RCN now waiting for guidance on how to implement the guidance on how to implement the SC ruling

[PeppyHam]

RCN response to yesterday's publication of EHRC guidance:

"It is essential that central guidance from all health departments is published without delay. That guidance must be unequivocal in setting out how health and care services should apply the updated EHRC code."

RCN statement on the updated EHRC Code of Practice for service providers, public functions and associations | Royal College of Nursing

No doubt when the health departments publish such guidance, the RCN will call for guidance in interpreting it.

I did a rather fantastic parking diagram once. Men park yourselves here. Women park yourselves here.

I think that's a great way of looking at it.

Men in cars of all different shapes, sizes, colours this way.

Women in cars of the same that way.

I don’t wish to be political, but fuck! This is why we’re broke! Forget left or right, wasting money on endless consultations about things that are obvious.

We need to let go of marginal benefits and marginal improvements, in favour of the bloody obvious. We can start refining and tweaking and perfecting when we have the basics working again.

Or you could just follow the guidance and use the money saved to pay nurses.

Just a suggestion.

@nicepotoftea The kicker is that the RCN is the main union for nurses.

They don't pay nurses. Nurses pay THEM.

Then when nurses are treated really badly, they turn round and tell them to shut up and put up.

Like the NMC (regulatory body) they don't care about nurses - just their own jobs.

Other than the Darlington Nurses union, there are very few unions that will support gender critical nurses or any gender critical views.

Nope, you're not! I'm still reading, and finding most of it incomprehensible, so join the club!

However, trying to feel a bit more positive about it today, it may be that threats of legal action might be enough for some service providers to start obeying the law. Possibly. Maybe.

18 January 2019.

I sat in a meeting room above a pub with some Resisters and I said 'they are all going to have to rewrite their processes and procedures one day, or roll back to the ones they had the day before they invited Stonewall or the like in. I have the meeting notes in front of me.

The next time we went; the pub would not let us use the room. They found out that the women meeting were discussing biological reality. For shame.

Would they like to borrow my 5 year old relative ?
She announced - Don't be silly, girls don't have a willy.

It's not you. Haldane found in 2022 that only men with GRCs could be treated as legally female. Did the Scots act on it? They did not.

Even easier.

Label facilities currently labelled Male as Gender neutral

Leave facilities currently labelled for women as Female.

Leave the grim spider ridden facilities with the flickering fluorescent lighting in the basement unlabelled.

Provide single sex spaces and resources
Provide additional spaces and resources as needed

And be the grown ups you are paid to be, and say NO to staff who think they are exempt from following the law (and basic safeguarding). You know, like you would without hesitation to any other member of staff.

It really is that simple. You are paid to ensure your service and staff follow the law. So do that.

Kerrching!

The RCN is a union. The managers decide how to implement the law and then the union calls a strike.

They need to pick one of these organisations dragging its feet and make an example of it.

Any easy reader guide.with pictures is a good idea for those trying to fudge it.

This guidance is not for lawyers, its supposed to be for ordinary public to easily understand and follow.

Have the RCN made any improvements since the revelations of the inappropriate sexual culture in the Union where women were serially harassed? I just assume that many of the same people who condoned this behaviour are still involved which is why they so in thrall to the trans mob.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/oct/10/bullying-misogyny-and-sexual-culture-at-royal-college-of-nursing-inquiry-finds

Anyone know a nurse who wants to sue? Can be anonymous like LS v NHS England / Faye-RC.

Genuinely happy to help assess a case, set up with a solicitor who practices in this area and assess funding.

These shower are betrayers of their sex.

It's not just the endless consultations that cost money - what about the ££££ involved in ripping out perfectly acceptable single-sex toilet blocks to replace them with sometimes questionably-compliant, less safe, frequently misused and often unpopular 'gender neutral' toilets?

And now possibly having to spend more ££££ to reinsate the single-sex facilities because they are legally required?

