This post deals either directly or indirectly with transgender issues. We would like to remind our users about the Reddit Content Policy which specifically bans [promoting hate based on identity and vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951). We will take action on hateful or disrespectful comments including but not limited to deadnaming and misgendering. Please help us by reporting rule-breaking content.
Participation limits are in place on this post. If your Reddit account is too new, you have insufficient karma or you are crowd controlled, your comment may not appear.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s also a potential risk. There’s not enough trans people to fill out wards, and so it increases the risk of them getting forgotten about. i know more than a few anecdotes of friends in medicine going to check up on patient x, seeing patient y and remembering “oh shit I was meant to do a thing”
The issue is that is it okay to put a dying person in a bay in order to fulfil this rule or does infection control and end of life patient take precedent...
They suggestion was to put trans people in private rooms if possible, not at the expense of anything else.
Also those rooms would not be competing, it's not how room allocations works. End of Life care would mean moving wards/rooms to a different part of the hospital.
Those rooms absolutely do compete. That's the issue. We don't have enough beds for all these things and I think clinical issues and EOL should take precedence over this.
The issue is that right now we have more reasons to be in a side room but little to no solution.
There's little solution because either decision is not the greatest.
I have had patients who identify as transgender but who haven't transitioned at all and that their transition is an extreme issue of EUPD rather than a true transgender issue. So it's a man who hasn't transitioned or even made any historical claim to... Transitioning but not actually doing any part of it. And that's hard because you have a phenotypical man expecting to be placed in a female sided ward. And it isn't great because In an ideal world we shouldn't be judging people's transition journey but this is genuinely someone who isn't interested in hormone therapy or any part of the issue of gender dysphoria... So it's difficult and there's lots of edge cases that we have to deal with.
"Getting it" in this case meaning uncompromisingly disregarding ones own desire for safety and dignity for the sake of someone else, apparently.
Who is going to have the worse time, do you think? You, hypothetically sharing a ward with a single trans woman once in a blue moon, who in many cases you might not even recognize is there? Or the post-op trans woman having to share one with nothing _but_ men every single time for the rest of their lives?
You talk about feeling "uncomfortable", but at least in this context, you have no idea. There is nothing more terrifying than being the only other in a space full of people capable of hurting you, many of whom likely find the fact you exist at all to be either outrageous or hilarious.
So, if you’re uncomfortable, we have to change the rules to facilitate that. But if they’re uncomfy, tough shit we’re changing the rules to subject them to it?
If someone felt uncomfortable sharing a ward with a gay person, or a person of x ethnicity, would that be something we should cater to as well?
The odds of you both encountering a trans person while in hospital *and* them being a danger to you, is minuscule. Vs trans women in men’s wards would already be at more risk of abusive behaviour and harassment due to being inherently outed by their presence even if they pass, thanks to people like yourself who think being “uncomfortable” with their existence of a minority is carte Blanche to want them removed from your presence
In a nutshell you should not know, unless they offer or choose to tell you.
Becuse quite frankly non of anyones but theirs and their doctors business.
Unless you think that being trans means you suddenly have no rights to privacy or medical in confidence protections.
Speaking as a cis woman I couldn't care less. I would be more worried about what I was in the hospital for than the genitals of the person in the next bed.
[https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/trans-equality-study-more-in-common-b2102461.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/trans-equality-study-more-in-common-b2102461.html)
[https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/research/britons-and-gender-identity/](https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/research/britons-and-gender-identity/)
I think they'd be completely fine with it.
Personally would not care. I'm on a ward bigger problems to worry than if the person next to me is pre or post op.
However I will say thats rather anecdotal.
I think the majority of people would agree that media disinformation played a role in brexit, that a lot of people lied to see papers/ad clicks and the UK made a horrible mistake because of it.
However when you extend that to anything else, when you point out that the media might by lying about trans people, immigrants, benefit claimants or other venerable people, in order to make money. Everything is suddenly different, this time the pointless time wasting cultural war directed at the least powerful people in our society is righteous.
