the law as it stands on sex

GrannyGravy13

There shouldn’t be any conditions attached to female only safe spaces, they should just be female only safe spaces which using biological definitions means not admitting anyone with a penis.

I agree.

It's not as though anyone is asking for transwomen to be denied access to most places - just places where women are vulnerable or where they feel that their dignity would be compromised.

It's all about informed consent, the right to which in every other situation I can think of would be considered a given.

I can't find the link..I remember it said she did a public information search and had found 54 cases... I must find the link but now its snowing and I ve got to take the dogs out. I can't get my twitter to go back on her feed very far takes forever she tweets so many lovely pictures of flowers and paintings.
the principle of what she is calling for though is clear whether it is one or a hundred and one:

"the policy, known as Annex B, to be amended as it “gives priority to trans people over women” and therefore threatens the “dignity, privacy and safety” of female patients.

“The result of Annex B is that hospital trusts inform ward sisters and nurses that if there is a male, as a trans person, in a female ward, and a female patient or anyone complains, they must be told that it is not true - there is no male there,” she told the upper chamber.

“I think it is completely wrong that the National Health Service should be instructing or allowing staff to mislead patients -to tell a straightforward lie. It is not acceptable."

here's new link...

4w.pub/review-on-single-sex-wards-biased-and-insatisfactory-british-politicians-suggest/

I've no idea where the 54 came from but here she implies another 10 offences? and 'On March 20, 2022, the baroness spoke to Andrew Doyle for GB News about the single-sex accommodation debate in the House of Lords. She told the presenter that thousands of women in female wards have complained about the presence of men who say they are trans, and they have been told by NHS staff that there were no men in the female ward.
most chilling is this paragraph...

Hospital staff were instructed in official guidelines to label patients who complain as “transphobic,” or to compare them to racists. Other trusts required hospital staff to report patients who complain to the police for “hate crimes,” to deny or “withdraw” treatment if a female patient refused to accept a “physically intact male on women-only wards,” to put women in seclusion if they complained or to tell women who complained about being accommodated with men that “there was no men present” in the hospital.

Chilling indeed.

There is definitely a 'song sheet' though - comparing people who question anything to do with trans issues to racists (and homophobes), accusing them of transphobia and 'hate' is all too common.

"the baroness has not yet been able to find evidence to support her claim"

So gossip then

I completely see your point, grannygranby

It is never going to be possible to get accurate figures if they are not recorded as male people on female wards. This is how life through the looking glass works , isn't it? The burden of proof will fall on those questioning the status quo - it always does.

Lord Jones spoke after Lord Etherton, who opposed the amendment right after Baroness Nicholson had presented it. Lord Etherton said on the occasion that the NHS would be “acting unlawfully in failing to allocate accommodation and other facilities to match the gender identity of transsexuals.” He also claims that exceptions to this rule must be made on a case by case basis by a “legitimate aim,” but that people feeling “uncomfortable sharing accommodation and facilities with trans people of the opposite birth sex” was not a legitimate aim.

So 'transexuals' must be accommodated according to their 'gender identity', but exceptions cannot be made based on the fact that other patients feel 'uncomfortable'.

What does 'uncomfortable' mean, in these circumstances? Does it mean 'a little bit uneasy', 'terrified' or something in the middle? Who gets to adjudicate on someone else's 'discomfort'? Why is the comfort of 'transexuals' put ahead of that of other patients? Who made that decision, and/or the decision to 'look to Stonewall and Mermaids for support', and to carry out the review without any public terms of reference?

I think we should be told.

Chilling paragraph indeed grannygranby, and worse when you’ve seen it in action. Some people will fortunately never see that but still understand that reports of it taking place are true. Others will be like Thomas.

Thankyou for posting the link grannygranby

She appears to be aware of "ten cases of patients who had been sexually abused within the National Health Service following the introduction of controversial "gender identity" policies*

Due to privacy she seems unable to give further details which it seems may limit getting an accurate picture of what is actually happening.

One case of assault is one too many though.

Doesn't anyone see that making statements like this carries responsibility?

Her 10 that she can't even currently prove made it on to gransnet as 54....

Can no one seriously see how that puts trans women and women who may be mistaken as trans in direct danger?

I think lots of things carry responsibility VS. I think its very possible that saying transwomen are women and transmen are men carries responsibility. I think for young people those statements may be causing significant problems.

I agree, Galaxy, particularly when no journalist, politician or celebrity will say otherwise, and when people in public service occupations are obliged to toe the party line, so young people will rarely hear anything other than TWAW.

I also think that denying people the opportunity to collect statistics (eg the ones that are unavailable in the article quoted by gg above) by refusing to collect them based on sex, and then criticising those who are unable to quote figures to substantiate concerns is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. It's akin to deleting bad reviews online and then asking people to point to the deletions as proof that that what was in them existed.

For hospitals to take people at their self-declared 'gender identity' rather than sex, and then to collect figures based on those identities simply doesn't allow people like the baroness to back up her point with accurate stats.