And my Ultra position:
on the off chance that one of the tiny percentage of the population who are trans may pop in and need to use the loo, but chooses not to use the one designated for their sex, having to spend ££££ to provide fourth spaces in addition to women's and men's and accessible toilets?

That's a lot of £££s, isn't it? Just as well the country is doing so well economically at the moment😏

Where does proportionality come into all this: no transperson is ever left without toilet provision as long as there are women's, men's and accessible toilets.
How is it proportionate to demand a fourth alternative just becase a small minority of people choose not to use the toilet provision that is readily accessible to them?

Why is someone who 'objects strenuously to using their same sex facilities' entitled to a 'somewhere else' of their own?
It's not like they need 'somewhere else', like disabled people need adaptations in an accessible toilet.

TBF I agree.

"Might decide to find them somewhere else" would be better.

tiny percentage

I’ve been thinking today <ouch!>
I have always been a huge supporter of inclusion, fairness, equality, and love and generosity. Tying myself in knots about multiple axes of deprivation, discrimination, etc.
But I’m starting to doubt.
How does it make sense to bankrupt ourselves to make sure we don’t accidentally disadvantage someone? Wouldn’t it be cheaper to compensate anyone we’ve accidentally disadvantaged?
Can we afford to spend NHS money on anything that’s not life threatening?

We’re haemorrhaging money and we haven’t got any. The economy is tanked.

That’s responding to @MarieDeGournay at 7pm.

I paid subs to the RCN for decades. When I needed them they were absolutely useless. It made me really question the calibre and experience of some of the people who make a career out of working for the union.

I go to 3 different hospitals for regular appointments.
1 has only single sex toilets- a bit scruffy. Could do with a bit of an upgrade.Old hospital. I use them but the general scruffiness and tiny, cramped area is off putting.

1 only has unisex, accessible toilets, down a corridor, round a corner away from clincal/ public areas. Always filthy, wet, smelly. I won't use them. Always report the state of them. Fairly newly rebuilt hospital.

1 has single sex toilets, all accessible, clean well designed, open onto main corridor of clinical area. Recently rebuilt hospital.

So quite variable in the same trust.

The 'how taf do we deal with a very obvious bloke insisting he's not a bloke and waving legally false information while still fulfilling our duty of providing sex based provision for women that's free of men, harassment and a choice between submission to belief or exclusion, and without paying a fuckton to them in court' advice is what's wholly missing from the guidance. That's going to be important.

Yes. This is important. This gap in the law - that lets people change their sex markers on government ID while making people's sex important legally for organizations to be able to know - puts organizations in an impossible situation where they feel they they are going to get dragged through the media gutter and sued if they do what they are supposed. And the EHRC, who are supposed to make things clearer for organizations, have completely ducked on the one thing that isn't clear with the SC ruling - how to implement.

The EHRC is utterly useless on this point. And it's exactly where they could have put hepful strategies for organizations. A) pointing out clearly that if it's inappropriate for a place to have people who look the opposite sex in there (because users would reasonably be distressed by having to share with someone who they reasonably believe is the opposite sex) then that person can be refused access (though may need to be give access to a third space).

B) where it isn't appropriate but is necessary for qualifying someone (for an award, say) instead of saying that asking for identity documents is not appropriate as they may not show true sex. They could point out that a birth certificate will show the true sex for the vast majority of people (as most trans people do not have a GRC) and (as I understand it) there is one way to check if the birth certificate is of an original birth record, at least for people born in the UK. The GRO indices (one for England and Wale, one for Scotland and one for Norther Ireland) are indices of births at the time of registration and are not changed when a GRC is issued (a new entry is made on a private index for holders of GRCs). So someone who actually is male will either have that on their birth certificate or they will have a GRC, have female on their birth certificate and they will not show up on the public GRO index.

GRCs aren't the only reason for people's birth certificates to not show up on a GRO index, but it's not common with, I believe, adoption (at about 4,000 registrations a year) the largest share by quite a way.