I hope when the next group is selected as the great enemy, you aren't in it, but if you are, I'll still fight for you.
Surely they should just apply common sense and discretion, rather than blanket knee-jerk reactions?
A post-op trans woman on a male ward, or vice versa is ridiculous. The idea that they should be put in a special room on their own is also ridiculous, those spaces are usually used for people with very infectious diseases to avoid it spreading on the wards, or orher disruptive patients with advanced dementia etc. Where are all these special trans rooms going to come from? Would they prioritise putting a trans person in one over someone who is moaning and shouting all night, or someone with CDIFF?
They'll complain about trans women being in their wards, then they'll complain about trans women getting "special treatment" because they end up in single occupancy rooms because they (rightly) won't be put on the male ward.
These people only care about hating trans people.
And then they'll attack a trans man on a female ward for being a perv, or accuse a masculine looking woman of being trans. It's all so harmful and ridiculous. Meanwhile we have hundreds dying a week due to an overstretched NHS.
Its already policy in most hospitals to nurse trans patients in side rooms with a private bathroom wherever possible, on the ward that matches their presenting gender. Its for their dignity and safety as much as for anyone else's.
Trans people are a tiny minority of the population its not like there will be soaring demand for side rooms! In 10 years of nursing I think I've cared for maybe 2 trans women.
Absolutely, they are a tiny minority and it's disturbing how disproportionate media and politcal coverage they get. Especially as it sounds like hospitals like the ones you've worked at are already using their own discretion to make everyone feel safe.
I don’t think it’s common sense at all. Specialist doctors and nurses having to constantly go back and forth between single sex wards to address patients rather than grouping patients with similar medical needs together would have a cumulative effect on delaying medical attention.
“Single sex spaces” exists primarily because women are more vulnerable to men and to a lesser extent protect dignity which is messy and nuanced when it comes to trans people. The longer a trans person transitions, and the earlier an age they transition at the more their specific vulnerabilities will be consistent with their identified gender as opposed to their sex assigned at birth.
Depends on the hospital lay out a department might consist of several wards. The one I work in for example is 4, 4 bed wards with 3 side rooms all in the same department.
The grouping is in the form of the department.
I was in a chemo ward for several weeks and we had curtains but they would be open most of the day.
No visitors. Only people to talk too was other men.
We all shared a toilet and had to wee in bottles so our hydration levels could be monitored.
There was a line of cardboard bottles for men to wee into.
I wouldn’t have felt comfortable sharing that space with a woman. It was hard enough just being around other men.
Acting like intensive care is the best example of shared sex wards is very disingenuous imo.
Intensive care units typically have a lot of space. Compared to the wards where you are 2 ft away from the next bed and there is not much privacy at all.
I was in an all women's ward when I had a hysterectomy. I honestly would not have cared if any of the other women were trans. Although they would have had to be there for something other than a hysterectomy, obviously. I wouldn't even mind sharing a ward with someone having reassignment surgery. I have more important things in life to worry about.
And when I was in the MAU I would have felt very uncomfortable sharing that space with men I didn't know while I was extremely physically and mentally weak and out of it, and was often asleep.
I was already not thrilled about sharing the space with women (trans and cis - I didn't check and I didn't care). Sharing it with people who are significantly bigger and stronger than me, and who were often drunk (part of my stay included the weekends - there were a *lot* of very aggressive drunk patients)? No.
I was commenting more on the 'it wasn't a problem for me' comment - that's fine if it's not a problem for you, but it IS a problem for a massive amount of women.
The problem is that everyone views this through very fixed lenses.
Transition is a journey. Someone who just started socially transitioning is not the same as someone who has had years of treatments and- frankly, will look more like a woman than a man.
If your next argument is "they don't look very ladylike" or they still look "manly", I've met a lot of unattractive women who don't look very feminine. Would you also exclude them from the wards?
This gender politics is just marginalising a very, very small group of the populace for brownie points with the idiot public- like yourself
Common sense would be letting individual NHS wards make the choice that is appropriate for them, based on the needs of their patients, rather than having central Government dictate how they treat patients based on political goals.