Then don't guess, you can have concerns without guesswork or exaggerations

Exactly DD. People tend not to hide or disguise positive figures.
The usual problem with hiding or disguising figures is that they are worse than people expect, and those hiding them know this but don’t want to admit it.
*Two good current examples are party-gate, and the skewing of figures with regard to rape.
The only reason for hiding or disguising the figures is because those who are doing it or setting up the criteria for it to happen, don’t want the general public to know how bad things actually are, and by doing so can claim that people mentioning any figures at all are exaggerating or using guesswork.

How did what is clearly (from the article) her awareness of 10 cases turn into 54 cases?

Madgran77
One case of assault is one too many though.
I agree, but that isn’t true for some people. Despite asking, I’ve never managed to establish what those for whom one case or a small percentage isn’t enough to warrant preventive action would advocate as the baseline number for preventive action to be taken that they find acceptable.

Madgran77

How did what is clearly (from the article) her awareness of 10 cases turn into 54 cases?

I don't know. And I'm not in a position to know whether the article exaggerates or errs on the side of caution.

What worries me, however, is that a review of what is happening in a publicly funded institution took place without any public terms of reference (which means, of course, that there can't be publicly available stats), using guidance from Stonewall and Mermaids, and the person asking questions about it is the one being doubted because she is unable to provide statistics.

In any event, ten cases is ten too many.

In any event, ten cases is ten too many

Yes ...as I said earlier in thread even one case is one too many.

I agree re lack of availability of stats and no terms of reference. Which then "brings into question" anything that anyone raises because they can't produce stats! And they can't produce stats because......it just goes round in circles doesn't it! It also had a tendency to lead to exaggeration, stats statements made to support a viewpoint without clear evidence. Not a good setting for debating/making such important decisions is it.

In the case that there is more information on, it is clearly absurd that rape was denied "because no men were on the ward"! The fact is that a Trans woman who had not had an operation to remove the penis she was born with , was on the Ward. And the penis was in working order along with sexual urges! To say that rape could not have happened because she is a woman (ignoring the physical manifestation of a working penis) is so absurd it beggars belief that it was ever said in an official capacity by the authorities! Ridiculous!

I actually said dozens...then checked, then corrected and said ten, though I had remembered 54 , but said I had no idea why, and said that, and couldn't find evidence for it (too much information). In fact, what I didn't say is that Baroness Nichols said that she had 'thousands' of complaints. Get your facts straight. The important issue is Annex B and the fact that mainstream media don't discuss it. We need more openness more discussion. My goodness I don't mind how anyone presents themselves but I do mind when the law is changed not in my name. Language and law are very important issues and have deep ramifications.

Its curious how on one hand we are lauded for being fluid and progressive over transgender and yet transwoman and transman as descriptors are rejected ...why not celebrate the fact? Like non-binarys? Or are all genders women? Are we just the catch-all for non-men? The second sex? Simone de Beauvoir would not be at all surprised that the patriarchy continues to fight for every inch of power.
Call them all men...oh no because men are too sexually dangerous? QED

What is a man?

FarNorth

What is a man?

Good question. What I can remember from my studies (way back in the mists of time) is that men are definitely made, not born.

FarNorth

What is a man?

A male or anyone who purports to be a male.

Grannygranby
It’s curious how on one hand we are lauded for being fluid and progressive over transgender and yet transwoman and transman as descriptors are rejected ...why not celebrate the fact?

It won’t be celebrated because, whilst notusing transman and transwoman gives justified cover to those transmen and transwomen who just simply want to get on with their lives in their new gender which I’m happy to support,
it also provides convenient cover for those TW and TM who see their affirmation of a different gender as an opportunity to access places where they were never intended to be.
Currently this means TW are supported in their ambition to be able to access Female only spaces, race in female races, appear as male in female hospital wards etc. Having to identify as trans when accessing those places would immediately give rise to refusal.

GagaJo what does that mean?
Are you saying that coaching from the earliest age is needed?
So transmen cannot be men?

And you really have to think back to your studies to work it out?
You have no idea when you meet someone if they are a man or not?

Having four sons, and being at the birth if two of my grandsons I can assure you Gagajo that baby men are born with a penis and testicles.

They have heavier bone density, bigger lungs, heart and internal organs. They are in general stronger than females and in my observation as soon as they realise they have a penis spend an extraordinary amount of time focusing on it.

They are also kind, caring, nurturing and perfectly capable of cooking, cleaning and taking care of their children.

GagaJo

FarNorth

What is a man?

Good question. What I can remember from my studies (way back in the mists of time) is that men are definitely made, not born.

What studies? I assume they didn't include biology or sexual reproduction then?

Rosie51

GagaJo
FarNorth
What is a man?
GGJ
Good question. What I can remember from my studies (way back in the mists of time) is that men are definitely made, not born.

R51
What studies? I assume they didn't include biology or sexual reproduction then?

Evidently not Rosie51, or maybe experiencing the onset of the FM syndrome.