Because this never happens NHS nurses sue over transgender policy that ‘puts them at risk’.

[LakesideInn]

NHS nurses sue over transgender policy that ‘puts them at risk’.

A fully intact male colleague calling himself Rose was allowed to use the open plan female changing rooms in a hospital. He said he was trying to get his girlfriend pregnant, walked around with genitals viable though underwear and when the nurses complained they were told they needed to get educated and compromise.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/9f995274-a6f8-4da9-8f19-401440ceeb08?shareToken=a33bc4bfddc33558475e4821a9fbf30f

My late father was a transexual who had gender realignment surgery in 1982 and lived happily as a woman for nearly 40 years before sadly passing away from cancer a few years ago. It is important that we all understand what a "transexual" is and do not confuse it with a "transvestite" which is something completely different. A "transexual" is a person who wishes to change their body, through hormone treatment and surgery, to that of the opposite sex to which they were born. A "transvestite" is a person, often a man, who likes to dress in the clothes of the opposite sex to which they were born, some of the time, but does NOT want to change their body.

My father first started getting advice from the medical profession in the early 1970's but didn't start the transitioning process until the late 1970's. My father followed all the relevant medical advice and guidance that he was given and which was current at the time. During this time he was prescribed female hormones which suppressed his male hormones and caused breast to grow. My father did say that after taking female hormones for so long you reach a point of no return and if you were to stop taking the tablets it would leave a man sterile. I can't confirm this because I am not a doctor.

After the various consultations with the specialist doctors my father did eventually get his name onto the NHS waiting list for gender realignment surgery, however, in the early 1980's it was a long waiting list. Therefore my father decided to go private and, at the time, there was a choice of 2 operations, both major operations, but one simpler than the other. My father chose the simpler of the 2 options and the cost in 1982 was about £2000. The product of this simpler operation was not intended for sexual intercourse and as my father didn't want this he was happy to go for the simpler and cheaper option. In brief the other option was much more extensive surgery and, at the time, wasn't always totally successful.

A family friend drove my father to hospital in 1982 for the operation and I remember waiting for the school bus, at the age of 14, seeing my father leave and wondering if that was the last time that I would see him and if he would die on the operating table. My father did survive the operation and returned home several days later, spending over a week in bed at home, nursed by a family friend. My father was in a lot of pain for a long time but eventually the effects of the operation healed.

My father never had a problem in nearly 40 years of using female only spaces which was normally just using female toilets. My father did have a few problems when he was still using male toilets and this was after he had been on female hormones but before the operation. When he started using female toilets he didn't have any more problems.

People like my late father, "transexuals" don't suddenly wake up one morning and decide that they wish to change gender, they are born like it. "Transexuals" don't put themselves through extensive surgery that could be fatal just for "fun", it is the "power of the condition" that drives them to do it and nothing said by family or friends will stop them going ahead with it. In case anyone is wondering, no it is NOT a hereditary condition.

Thanks sparkly it's useful to revisit these definitions that imo seem to be falling out of popular use.

For me personally this would HAVE been an acceptable line -to allow transexuals access to women's spaces. However due to the hard line taken in the trans ( #no debate) that women have come up against when questioning the rights of male born people to access women's services it has taken years before it is even listened to and there are still men in high places wanting to shut this down.

The problem will be, and as we have seen any compromise by women of their safe spaces or how the law is defined starts to erode our rights.

Therefore any compromise is no longer acceptable. So it would be a hard no from me. A yes to third spaces though.

I wonder what he would have done if there was no hormone treatment available to grow breast tissue and no surgical treatment to give him fake labia and rearrange his urethra. Like if he'd lived a century prior when this idea that doctors could give you a "sex change" wasn't even conceived.

@SparklyGreyShaker yes I can accept that your father was different from the majority of self iding trans women these days who have no surgery. Yes transvestites as they used to be known as . However, I do wonder if women did feel uncomfortable or unsafe sharing same sex spaces with him and did not say for fear of making him feel bad. I don't mean to imply he was in any way a danger to women in anyway . I'm sure he was a good person but some women are afraid of males and have had bad experiences of males and gender reassignment surgery does not change that.

As for these nurses, another woman in Scotland has spoken out and I ask this question as a woman who has paid into trade unions for over thirty years and been a rep at one point. ( As I'm sure many of you have )Where the hell are trade unions ?I'm so bloody angry! 🤬

Right so that all the other staff feel UNcomfortable. How lovely that 1% feel comfortable (and let's face it some men feel really comfortable flashing women - which used to be a crime) but everyone else is utterly miserable and discriminated against.

What absolute idiots. Why on earth would they demoralise and abuse a critical workforce that already has a retention / recruitment crisis?