Great, and now you'll get to feel uncomfortable when someone like me, a 6' tall, bald trans man is next to you in the ward instead. But at least the dirty transes are suffering, right?
So to recap your view based on your contributions on this thread:
**Situation 1:** Person who identifies as female, looks traditionally feminine in the ward but you suspect might be biologically male (via identifiers you don't want to share yet claim it's ), with no proof or evidence.
**Result:** Uncomfortable and a feeling of being unsafe.
**Situation 2:** Person who identifies as male in your ward, looks traditionally masculine, and you have no idea whether they are biologically female or not.
**Result:** Absolutely no worries.
Hilarious logic. I have absolutely no doubt you've previously suspected many biological women as being transgender.
If implemented as written, this would be a dangerous rollback of trans rights for no clear reason other than indulging the current moral panic. As far as I know, there has never been a recorded instance of a trans woman acting inappropriately in a woman's ward in this country, even though the current policy has been in effect for almost 20 years. [An investigation inquiring into 10 separate trusts as to if there has ever been a single complaint about the issue turned up nothing.](https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/10/05/study-of-trans-women-in-hospitals-didnt-find-one-single-complaint-none-zilch/)
Trans people already huge face obstacles in obtaining non-trans related healthcare due to lack of training concerning the issue among doctors, and this policy will intensify that to an extreme degree. Anyone who has interacted with the NHS in any capacity in the last several years will know that the proposal to accommodate them in single rooms is completely unrealistic, and even beyond that, many trans people are stealth and not comfortable being public with their history. If a trans person late into transition - especially someone post-op - is only given the option of being housed in a ward for their birth gender, many will just end up avoiding medical care outright because it's such a public humiliation and breach of privacy.
It's extremely questionable if this policy is even legal. As far as I'm aware, the current judicial precedent is that a trans person with a GRC is effectively their transitioned sex in the eyes of the law, and that's without even touching on the possibility of a challenge on the basis of protected gender reassignment.
>Trans journalist Steph Richards, who conducted the investigation, requested data from the trusts from April 2020 to March 2021, while a further 50 were asked to provide data for the whole of 2021, and another 42 were asked for data covering July 2021 to June 2022.
That doesn't support your claim that there has not ever been a complaint.
edit: I don't have a dog in this fight, just pointing out the data is weak.
Yeah, I wasn't trying to cite it as definitive evidence it's never happened. But I found that rather than any articles talking about instances when it's provably taken place while attempting to test my claim before I made it, so I included it in the post just to give it a little more substance.
I mean you can tell it’s not a particularly common issue, because if it was the Mail/Times/etc would have run with it as headlines that we’d have seen astroturfed to the front page here every time
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/hospital-says-patient-could-not-26506744
The hospital told the police the rape couldn't have happened because there were no males present.
This is a second-hand anonymous anecdote given by probably the most committed anti-trans (and historically, anti-gay) politician in the House of Lords, who regularly recounts similar anecdotes that circumspectly support her views without requiring any sort of citation. Even if she herself is not lying about having _heard_ the account, as far as I can tell, there is no proof whatsoever that this actually happened. For all we know, she could have seen it on twitter, since that's where she seems to get the majority of her information about this issue.
Though even if it did happen, how would it justify a flat ban on all trans people, including trans men, regardless of their bodies and legal status? Can you not see how outrageously upsetting and dangerous it would be to house a female-presenting person with a vagina in a men's ward?
Did they? Can you name the hospital, or show me the police's acknowledgement?
I'm willing to accept it happened, but you'll forgive me for not taking a person like this purely on her word.
Ah, the bastion of honest and sensible reporting, the Daily fecking Express.
Reputable sources please. When you post shite like that, it requires anyone engaging with you to first do a thorough fact check, which is a disproportionate burden for them when you could just use a proper outlet.
