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

I would move it to the male changing room.

But it saying 'female' makes the male person feel good when they go in there.

I can only assume that the hospital has discovered that it employs more nurses than it requires and is using the changing room policy to encourage superfluous nurses to leave.

There may be a degree of sarcasm in this post.

Apologies for quoting myself.
Having realised how some people are wont to misunderstand posts, I want to make it clear that the 'it' in the quoted post is referring to the sign that was stuck on the female changing room door. I was not referring to any of the people involved.

It may be helpful if there was a little more common sense about nowadays and a little more respect and understanding shown by everyone to each other.

As I have indicated previously, after being medically diagnosed as a transexual my late father did start to use the ladies toilets and this was after he had been on hormone tablets for some time and had a GRC. My father did follow all the advice and guidance given that was in place at the time. He did agonise greatly whether to start using the ladies toilet and only started doing so after having a few problems while still using the men's toilets. We did observe my father going into the ladies that first time from the family car and there was no "turning of heads" as he entered and no "mass exodus" of ladies just after he entered. My late father was never asked to produce his GRC when using the ladies toilet in 40 years and, as far as I am aware was never asked to produce his GRC for any other reason.

We were never aware of any alarm or distress caused by my late father using the ladies toilet in around 40 years, as a medically diagnosed transexual. If there had been any alarm or distress caused then I believe that at some point in 40 years we would have become aware of it, as we had very quickly become aware of the issues of him continuing to use the mens toilet.

When my father got his GRC, around 45 years or so ago, I don't believe that it was as easy to get one as, apparently, it would appear to be today.

As for anyone who may feel angry with the above, everything that my late father did was within the rules, guidance and the law in place at the time.

“We were never aware of any alarm or distress caused by my late father using the ladies toilet in around 40 years, as a medically diagnosed transexual. If there had been any alarm or distress caused then I believe that at some point in 40 years we would have become aware of it, as we had very quickly become aware of the issues of him continuing to use the mens toilet.”

Can you please tell us just how many female people you spoke to about this to be so confident that no female person was harmed? Do you understand that female people are not likely to ‘show alarm or distress’ while in that situation due to many reasons, including female socialization? But just because they never showed this perceptibly, doesn’t mean they were not harmed.

It doesn’t matter one jot whether it was ‘allowed’ or not. The effect of your father using any female single sex space was to show that your father did not respect female people. At all. Because he would have found a different solution other than using female single sex spaces if he respected the needs of female people.

As mentioned before, the effect of using female single sex spaces because he experienced some
issues was to use female people of all ages as human shields to protect him. How respectful is that?

And yes, we understand that doctors told these male people to do this. Those doctors never had the permission of female people
to allocate our spaces the way they did. Once we became aware of what was happening, we started to push back to the point we are now.

Male people cannot change sex. It doesn’t matter what ‘diagnosis’ is given. No treatment can ever reverse the effects of male human puberty either. So as hard as it may be to hear the truth, your father ‘treatment’ would have never made your father’s body lose the male cues that categorised your father’s body as being male. Ie. Facial proportions, skeletal proportions etc. Growing breast tissue does not change these things either. Your father was still a male person, just with body modifications. No ‘diagnosis’ or ‘treatment’ put your father into a special ‘female’ category.

And those spaces he used, were never there for your father’s use despite ‘the rules’. We know there are male people who have had treatment and disagnosis who recognise the needs of female people and don’t use female single sex spaces. That is the choice they have made.

Please do not dismiss the harm that the decision to use female single sex spaces causes. And it was a decision made by him.

Even one male person above the age of about 8 years old using that space makes that single sex space mixed sex. Whether that was intentional or not, ‘allowed’ or not. And that usage of those spaces has harmed some female people individually and us all collectively. Again, whether that was intentional or not. It was a choice and your father made that choice.

Have you ever visited https://childrenoftransitioners.org/ @SparklyGreyShaker?

“As for anyone who may feel angry with the above, everything that my late father did was within the rules, guidance and the law in place at the time.”

Many things that directly as well as collectively harmed female people were ‘within the rules, guidance and the law in place at the time’. It doesn‘t remove the onus from males who acted within those ‘rules, guidance and laws’ to have made respectful choices. What other harms to female people would you effectively wish people to overlook that at the time was ‘not against the law’?

And I understand sparklygreyshaker that your father’s decisions are not yours. Only ever your father’s responsibility, never your responsibility. From your posts, you and your family are still processing the direct impacts on you as family members.

But please understand that no person has to accept any appeal to authority such as ‘the rules, guidance and laws’ allowed this to consider a decision to prioritise the needs of some male people above those of individual female people or collectively as being appropriate.

For instance today, male people with the same diagnosis and may even exactly the same treatment are being allowed access to female single sex sport around the world. This is despite there being absolutely no evidence at all to support their inclusion. Yet, these male people are being allowed that access because of ‘rules, guidance and laws’ even now. It doesn’t make it acceptable or appropriate now, and it was not acceptable or appropriate in the past.

There is no way to dismiss the harms that have or are still being done by allowing male people to access female single sex spaces designed to protect female people. Nor and the rights designed to overcome the millennia of negative sexist discrimination.

Plus it would be infantilising to say that a competent adult making a decision that causes others harm was only doing so on the recommendations of others while knowing and fully understanding that the decision may cause others harms. No. In these situations, those adults made the decision with the understanding that it might harm others. But it was a decision that that themselves made.

@SparklyGreyShaker the Gender Recognition Act was only introduced in 2004, before that it was not possible to change legal gender. What did your Dad have 45 years ago?

It may be helpful if there was a little more common sense about nowadays and a little more respect and understanding shown by everyone to each other.

