the lone voice in a sea of rainbow lanyards.

HR said c1s was widely understood. I told them it was othering and sexist: I don't identify with my sex, I just am that sex, and that I object to other people being allowed to define me as something I don't choose for myself - seems a little one sided! Still waiting for a response. My eyes will fall out if they roll any further).

Because there are men who get sexual pleasure from listening to women urinating or just from making them uncomfortable by invading their space.

Also, toilets are often in places where a man can block a woman’s exit. And research has shown that far more sexual assaults are carried out in mixed-sex facilities than in women’s single-sex spaces.

But you know that.