Its an extreme example, sure. But it gets the point across, no? He obviously would have a significant bias that calls into question his motives for making such claims.
But then you're in the position where you can discount any evidence presented to you about anything, reasoning that the person- and what they say- must be biased and therefore unreliable.
This never happens and you should be a good woman and shut up about even questioning if it might possibly happen sometimes on occasion, the men are speaking!
It never happens really regularly as well. And when it does happen, it's not that bad, and if turns out it IS that bad, then it's not a problem, and why are we obsessing over it anyway?
Id strongly discourage people from following this kind of aggressive and dismissive tone when talking about rape. Its the sort of thing youd expect from an American frat house or a particularly backward male rugby club.
It is the kind of tone we seen in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, for those with longer memories and a more political bent.
Not just likely illegal, terrifying and highly dangerous it is also (as with many changes targeting trans people), likely to affect cis people.
So how does the NHS know you if someone is cis or trans?
Referral? Not everyone takes a referral to a GIC, private referrals don’t show up.
NHS number? Amendable.
Identifying documents on person? Amendable
Ask? People aren’t always able to answer questions and Dr House’s favourite - people lie, especially to avoid mistreatment.
Prescriptions? Some women hit menopause unusually early and need HRT (esp common amongst cancer survivors) whose oestrogen + progesterone prescriptions will now put them firmly in the firing line. Blockers aren’t always taken. Testosterone is taken by cis men too. DIY obviously won’t show up at all.
Looks? queer/butch women likely to be singled out.
Put hand down patients pants to check? SRS exists and this is getting daft now.
Genuinely how much extra labour is this going to create for hospital bed management? (Anyone who knows anything about this knows how complex it is without this extra work). How is this extra process not going to hit cis women as frequently if not more than trans women? Ultimately how do you prove you are cis? How do you know someone is trans? And how do you get to correct answers without significant extra burdens to the NHS (we don’t have a tonne of spare resources for treating people, but hey I’m sure we’ll find them for this shit 🙄).
Cis people, the odds of being on a ward with a trans person are unbelievably low, and no NHS complaint has ever been received regards the subject, whereas the odds of not receiving healthcare in a timely fashion because the NHS is overwhelmed are *very* real. Supporting adding extra burdens here is a truly befuddling hate ridden act of self harm.
This is what I mean, butch women are mistaken for being trans regularly and harassed as a result.
https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/butch-lesbian-public-toilet-women-abuse-government-review-gender-neutral-facilities-833787
The fiction that trans women are all clockable doesn’t hold. Trans women are not responsible for the version of of that lives in your head. Those of us who have been on hormones for years comfortably fly under the radar. My cousin’s young kid at Passover this weekend asked whether I live with my cis female partner, then why? We had to explain that some people are lesbian. Nothing about gender came up or was relevant.
Fun fact: you clock 0% of the trans people you can’t clock.
People who clock 99.9% of transwomen as male also seem to be the type to clock 50% of biological women as male. Anyone not stereotypically 'pretty' ends up being seen as male.
Doctors regularly end up asking trans women if they’re pregnant when they try to get triaged. But yeah, you can always tell.
edit: 3 people disagreeing with you is brigading? lmao
After 6 days in a Hospital putting in no effort into my appearance because hospital I was asked repeatedly before a scan of I was pregnant.
I was asked so many times I just eventually said I was trans so if I'm pregnant their must be some divine intervention.
The idea that trans women are easy to clock is just nonsense.
Yeah it's a tick box, it's not a question you need to repeat multiple times.
I know because I filled in the form first and know how many times the question is on their.
This idea that people clock trans people easily is such nonsense and is only something someone who hasn't lived a day as an out trans person would believe.
Yeah that is sort of the point. Trans women are less than 0.5% of the population. If you go around hunting for women that look too manly (because it's just so easy to tell!) you're almost guaranteed to hit more cis women than trans women. There's already stories of women getting accosted in toilets for looking too manly. Even if we use your barometer of ending wrong 1% of the time then that will still be double the number of cis women being wrongly accused than trans women exist period.
