JKR offers to fund any nurse or female patient legal fees

[Imdunfer]

JKR, in the wake of health authorities failing to implement the single sex space laws, has offered to fund the legal case of any female nurse or patient who wants to sue their health authority.

I love that woman!

Transwomen are not women (glad I could clear that up for you) and do not belong in women's single sex spaces. If I asked for the law to be enforced at my workplace and was punished as a result, she would pay to uphold my legal rights.

Your misrepresentation of her isn't fooling anyone.

Why do you have no problem with transwomen fighting for what you perceive as their rights, but insult and appear to hate women fighting for their rights?

Why do you have no problem with transwomen fighting for what you perceive as their rights, but insult and appear to hate women fighting for their rights?

Transwomen could save the NHS a fortune by agreeing to respect the law, but for some reason you don't think they should make that sacrifice. No, asper usual, it's women who should make the sacrifice instead.

Transwomen are men.

Exactly, it's a very deliberate tactic. With the way they keep bellowing and protesting (remember them pouring bottles of piss on themselves), you'd be forgiven for thinking the T in LGBT stands for toilets.

Payment which could easily be avoided by implementing the law.

The NHS has already wasted a huge amount of money defending the indefensible cases where they forced female staff to undress in front of men.

I imagine the only cases funded by JKR will involve men placed on women’s wards because they claim they are women and not cases where wards were forced to be mixed sex because of a lack of beds.

It’s not difficult. Don’t blame the women fighting for their rights. Blame the activists in the upper echelons of the NHS who are so in thrall to genderwang that they are deliberately flouting the law.

It really doesn't matter how many different ways certain people try to misinterpret the law to mean what they want it to mean, or their reasons for doing so. The law is clear, even if I, for one, think that the guidance is unnecessarily over-wordy in places.

So, to all those service providers who think they don't need to obey the law, I say, FAFO. We have a fund to help women take you to court, and we are going to use it.

Women are taking their spaces and services back. Men will have to grow up and take responsibility for themselves and other men who maybe don't look exactly like them.

Not your mum. Not our problem. Not sorry.

Some men really don’t like women having any rights do they? Worse than rights, a woman earning her own money and having the audacity to decide what she wants to spend it on!

Don’t worry about being outed as trans chaps, we can certainly tell who the males are. Women saying no really pisses you off doesn’t it?

I can answer. When I use the law to fight “my” cause I’m a justice warrior seeking equity for an oppressed and disadvantaged minority. When you fight for “your” cause you’re using lawfare to punish a cash-strapped organization we all cherish from doing what’s right.

It’s another irregular verb situation; I’ll add it to the list I’m keeping somewhere.

But they don't protect money for the NHS.

It's on it's knees after Covid. Staff are exhausted. The massive budget reduction during Tory rule hasn't ever been made up, and Brexit means the country's finances aren't recovering.

NHS services are still being cut.

There isn't money to treat everyone. Preventive services have disappeared. Neurology departments reject most referrals, scan dates take months, and there's still no central computer database. Friend has described to me how difficult it is to keep track of diabetes patients when they're still using paper records in hospital.

Massively increasing insurance premiums and forcing extra costs on a strapped service will kill people.

That's not hyperbole. Relative of mine died recently because his cancer spread during the five months he had to wait for surgery.

JKR going to any lengths to make us forget how she hired Johnny Depp isn't heroic.

What… like ‘proportionate’, ‘proportionate’?

Or ‘if it is not criminal law, it is not law’?

So having men on a ward during overcrowding is fine but a trans woman being with other woman is something to sue the NHS over?

Excellent, cheers for admitting it's about transphobia not women's safety at all.

As for 'in thrall to genderwang' - dear god. I know an NHS manager and she asked me what being trans was (because I have a trans kid). If you can't grasp the difference between "being captured" and "not discriminating against people with a protected characteristic under the Equality Act" then I pity you.

It is clear from the SC ruling that any exclusion of a trans person from single sex services has to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Sleight of hand. Only someone who understands the law could have crafted this true, yet totally misleading, statement, and it does not reflect well on their honesty.

For the benefit of anyone who was confused:

It is never illegal discrimination to exclude, from a single-sex space, a member of the opposite sex, even if they identity as the sex the space is intended for.

It is sometimes illegal discrimination to exclude, from a single-sex space, a member of the sex the space is intended for, if it is on account of another protected characteristic.

