Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
Hollietree · 14/01/2026 17:05

RoyalCorgi · 14/01/2026 15:52

I suppose if the thread hadn't taken a weird turn, we'd have all just sat around agreeing with each other.

It's an interesting, if terrible story, because it illustrates an aspect of gender ideology that people rarely talk about. We can - and do - argue endlessly about whether allowing trans women in women's spaces (changing rooms, prisons etc) poses either a safety or privacy risk to women. We say they do, which is obviously true, and they say they don't. All the campaigning momentum on the trans side is around allowing men to invade women's spaces - see eg the Unison demo last week.

Nobody is pushing to allow trans men into women's spaces. That's because this is a men's rights movement, and it's all about allowing men to invade women's space. But if you put trans women (men) into women's spaces, then it follows that you have to put trans men (women) into men's spaces. The risk is not to the men in those spaces, but to the women using them. And it's a bigger risk. It's the difference between putting a wolf in a flock of sheep, and putting a single sheep in a pack of wolves.

The sad thing is, hardly anyone cares. The trans activists fighting to allow men in women's spaces don't care about what happens to trans men, and as feminists, we don't usually campaign to protect trans men, mostly because they don't want us to. So this particularly vulnerable group has no one looking out for them, yet they may turn out to be the biggest victims of this ideology.

It's the difference between putting a wolf in a flock of sheep, and putting a single sheep in a pack of wolves.

Absolutely perfect analogy. Both scenarios should not be being enabled/encouraged by the NHS. What on earth possesses the managers at the top willing to put vulnerable people at such risk, in the name of not hurting people’s feelings?!

MrsOvertonsWindow · 14/01/2026 17:08

Didactylos · 14/01/2026 16:43

I feel so angry and sorry for the poor gender fluid/trans identifying female patient who was utterly vulnerable in this situation.

This is not her fault - She's likely to had her dysphoria and identity crisis validated, her unreality and delusions about her gender supported and reified, and been encouraged to think her survival and mental wellbeing depends on the whole world supporting her in this world view. Her gender identity has been recorded and used to inform her care and placement. No other delusion of self identity is given this treatment.

Think about that for a minute - the system disbelieves and will challenge all delusions apart from those related to gender identity/sex. If this patient had expressed a belief she should be an amputee, or had superpowers, was the reincarnation of Cleopatra, the pope, the second coming, a covert spy operative, pregnant with a demon or poisoned by the mafia - any other sign of disordered thinking that is objectively untrue, then this would be taken as an indication that she needs help and yes, challenged. There would be attempts made to keep her and others safe from potentially dangerous actions due to her disordered thinking, and to try and return her to reality, convince her she was unable to walk on water, was not being sent alien messages, or whatever delusion was endangering her. But not if she declares the magic words 'I identify as x gender'

Despite validation this poor woman was clearly mentally unwell enough to need admission to a psychiatric ward - but those treating her were so focused on supporting her self declared gender identity that they ignored the reality of the patients physical body and the risks to her in being placed in a male ward. A system has been created where the insistence that one particular strand of disordered thinking is somehow to be supported as an innate truth and any form of gender self expression framed as a human right, and the staff upheld this.

They literally served a mentally unwell female patient requiring inpatient psychiatric help up to a ward of seriously mentally ill and in this case predatory men, apparently without consideration of vulnerability, safeguarding or even planning and handover that meant staff knew her situation and could care for her adequately - and the predictable sexual assault was nearly immediate. I don't know if these men were equally likely to rape in another situation, or whether their behavior was influenced by their mental illness (acute symptoms, disinhibition) but the outcome and danger to the female patient was predictable.

Despite their serious mental health problems it appears that the men on the ward were not fooled by the double think and mantras (transmen are men) that have numbed the mental health professionals and prevented patient centered thinking that would have prioritized her physical protection over validation.
Its another example of how gender identity policies only really service male wants. Its also interesting that there are never any calls for mentally ill men to ' be kind' and accept their female bodied 'brothers' without exception.

Thank you for this devastatingly accurate and compassionate post.