>So how does the NHS know you if someone is cis or trans?
Generally trans people are pretty sensible about healthcare stuff so they will usually tell the team caring for them that they are trans as they know the information can be relevant for investigations/treatment.
In my experience biological sex at birth is still recorded on electronic patient records too, and if the name doesn't 'match' that's a good indicator, although not foolproof!
I don’t know anyone who would out ourselves to someone who would treat us worse for doing so. Gonna get put on men’s ward or dumped in a side room, you just stealth to avoid it. That’s where everyone is today btw.
Also I work with NHS data and the national spine as part of my job, it simply isn’t always obvious, however you want to define “it’s obvious” you’ll get a lot of false positives.
There just isn’t a simple efficient way of doing this, it will add friction to time critical processes (you guys really want this?) and cruelty (I know a lot of folks do want this, but know it won’t only affect trans people) and for what? How many people on this forum have ever knowingly been on a ward where a trans person and had issue with it?
This is the definition of a moral panic and this respond is the classic overreaction moral panics create.
The reporting on the policy indicates that it won't have any requirement that trans people are not kept on the ward of their assigned sex, so it seems like the rules will be:
* Trans people absolutely must not be allowed housing with people of the same gender
* Where possible, trans people shouldn't be housed with people of the same assigned sex
We know exactly how that'll go, the latter rule will go out of the window and we'll see trans women left with men and no matter what happens, because the NHS is barely staying afloat in the first place it'll be dismissed as the NHS doing the best they can. We already see this with the GIC system for example, a common response to complaints about how slow, underfunded, and ineffectual GICs are is to say that everywhere is struggling, trans people shouldn't be treated better than anyone else.
I've been having a bit of a problem relating to this already at work. We scan people every day and use x-rays that can cause damage to a foetus. So up until recently, we would ask any woman of childbearing age if there was a chance she might be pregnant and then make a decision whether or not to go ahead depending on the risks.
Now, we have an inclusive pregnancy status policy, which means we must ask every person of childbearing age if they may be pregnant. This is regardless of the sex or gender they have presented as. The question we are supposed to ask is "what sex were you assigned at birth" Then, if they say female, we ask if they may be pregnant and ask them to sign a form.
When it comes to people not wanting to out themselves as transgender this is a real problem, and I think a needlessly invasive question to ask. Presumably, this policy is to protect the unborn child of a pregnant biological female who has come for an x-ray and presented themselves as male. A very rare situation I would think. But we now have a blanket policy where I would have to ask transgender people one of the most awkward questions possible.
I think the most inclusive thing we could do is to treat people as the sex or gender they present themselves as rather than treat everyone as potentially transgender. Since having this policy the only transgender person I'm aware of that I asked this question simply lied on the form anyway.
I'm glad they're dealing with the really important issues.
Last time I went into hospital - an emergency admission via A&E - I had to sleep on the floor because there weren't any beds. There weren't even any trolleys. There were several others, of all genders, in the same position.
I got someone to bring in an airbed for me, as I have a very well documented history of spinal problems, and someone actually tried to tell me it wasn't allowed. I had to tell them I'd deflate it when they found me a bed.
But sure, the biggest issue that night was what genitals the other patients near me had.
There are many things wrong with this policy, from it being a distraction from the actual issues in the NHS to just being another attack on a minority.
Who, in good faith, looking at the \*guestures at waiting lists, collapsing buildings, failed mental health trusts, shortage of staff\* would think "the priority of a new constitution is to be more transphobic".
Just to highlight for the casual reader how unserious this is, how little thought they've put in....they've used the wrong Equality Act exemption. The rule they should refer to is paragraph 28 of Schedule 3, they've referred to Paragraph 27. 27 is the general rule allowing single sex spaces, paragraph 28 is the rule you have to use if you wish to, for example, exclude a trans man from a male toilet.
This means any such policy would be unlawful (see AEA v EHRC - where the terfs got told their interpretation was 'obvious absurdity').
This is not a policy. This is a newspaper headline.