If that characteristic is gender reassignment, the exclusion must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, to be permitted.

For example, a woman's efforts to disguise herself as a man may be so successful that her presence would cause alarm.

(Women who do not identify as men, but who appear male for some other reason, can also legally be excluded, as a Schedule 3 derogation from the general ban on perceptive sex discrimination. Unlike for transmen, the guidance does not urge alternative unisex provision for them. Their legal position was unchanged by FWS so I guess they're used to it by now.)

So now we are back again to the NHS cannot afford to protect female single sex provisions or to put the policy that will align with the law in place.

That is no winning argument as to why the NHS cannot act according to the law. Considering the law has been also well clarified by two very public court cases that the NHS were a party in.

Assuming that everyone who disagrees with you must be male is incredible facile.

How about the NHS stop spaffing hundreds of thousands of pounds on defending hopeless cases over their determination to let men undress in women's spaces, then?

Are you writing to NHS top brass to scold them for wasting money, too?

If not, why are you scolding the side trying to uphold the law via their own money? Please explain.

“If you can't grasp the difference between "being captured" and "not discriminating against people with a protected characteristic under the Equality Act"”

You seem to continue to not understand the difference between legitimate and illegitimate discrimination.

Even people with a ‘protected characteristic’ can be legitimately discriminated against for the purposes of single sex provision if they are not the sex class the provision is there for.

Your arguments continue to be not coherent or accurate.

That could make for an interesting claim. "I don't want damages because I was on a mixed ward, but I do want damages because one of the people in my single sex ward (regularly full of male visitors) was trans". What level of damages do you think will be achieved in that scenario? The NHS can see off claims by a few judicious payments into court of nominal sums: then if the claimant doesn't accept it, she (or JKR) will end up paying the NHS's costs as well as their own.

If they try instead for judicial review, they come up against the problem that it's a discretionary remedy. The judge could well find that although there is may be a breach of the law, there is no need to make any orders resulting from it, and again could make costs orders accordingly against the claimants.

Actually, I think allowing a few trans people onto opposite-sex wards is more dangerous than occasionally setting up frankly mixed-sex wards in an emergency, because the danger is concealed (and later denied). Women have been raped in this situation (both a woman on a men's ward, and by a man on a women's ward) and the Trusts were very obstructive of the investigations.

She may well have asked you what trans was because when someone who is not in thrall for whatever reason - eg a parent having what you call a "trans kid" / a middle-aged man serving their paraphilia - looks into it carefully they realise that there is no definition, no coherent group, and that the goal posts and descriptions are constantly changing with no possibility of any material certainty, and only circular definitions.

By the way, sex is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, and there is no hierarchy of PCs.

A trans identifying female was cornered and raped within an hour of being admitted to an NHS male psychiatric ward. Admitted by a gender-addled Be Kinder like yourself who valued a haircut and pronouns over biological reality. Admitted by a state-funded organisation that prioritised identity politics over basic safeguarding and common sense.

JK Rowling is on the side of the vulnerable female patient disgracefully let down by medical professionals in her hour of need. You are on the side of the ideology which actively encourages this as a logical endpoint. I know what I think is obscene.

Jesus. Wards are heavily supervised and all have male staff.

Where?

Beginning to suspect our visitor has a lot of different tabs open on their computer 🤔

They are Schrodinger's wards: both heavily supervised and with male staff available; and also part of the NHS which is on its knees with no money for services, as described by the same busy poster.

https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/patients-and-visitors/inpatients-your-hospital-stay/you-arrive-hospital/mixed-sex-accommodation-and-privacy

One is managed as a mixed sex ward, the other is managed as a single sex ward.

Here is a link explaining one hosptial's policy on mixed sex wards and the things they do to protect patient privacy.

The hospitals have had years to get to grips with this, so I'm not sure what you think they wouldn't just obey the law and follow their own policies.

"I don't want damages because I was on a mixed ward, but I do want damages because one of the people in my single sex ward (regularly full of male visitors) was trans"

I assume that a case that did go to court would involve somebody who was NOT happy to put on a mixed sex ward and who had been told that their ward would be single sex.

Whether or not another patient identifies as trans (how would you know?) is irrelevant to their sex.

regularly full of male visitors

My experience is that visiting hours are limited.