This young women is one of the thousands of mentally vulnerable young people - mainly young women in recent years - who've been caught up in this toxic and dangerous ideology. For years that we've known immediate "gender affirmation" results in them ending up as mentally unwell adults with their other mental health issues completely ignored and untreated. It is unforgivable yet the dangerous adults pushing all this remain unchallenged and in positions of power and influence.

It makes me despair.

FarriersGirl · 14/01/2026 17:09

Sadly I think that this is very unlikely to be an isolated incident and it is rare that a case like this gets as far as court and into the public arena. As one of the NHS auditor crew I can testify that the NHS trusts that run these psychiatric units sit on the extreme end of the spectrum when it comes to policies that deify all things trans to the detriment of pretty much everyone else. South London and Maudsley NHS Trust has just such a policy that runs to 41 pages and is full of allyships, rainbow lanyards and affirmation of a trans identity with no consideration of the consequences.

nothingcomestonothing · 14/01/2026 17:31

Hollietree · 14/01/2026 17:05

It's the difference between putting a wolf in a flock of sheep, and putting a single sheep in a pack of wolves.

Absolutely perfect analogy. Both scenarios should not be being enabled/encouraged by the NHS. What on earth possesses the managers at the top willing to put vulnerable people at such risk, in the name of not hurting people’s feelings?!

Because they know who the important humans are and who the service humans are. Allowing gender self ID in hospital serves the men involved and risks the women. Women don't matter, whether the boring kind or the kind who say they are men. It really is that simple.

ArabellaScott · 14/01/2026 17:45

'Louis Collins committed the offences – which included the rape or attempted rape of three different women between August 18 and 21 last year – after leaving Lambeth Hospital in south London, where he had been placed for previous sexual assaults.'

Pleasantsort2 · 14/01/2026 17:45

Bloody hell. That poor woman. First do no harm.

ArabellaScott · 14/01/2026 17:49

https://slam.nhs.uk/same-sex-accommodation

'Most of our wards are male only or female only. But, if you are admitted into a mixed sex ward then we will place you into a same sex section of the ward and you will either have an ensuite bathroom or same sex bathroom and toilets will be available close by.

Times when patients of different sexes have to be mixed

There are some times when you may have to share accommodation or bathroom/toilets with members of the opposite sex but this only happens when it is in your best interest to do so'

Same sex accommodation - South London and Maudsley

https://slam.nhs.uk/same-sex-accommodation

xSnowFairyx · 14/01/2026 18:23

spannasaurus · 14/01/2026 11:03

She would have been safer if she was being sent to prison as she would have been sent to a women's prison.

No she wouldn’t.

She was sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Her medical needs, supervision and observations would not have been met in a prison. Even a women’s prison. Do you have any idea of the rates of suicide in prison?

This patient needed to be detained to a female-only secure inpatient ward.

spannasaurus · 14/01/2026 18:26

xSnowFairyx · 14/01/2026 18:23

No she wouldn’t.

She was sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Her medical needs, supervision and observations would not have been met in a prison. Even a women’s prison. Do you have any idea of the rates of suicide in prison?

This patient needed to be detained to a female-only secure inpatient ward.

I wasn't suggesting that she should have been sent to prison. I was pointing out that the default for female prisoners who identify as men is to place them in a women's prison.ļ

Forester1 · 14/01/2026 18:36

FarriersGirl · 14/01/2026 17:09

Sadly I think that this is very unlikely to be an isolated incident and it is rare that a case like this gets as far as court and into the public arena. As one of the NHS auditor crew I can testify that the NHS trusts that run these psychiatric units sit on the extreme end of the spectrum when it comes to policies that deify all things trans to the detriment of pretty much everyone else. South London and Maudsley NHS Trust has just such a policy that runs to 41 pages and is full of allyships, rainbow lanyards and affirmation of a trans identity with no consideration of the consequences.

I hadn’t thought about the fact that the only reason we’re aware of this is because it’s got to court.