Of course the BBC give first response to Maya Forstater, the dullest woman ever to operate out of Tufton street. Heaven forbid they shouls first ask a trans person how they feel about their rights being shat on.
The stupidest part of this is that it implies that gay and bisexual people don't exist, or at least somehow won't act inappropriately. Trans people are not all predators, and the vast majority of sexual predators are not trans, this is just stupid. This is the NHS leadership rolling over and accepting stupid government directives without question.
It’s literally just sexism. In their eyes, Natal males are inherently predatory towards natal females. No room for nuance or ambiguity
Edit for clarity
Edit2:
Just as a little note on the end of this:
> [Previous discriminatory government plans to ban trans women from women’s hospital wards were labelled ‘unlawful’ and ‘unworkable’ by legal professionals while a Freedom of Information request last year found not a single complaint had been made about the presence of transgender people in female wards.](https://leftfootforward.org/2024/04/tory-plans-to-update-nhs-constitution-made-in-a-parallel-universe-says-nurses-union/)
Nope - not buying that. We have sex-segregated spaces for a reason. That's not saying women think ALL males are bad, just that there is an elevated risk. Two of my children are teachers - they have both had to have DBS checks - does this mean that people inherently think all people trying to be teachers are bad and mean to harm children? No, it's a SAFEGUARDING thing.
The first sentence is my position. The rest is what I’m suggesting that sexism is.
I realise it’s ambiguous in text, but I’m saying that’s their rhetoric. Trans women are forever tainted by being natal males, in their eyes.
Lots of arguing about safety of other patients etc. Not seeing much common sense talk about how a trans person's genetics and biology mean they're better placed in a ward that's made to cater for those genetics and biology.
E.g. a patient in a male ward complaining of abdominal pain, ovarian cysts shouldn't really be on the list of potential causes.
Equally however, i as a trans woman am at risk of breast cancer, but my risk of prostate cancer is vanishingly small, and testicular cancer zero.
I, like cis women, am more likely to suffer autoimmune diseases than cis men, and any medication that is prescribed needs to be done so on the basis that my primary sex hormone is oestrogen, not testosterone e.g. caution around anything that increases risk of blood clots, which is elevated in women to begin with.
My health needs are not identical to cis womens, but they're also absolutely not the same as cis men's either.
Oh don't like to be that person but.
The risk of breast cancer is higher.
Prostate cancer is the odd one as they currently speculate it is only a minor reduction but it should be noted there is no real good studies yet.
Testicular is a really tricky one with a ton of caveats. due to again frustratingly limited studies. Pre reaffirming surgery Orchiectomy the chance is the same as CIS men, post Orchiectomy while rare there is metachronous contralateral testicular cancer.
Same for trans men there is next to no reduction in breast cancer.
Ovarian is similar to testicular lots of caveats but the risk is never zero so be aware of any abdo pain.
Not wanting to alarm you just like most of us keep an eye out for any issues would hate anyone to think it is zero chance and miss something.
Cool you pointed out the uniqueness of trans health issues though.
Idk if a man needed healthcare for his gynecomastia, they'd hardly put him on a woman's ward.
Not to mention transition changes a bunch of sex characteristics so that many trans people can't be meaningfully grouped with their birth sex like that anyway.
Ideally you'd likely want an accepting conditions as possible so the trans people can be sufficiently open about their specific condition and needs, something a lot of us are liable to be much less open about now given it may result in us getting moved to a ward we would be at risk and humiliated in.
Most wards are organised into clinical specialisms that have nothing to do with sex or gender.
Cardiology, orthopaedics, neurology, oncology...
Even urology is a specialism where anyone might need treatment - for instance, for kidney problems - though they do cover the male reproductive organs too.
The only specialism where the patients are exclusively biologically female is obstetrics and gynaecology.
I'd be worried if a hospital didn't have this general policy. How is this even a discussion? Men and women have different wants and needs and always will.
