can we discuss feminism please

No I wouldn't, what a ridiculous question. In case you don't know kidneys, livers, hearts lungs just for a start are organs found in both sexes. Are you telling me a uterus isn't a female body part? Are you planning to get a screening test for prostate cancer, or being female are you completely aware you don't have one?
Maybe a good medical/ biology book would help.

If we are going to start designating body parts as male/ female why stop at a uterus. Would you refuse a male kidney for a woman?

He's a man it's his body. You might not like it but it happened.
I wonder how he would feel if she was his MP and telling everyone that "women give birth".

A transman who used a biologically female uterus to gestate said baby.

Well she obviously doesn't know that a transman gave birth recently!

Galaxy

This is not an isolated incident trisher every mention of this subject is met with endless threats of rape and violence. It makes people very uncomfortable when we mention this. So we are going to keep doing it and keep reporting. All women involved are talking about it. We know what to look out for and we share the information. It helps women to know what we are dealing with.

That was my purpose in sharing it.

The MP who received the message, Joanna Cherry QC, has made a speech about the Bill in parliament today, see the link,

twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1359921849619140614?s=07

No problem, as long as it was a typo not an instruction to put on weight! I don’t need any encouragement!! ??

Apologies I really don't know why I keep adding an extra "r" to your name *Mollygo" it's fingers taking over from brain!

Mollygro I wouldn't expect patients or every day staff to be aware of the legislation, the responsibility rests firmly with the managers. I suspect they are struggling with this and things will improve as they become more attuned to the reality of the situation. It is really unfortunate for those who suffered, but it is like many changing circumstances, sometimes events move faster than the executive can manage. It's happened in other areas of protection.

trisher Thanks for that.
The problem then, (imagine you are in a mental health ward and already trying to cope with the fact that you are obliged to be there, and what you are there for), was that becoming frantically upset was seen as ‘part of your problem’ and more likely to be treated with drugs than by removing the cause of the distress.
I suspect very few patients or even staff would have been able to cite that passage.
It took parents, spouses and others to take up the matter and demand a solution.

I was thinking more of Broadmoor/Ashworth type. They are usually single sex.

My last foray onto a standard inpatient unit was about three years ago, the ward was mixed, but facilities and bedrooms single sex in separate wings. Both sectioned and voluntary patients being treated. I did a bit of reading up after posting and it seems there is now a big drive to go back to single sex wards, not just accommodation.

Mollygrothe law is clear it is unfortunate if it took too long to apply but it is absolutely clear he had no "right to be there".
Schedule 23, paragraph 3 of the Equality Act 2010 also allows a service provider to exclude a person from dormitories or other shared sleeping accommodation, and to refuse services connected to providing this accommodation on grounds of sex or gender reassignment. As with paragraph 28 and other exceptions under the Equality Act, such exclusion must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

NellG if you mean people there were sectioned, then it was a secure ward.

Out of curiosity where was that Mollygro? I've been out of the MHS for a few years but my last involvement with inpatient care was always on mixed wards, even the ITU. was mixed. I know I'm out of touch but are there single sex wards now? It's ironic really, when I started the fight was for mixed wards - more 'normative' so the thinking went at the time. Or are you talking about a secure unit?

I’ve read all these with great interest.
The worst use of trans women being allowed in women’s spaces that I’ve had to deal with was placing a trans woman, still quite obviously a man, with male behavioural problems, which appeared threatening to the female patients, on the female mental health ward.
Several of the patients were in there because of severe mental health issues relating to men.
His right to be there overrode their rights.
It took a lot of work to sort that out and cries of Terf and accusations of sexual discrimination were levelled at those who worked to find a solution.

I’m familiar with the history of suffragettes and suffragists thanks trisher.
The rape and death threats towards Terfs - any woman who dares to attempt to discuss the need to,protect women’s spaces, sports, etc may receive them.
You seem to be suggesting a kind of cancel culture, where those kind of threats are simply ignored. That posters like MBHP1 shouldn’t share them in order to illustrate the extent of violence being threatened because it wont stop the abuse.

I’ve mentioned on previous discussions, the rape and death threats levelled against two young feminists I know. They’d attempted to discuss these issues at a women’s conference. They were shouted down with threats. They had to take down social media accounts because a concerted effort of threats to harm them followed.
It won’t wash to say all movements have extremists.

This is not an isolated incident trisher every mention of this subject is met with endless threats of rape and violence. It makes people very uncomfortable when we mention this. So we are going to keep doing it and keep reporting. All women involved are talking about it. We know what to look out for and we share the information. It helps women to know what we are dealing with.

I actually wasn't telling the MP not to read it (I don't think she is on this thread). I was telling MBHP1 who reposted the threats on here.Of course the MP can read them of course the threats are wrong. But what exactly does reposting them do? Does it stop them? Does it make the offender feel sorry? or does it simply spread the offending message further? And can't that be done without fulfilling the original tweeters aim ? To spread hate speech further? I don't need to read such things to know there are people on social media posting abusive and violent views.
If we are likening it to the streets, it's a bit like writing a story about an assault and passing it around. It doesn't help. It doesn't do anything and it certainly doesn't protect anyone.
As for extremists in every movement of course there are and they are wrong. It doesn't negate or stain the whole movement.

I view telling women not to read things similar to telling women not to walk down the street at night. Women have a right to participate in online life, we wont stop reading we will continue to talk about and report it.

MBHP1

MBHP1

Iam64

MBHP1, I dont believe the threat in the tweet towards Terfs can be dismissed simply by the suggestion that’s there are extremists in every movement. To then compare fire setting by suffragettes to death threats towards Terfs is taking whataboutery several steps too far

Not my statement, think it was Trisher.

Ahh, sorry didn’t follow/read this, I see now what you are meaning, apologies.

Yes, I agree it is unacceptable.

It was aimed at an MP.

She can hardly ignore it especially when she had to be given police protection in the past for threats from the same quarter.

I think all politicians are duty bound to report all threats.

Shocking on many levels.

Currently "resting assured" that you can lead a horse to water but you'll likely get stuck in the same mud as the horse.

MBHP1

Iam64

MBHP1, I dont believe the threat in the tweet towards Terfs can be dismissed simply by the suggestion that’s there are extremists in every movement. To then compare fire setting by suffragettes to death threats towards Terfs is taking whataboutery several steps too far

Not my statement, think it was Trisher.

Ahh, sorry didn’t follow/read this, I see now what you are meaning, apologies.

Iam64

MBHP1, I dont believe the threat in the tweet towards Terfs can be dismissed simply by the suggestion that’s there are extremists in every movement. To then compare fire setting by suffragettes to death threats towards Terfs is taking whataboutery several steps too far

Not my statement, think it was Trisher.

No threatening and abusing anyone is not OK as I have frequently said in these arguments. (and I'm supposed to twist things!!!).
However one of the solutions to dealng with abuse on social media is simply to stop reading it. It's a strategy many have used

Yes that's the newest strategy in the abuse of women on line that I have seen. In the pursuit of freedom from oppression groups have often used violence, so threatening and abusing terfs is ok.
If you persist in reading Twitter that is what you get. Dear God.