Forester1 · 14/01/2026 18:38

I also wonder how many of the staff members involved in her admission behind the scenes were even aware that they were dealing with a woman if her file states male. (Obviously I don’t know if it says male or female)

Datun · 14/01/2026 19:36

ArabellaScott · 14/01/2026 17:49

https://slam.nhs.uk/same-sex-accommodation

'Most of our wards are male only or female only. But, if you are admitted into a mixed sex ward then we will place you into a same sex section of the ward and you will either have an ensuite bathroom or same sex bathroom and toilets will be available close by.

Times when patients of different sexes have to be mixed

There are some times when you may have to share accommodation or bathroom/toilets with members of the opposite sex but this only happens when it is in your best interest to do so'

Edited

There are some times when you may have to share accommodation or bathroom/toilets with members of the opposite sex but this only happens when it is in your best interest to do so'

What the ever loving fuck does that mean?

Can a middle-aged man be housed on the children's ward, if it's in his best interest to do so???

What about the teeny tiny issue of the other fucking people on the ward!

MeltedSunshine · 14/01/2026 19:39

At the risk of sounding like ‘what about the menz???’ Male patients in a secure unit lacking capacity should also be protected from being able to commit a criminal
offence. Some may be there for sexualised behaviour or other dangerous behaviours. The harm to a man without capacity committing rape is quite clearly very very different from that experienced by their victim but may still include prolonged incarceration, additional medication, criminal trial, personal guilt and depression. If they are deemed unable to make their own decisions then the psychiatric hospital should be protecting them from making poor ones in their own right (as well as quite clearly for the sake of potential victims). Putting a woman in their midst is a bit like handing matches to a pyromaniac.

Shedmistress · 14/01/2026 19:46

spannasaurus · 14/01/2026 18:26

I wasn't suggesting that she should have been sent to prison. I was pointing out that the default for female prisoners who identify as men is to place them in a women's prison.ļ

Edited

That we know of so far...

FarriersGirl · 14/01/2026 20:05

A report on the news tonight about Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS [ the top of the tree for the most batshit set of policies I have read] who were castigated for failures in the care of a patient who killed 3 people in a knife attack in Nottingham in June 2023. Not only have they failed to improve and still in special measures but are continuing to accommodating patients in dormitory style accommodation despite being told by the CQC to stop this in 2022!! FFS 😡

news.sky.com/story/families-of-nottingham-attack-victims-fear-further-disasters-are-inevitable-after-cqc-report-into-killer-valdo-calocane-13494176

xSnowFairyx · 14/01/2026 20:07

MeltedSunshine · 14/01/2026 19:39

At the risk of sounding like ‘what about the menz???’ Male patients in a secure unit lacking capacity should also be protected from being able to commit a criminal
offence. Some may be there for sexualised behaviour or other dangerous behaviours. The harm to a man without capacity committing rape is quite clearly very very different from that experienced by their victim but may still include prolonged incarceration, additional medication, criminal trial, personal guilt and depression. If they are deemed unable to make their own decisions then the psychiatric hospital should be protecting them from making poor ones in their own right (as well as quite clearly for the sake of potential victims). Putting a woman in their midst is a bit like handing matches to a pyromaniac.

There is absolutely nothing in the article that suggests these males who committed the crime lacked mental capacity.

I’ll repeat myself from an earlier post, I work in NHS mental health (In England, which is where this crime took place) just because a patient is detained under the Mental Health Act- does NOT mean that they do not have mental capacity.

Men usually aren’t detained under the Mental Health Act for “sexualised behaviour”. People are detained under the MHA and admitted to secure units because there is a significant risk to themselves/others due to a severe mental health condition. Most are usually on a Section 2, which patients can be detained up to 28 days for assessment and acute treatment.

MeltedSunshine · 14/01/2026 20:14

xSnowFairyx · 14/01/2026 20:07

There is absolutely nothing in the article that suggests these males who committed the crime lacked mental capacity.

I’ll repeat myself from an earlier post, I work in NHS mental health (In England, which is where this crime took place) just because a patient is detained under the Mental Health Act- does NOT mean that they do not have mental capacity.

Men usually aren’t detained under the Mental Health Act for “sexualised behaviour”. People are detained under the MHA and admitted to secure units because there is a significant risk to themselves/others due to a severe mental health condition. Most are usually on a Section 2, which patients can be detained up to 28 days for assessment and acute treatment.