And if 'Rose' is perfectly comfortable standing next to a nurse in zir underpants questioning her repeatedly about why she's not getting changed yet, in a clear act of intimidation, then think what Rose'll do to someone who's vulnerable.

Did your father care about the rights of women, Muslim women, Jewish women (for whom single sex spaces are required to adhere to their religion) or survivors of male violence for whom his presence may have meant they could not use that facility?

It's fascinating how the male self-centredness never seems to morph into the consideration for others that most women show.

It's interesting also that transsexuals like Miranda Yardley have listened to women and come to realise the essential unfairness of what they previously did - e.g. using women's toilets. We can't tell who's the 'harmless' transsexual (that still excludes some women) and who's the AGP who wants to get his dick out.

Even the most distressed and vulnerable women tend to consider others. For example I have a friend who is seriously disabled. She absolutely doesn't just assume everyone should do what is best for her because she's extremely vulnerable and has been very upset and distressed by her disability all her life. People bending over backwards to accommodate her would make her life much better but and they definitely don't fall over themselves to accommodate her disability. And somehow there's not a chorus of 'oh think of this poor distressed vulnerable woman' ever.

Also worth pointing out originally getting a GRC was linked to surgery but this was then changed so no surgery is required. Most men who say they are women (both with and without a GRC), have had no surgery, let alone genital surgery. For the few who have it's often primarily breast implants, and only a very very few have their genitals removed. Which seems fair enough- no one should be encouraged by law to have surgery.

Contrary to what has been said, many trans sexuals and transvestites originally did not try to use 'female only spaces' such as toilets and changing rooms etc- this is a recent change, pushed by trans lobby groups with total contempt for women, who want the single sex exceptions protecting women removed from the law, and sometimes now lie and pretend the law always allowed these men access to vulnerable women and girls in a state of undress and vulnerability, even though they know it to be untrue.

https://womansplaceuk.org/2018/06/25/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/

The obvious answer is a 3rd space for those who do not want to share spaces with others of their sex. It is not women's problem to solve, or for women's human rights to be sacrificed for men.

I am genuinely terrified of what a labour government is going to do. This will end in violence.

Yes, women are just not valued or seen as worthy of protection and human rights.
transcrimeuk.com/

A male who has had any treatment to modify their body remains a male person. It doesn’t matter whether a male person has a penis or not, they are still a male person, just without a penis. If they have a modification to have a cavity inserted in body, they are still a male, just with cavity inserted into their body to resemble a vagina. It is not a vagina though and the male person is still a male person.

The difference between a male transsexual vs transvestite doesn’t really make much difference when female people say ‘no’ to any male person accessing what female need to remain single sex spaces.

Female people are very likely able to correctly sex a male person even with extreme body modifications. Just because a male person has not noticed a negative reaction from female people, doesn’t mean that no female person was harmed in the process of that male person using female single sex spaces.

Female people are never male people with body modifications. Nor are they ever male
people who act in ways that that male person believes is the way a female person acts. It was never appropriate for male people to use female single sex spaces. If they felt they could not use male spaces, then support groups should have campaigned for other options.

Female people and their spaces were never and are still not support humans or shields to protect male people who are not children who need to be with their carers or parents.

Labour have been clear they will continue to erode women’s rights. I honestly believe we are headed for this “men and non men” terminology

I'm sure that some women didn't say anything bc of female socialization to put other ppls' needs, esp men's needs, ahead of their own. I think many ppl don't want to make a scene or cause a bother (e.g., for other women in the loo or those who might have to deal w him if she raised a fuss). Or she didn't want to be called a bigot (or see herself as a bigot) so she swallows her own discomfort,

I have been triggered by trans women in loos and changing rooms. I did not say anything bc when I'm triggered, the last thing I want is ppl to be paying attention to me. That would make things worse. But I was badly triggered, including being terrified and re-experiencing abuse for days. It was awful. That is one reason I try to speak out against trans women in women's single sex spaces.

I know that most trans women are probably fine and just want to pee (or change) but PTSD is not logical. You're triggered by things that, in reality, are not dangerous. You can even realize that while you're being triggered that but it doesn't matter bc the more primitive part of your brain is terrified and causing you to re-live terrifying experiences, not your rational brain. Many ppl don't understand this.

I've known quite a few trans women. Most of them were good ppl and I wish them the best. That does not help my PTSD reaction one bit. I used to try to be kind but it seems like that is meant to be a one-way street with no one being concerned about being kind to (natal) women, consider our needs or feelings, or give the tiniest of fucks about things like women having to re-live our abuse bc we're forced to be in enclosed spaces with our pants down or to undress in front of men. It's all about how things affect trans women, never us.