I agree with this. We could start with the common sense fact that people can't change sex, and men with special lady gender feelings could show more respect and understanding towards women and stay out of women's spaces and sports.

When my father got his GRC, around 45 years or so ago, I don't believe that it was as easy to get one as, apparently, it would appear to be today.

It was, in fact, impossible to get one 45 years ago, as the GRA was only passed 20 years ago.

It was, in fact, impossible to get one 45 years ago, as the GRA was only passed 20 years ago

That was why it caused relatively few problems at the time (I met my first transsexual person, a man, in the mid 1970s).

There were relatively few of them, they were generally regarded sympathetically (unlike homosexuals, to whom the taint of criminality still hung), they had to go to considerable effort and expense to get treatment, and they were generally low key, respectful to women and fully aware that they were not actually women.

The GRA itself wasn’t so much of a problem at first, but it gave impetus to the idea of self ID, which opened the door to all the unsavoury characters and fetishists, encouraged by Stonewall and, inexplicably, encouraged by politicians, the civil service, the media and the great institutions of the country.

There were relatively few of them, they were generally regarded sympathetically (unlike homosexuals, to whom the taint of criminality still hung), they had to go to considerable effort and expense to get treatment, and they were generally low key, respectful to women and fully aware that they were not actually women.

They could still make life hell for their wives and children though, as shown by this account by Suki Morys, daughter of Jan Morris. He doesn't seem to have been very respectful to his wife and daughter.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/article/jan-morris-was-a-trans-pioneer-and-a-cruel-parent-9x82s5cg9

https://archive.is/iKaQe

The damage then was largely contained to wives, children and family. Now it impinges on all women and wider society because it's grown from being the disordered thoughts of a small number of men to a full blown destructive religion.

I've read about transsexuals from James Morris's tine and the usual process seemed to be that their surgeon would give them a letter saying they were to be treated as a woman from now. This, of course, had no legal weight. But is indicative of the attitude of self-importance of some surgeons which we still see today.

We did observe my father going into the ladies that first time from the family car and there was no "turning of heads" as he entered and no "mass exodus" of ladies just after he entered.

The phrasing of this just indicates contempt for the fact that his presence was distressing to some women.

The issue is that this common sense and respect only seems to go one way...and that is towards meeting the needs/demands of male persons, not towards meeting the needs /demands of female persons...otherwise known as 'Women and Girls'.

Your reference. to 'ladies' does seem a bit out of time, and is maybe more reflective of that time in the 1960s or 70's - and don't forget this was also the time that women were yet to have full equal rights in law. Whether women felt disturbed or made uncomfortable by your father's presence will never be known. They will have been expected to just " suck it up". Like women and girls throughout time.

That your father was not able to tolerate the dioscomfort he felt when using the men's facilities, does not seem to have translated into any great awareness, or concern, for how women might feel about him being in their toilet.

You and your mother seem to have been expected ( by yourselves too) to accept and cope with anything he wanted to do...Maybe that is because your mother was dependent on him financially, or felt it was socially unacceptable to say " No" to him?

It's very curious the poster above thinks her father had a GRC 45 years ago, defends his contempt for female privacy and boundaries, says he used female spaces without any women noticing, and has kept posting this on a thread for nurses being made to get undressed in front of male staff.

A couple of posts from the Cots website you may find of interest:
childrenoftransitioners.org/about/
https://childrenoftransitioners.org/2021/05/10/stop-using-us-as-props/

UtopiaPlanitia · Yesterday 18:30

FairCop have posted this on Twitter:

That really is a travesty. I honestly don't understand how a rational person can possibly think that it's best to make 26 women uncomfortable and frightened, in order to pander to the desires of one man. Why have they not provided a room, or space for him to get changed in? Surely the needs and dignity outweigh the wants of one?

You can only assume that the wants of one male outweighs the actual needs, dignity (and inclusion/equality) of any amount of females.

In a very sex based, binary way.

Well yes, and the possibility he may have hurt feelings absolutely takes precedent over the actual fear and alarm for females that is caused.

It is not to pander to his needs. It is to pander to the needs of all those other transsexuals, the "nice" transsexuals like @SparklyGreyShaker 's father who must never be tarred with the same brush as this sexual harasser and who must never be subjected to any restrictions on their own access to women's space... even if that means putting all women at risk of harassment.

If it accidentally makes men like the harasser more or less unchallengeable, and leaves the women with no recourse but a hard legal fight and suspicions of transphobia, well that's just a sad side effect and well worth it in the eyes of some people.

It also helped open the door to confused men and women, in my view. Not all trans people start off disrespectful or coercive. They tend to learn that behaviour when people don’t affirm them and that leaves them uncomfortable because other people are not confirming the solution they think they have found to their confusion. Uncomfortable people are vulnerable to seeing themselves as victims; whether or not they are really victims is another matter. Victims need someone to blame.

Fortunately the current levels of "hysteria" that we are, apparently, currently witnessing, by some has, apparently, only occurred since my late father passed away. Quite often my parents went into the ladies toilet together and my mother would have been able to observe any negative reaction by other ladies to my father being there but, as indicated, no negative reaction was observed in 40 years.

My late father was responsible for his own actions, not me, not anyone else in the family and, as already indicated, none of us had any control over what he did regarding this matter. As stated he did follow the medical advice given to him at the time, as well as the guidance current at the time and he most certainly stayed within the law current at the time.

My late father did have a card or certificate given to him around 45 years ago which he carried but was never asked to produce when using the ladies toilet. If it wasn't called a GRC 45 years ago then it was called something else, splitting hairs really.

Believe it or not many transexuals do actually care about their appearance and it is, in my opinion, false to portray them as a "man in women's clothes" or a "woman in man's clothes".

Nope, it would appear that some may be making an attempt to make it "retrospectively distressing".