I never said I was referring to these men and sexualised behaviour can be part of someone’s presentation.

MeltedSunshine · 14/01/2026 20:21

We, quite rightly, know nothing of these men’s medical conditions.

Grammarnut · 14/01/2026 22:43

SpiritAdder · 13/01/2026 23:25

Prison rape is a huge systemic long standing problem in men’s prisons.
They rape each other all the time. During the AIDS epidemic, if you as a man got sent to a US prison, you had a 1 in 4 chance of catching HIV from being raped there.

Prison rape happens in women’s prisons too, although it is usually done with objects or fists.

The government does not care. They think criminals deserve it.

I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that because men rape each other in prison it is understandable or ok for rape to happen in a psychiatric ward?
(NB in the UK women cannot be charged with rape, only sexual assault or with aiding rape. Rape requires a penis.)

Grammarnut · 14/01/2026 22:52

SpiritAdder · 13/01/2026 23:48

It is in the US. I referred specifically to US prisons in my first post.
Our rape laws are more up to date than yours.

Edited

How is saying women can commit rape more up to date, pray? Most of the world see rape as penetration with a penis of the vagina, anus or mouth. And penis havers (aka men) are the only perpetrators of this crime.

ProfessorBinturong · 14/01/2026 22:54

Datun · 14/01/2026 19:36

There are some times when you may have to share accommodation or bathroom/toilets with members of the opposite sex but this only happens when it is in your best interest to do so'

What the ever loving fuck does that mean?

Can a middle-aged man be housed on the children's ward, if it's in his best interest to do so???

What about the teeny tiny issue of the other fucking people on the ward!

There are some examples in the single sex wards guidance, I think (which is really quite a sensible document apart from Annex B undermining the entire thing).

If someone needs to be on specialist ward - for example they need particular equipment that's not generally available - and there's no space in the specialist ward for their sex but is in the opposite-sex ward, then it would be in their best interests to ensure they have the optimum medical treatment. That would be an allowable exception, rather than prioritising single-sex accommodation and therefore putting them at higher medical risk.

[Edit] The intention was for this to be very much the exception, and to be a reportable incident even if justified.

Datun · 14/01/2026 22:59

ProfessorBinturong · 14/01/2026 22:54

There are some examples in the single sex wards guidance, I think (which is really quite a sensible document apart from Annex B undermining the entire thing).

If someone needs to be on specialist ward - for example they need particular equipment that's not generally available - and there's no space in the specialist ward for their sex but is in the opposite-sex ward, then it would be in their best interests to ensure they have the optimum medical treatment. That would be an allowable exception, rather than prioritising single-sex accommodation and therefore putting them at higher medical risk.

[Edit] The intention was for this to be very much the exception, and to be a reportable incident even if justified.

Edited

It's the wording, in that case. It would've been preferable if they said when it is unavoidable due to medical needs.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 15/01/2026 00:08

RedToothBrush · 14/01/2026 00:04

How did the men tell she was female?

It's in the report: "No adam's apple, no adam's apple".

RedToothBrush · 15/01/2026 00:44

Datun · 14/01/2026 19:36

There are some times when you may have to share accommodation or bathroom/toilets with members of the opposite sex but this only happens when it is in your best interest to do so'

What the ever loving fuck does that mean?

Can a middle-aged man be housed on the children's ward, if it's in his best interest to do so???

What about the teeny tiny issue of the other fucking people on the ward!

It means if you have a condition which is perhaps less common and there is less specialist provision, they will put you in that ward.

For example you have a serious neurological condition and need to be cared for by neurological specialists, but there's only demand for a ward of six patients and there's not enough demand to open a male and female ward safely they'll shove you in together. The 'best interests' basically means they can't afford to operate two specialist female /male rrwards but you need specialist car.

I have had a lengthy conversation about the matter with BIL who high in the NHS food chain over the issue.

Unfortunately this is being used as an excuse to provide adequate and appropriate services in some cases too.

Swipe left for the next trending thread