I've left my union as a male friend who is senior in that union compared the transgender struggle to my struggles as a disabled person and I felt punched in the throat. Was previously a member and union rep.
I am so angry with unions. I don't feel there is any who represents me. I can imagine these poor nurses feel unsupported too and I really hope they win.
We really need another high profile court win before the election to draw more press to the issue but alas that is unlikely.

@GenderlessVoid
You are not alone. I remember this letter from FOVAS, representing women who have experienced male abuse , written last time government were planning GRA changes.
fovas.wordpress.com/

They are very brave to do this in the NHS, don’t underestimate this.

ScrollingLeaves · 25/06/2024 13:53

Do people remember this case

in 2022 involving Sheffield NHS Foundation Hospital Teaching Trust? A transwoman sued the trust for Gender Reassignment Discrimination and won.

I seem to remember that the Trust didn't really bother to defend the case and essentially rolled over and gave in to the trans person.

As I alluded to in my post above for a transexual like my father the continued use of male toilet facilities wasn't really an option and that is why he started using female facilities. The only other practical alternative would be to provide gender neutral or unisex toilets.

Believe it or not there are actually transexual women, born female but wish to change into a man by taking male hormones and surgery. This group of people can make very convincing looking men after taking male hormone treatment.

This is not just about trans organisations taking a hard or soft line. Requiring genital self-mutilation as a condition for access would be a massive human rights violation. A pp pointed out that the original GRA was changed accordingly; an equivalent provision in the original German law on Transsexuality was explicitly ruled unconstitutional by the country's highest court. Removing any possibility for men to be "legally" female (while retaining their right to change name and possibly a separate gender marker in official documents) seems the only possible solution at this point.

I'm sorry for the loss of your father and I've no wish to upset you, but there's a couple of points in this I want to point out.

1. You have literally no idea that he used women's spaces with no problem. All you know is that he was happy using them and no women made a fuss (that he noticed). You don't appear to consider the women who will have been startled, embarrassed, even terrified and triggered. The ones who quietly just stopped using that space and therefore lost all their provision in order that he got his preference.

1. Surgery notwithstanding, every cell in his body was male until the day he died. He did not belong in women's spaces. The men's might have been embarrassing for him, but that is not women's problem to solve.

Once I would have answered differently, but now I've clocked that there's no way of letting in the old skool transsexuals and keeping out the vicious, misogynist fetishists, I'm afraid it's a hard no to all males in women's spaces. That's on Stonewall and the TRAs, not me. Third spaces are now the only feasible solution.

Is there a fundraising page
for legal cost?

Presumably there wasn't an invisible barrier to the men's facilities that physically repelled your dad's attempts to entry because of his secret woman essence. His failure to use them was because he wanted to.

And yes, third spaces would be grand, and yes, 99.9 percent of posters on this board will be aware of the existence of women who identify as men. Quite patronizing of you to assume otherwise.

We are very familiar with the needs of female people who have transgender identities. And yes, they may be more successful at ‘passing’. They are however female. And they have female bodies.

As has been said, you personally have no idea what harm your father caused using female single sex spaces. Your father had options, he chose to use female spaces. Bluntly, that was his choice. He could have found other solutions. He chose to not respect the needs of female people. Just as many other male people who decided that what they felt fit into the ‘woman’ category.

That again is purely based on their personal interpretation of what ‘women’ feel like, not on the material reality of the lived experience of female lives.

I did say on another thread that gender critical TU members who feel that their union does not support them in this sort of situation ought to consider suing their union for discrimination on the grounds of belief.

(I speak as a retired NHS manager and union member)

Not intended to be patronising and I can only really speak about my father's experiences and the limited number of other transexuals that I met through him. Like I have said nothing that a family member or friend can say will have any effect on how a transexual chooses to behave with regard to their condition.

The point that some seem to be missing is that transexual women, born a women but wishing to change into a man through hormone treatment and surgery, I assume, currently may use male only spaces such as male toilets. Any change in the law, depending on how it was drafted and worded, that effectively banned transexual men (born a man) from accessing female only spaces may also have the effect of banning transexual women (born a woman but wanting to be a man) from using male only spaces and thus force them into using female only spaces, such as female toilets. One could, possibly, end up in a situation, dependant on how any change in the law is worded, with transexuals who look very convincingly like men, but born a woman, being forced to use female toilets and transexuals who look like women, but born a man, being forced to use male toilets.

In answer to a previous question one of the "treatments" offered/available to transexuals in times past was, I believe, electric shock "treatment" to the brain. My understanding is that this "treatment", at one time was given for a wide variety of conditions and involved an "electrode/s" placed on one's head with varying degrees of electrical current/voltage being passed through one's brain. I don't believe that there is any evidence of any sort of benefit of using this device but my understanding is that it was extremely painful for anyone undergoing this form of "treatment".