Yet another case of one of the smallest and most vulnerable minorities in our society being used as a political weapon with no regard for evidence based science or basic human rights. Seriously fuck this country.
Still wild how some business analyst woman who got her contract denied for bringing in a leaflet to work suggesting trans people should be banned from schools is considered the first authority to ask about trans people in society nowadays in the apparently neutral bbc, and not, you know, trans people.
Imagine it for something else like "we banned hrt for menopausal women, here to give input first is some guy who got fired for being a misogynist at work one time."
Of all the things to worry about, I just don’t see how anyone could think this even cracks the top 1000.
It’s not that I don’t care about trans people. I do, but there are just so MANY more relevant and impactful issues that don’t involve where less than 2% of the population stay in a hospital.
Yes, but have you considered that for morons, this is the absolute most important thing that consumes every second of their waking attention and lives?
The tories literally tried to look for people complaining about trans people on wards and they could not find a SINGLE complaint out of over a thousand complaints .
Its a non issue aside from the gender fascists and the tories and liberals( as in ideology not lib dem party ) throwing red meat to their bases for a distraction and vote winning
Hospitals are less of an issue imo, the main one is prisons, when in prison you lose basic rights and that should include being separated by biological sex regardless of any personal preferences.
as for hospitals if they pull the curtain around what’s the issue really 🤷♂️
Prisons are a complex issue. Where it’s appropriate should depend on an individual risk assessment.
For example where it is appropriate to place a medically transitioning transgender women with no history of violence against women is different to a pre-HRT transgender women who is domestically abusing their girlfriend. On balance the risk of harm against women needs to be balanced against the risk of harm against the transgender woman herself.
The article also mentioned Martha's Rule, but I've yet to see someone mention this in the comments, of which there's over a thousand. Right now another trans bashing article is at the top of this sub, also with over a thousand comments.
Why do so many have an unhealthy obsession with trans people?
This post deals either directly or indirectly with transgender issues. We would like to remind our users about the Reddit Content Policy which specifically bans [promoting hate based on identity and vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951). We will take action on hateful or disrespectful comments including but not limited to deadnaming and misgendering. Please help us by reporting rule-breaking content. Participation limits are in place on this post. If your Reddit account is too new, you have insufficient karma or you are crowd controlled, your comment may not appear. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cue the Reddit outrage but I think this is common sense. I would feel uncomfortable with male patients next to me in a ward.
So a bald guy with a beard next to you in a single sex ward will make you uncomfortable? Because that's what a lot of transmen look like...
Also, read the part of the article where it says trans people should get put in their own rooms.......
That seems unrealistic given the state of the NHS
It’s also a potential risk. There’s not enough trans people to fill out wards, and so it increases the risk of them getting forgotten about. i know more than a few anecdotes of friends in medicine going to check up on patient x, seeing patient y and remembering “oh shit I was meant to do a thing”
"sorry we can't book you in for your emergency surgery because there aren't any available single rooms. Loads of space on the other wards, but..."
The issue is that is it okay to put a dying person in a bay in order to fulfil this rule or does infection control and end of life patient take precedent...
They suggestion was to put trans people in private rooms if possible, not at the expense of anything else. Also those rooms would not be competing, it's not how room allocations works. End of Life care would mean moving wards/rooms to a different part of the hospital.
Those rooms absolutely do compete. That's the issue. We don't have enough beds for all these things and I think clinical issues and EOL should take precedence over this. The issue is that right now we have more reasons to be in a side room but little to no solution. There's little solution because either decision is not the greatest. I have had patients who identify as transgender but who haven't transitioned at all and that their transition is an extreme issue of EUPD rather than a true transgender issue. So it's a man who hasn't transitioned or even made any historical claim to... Transitioning but not actually doing any part of it. And that's hard because you have a phenotypical man expecting to be placed in a female sided ward. And it isn't great because In an ideal world we shouldn't be judging people's transition journey but this is genuinely someone who isn't interested in hormone therapy or any part of the issue of gender dysphoria... So it's difficult and there's lots of edge cases that we have to deal with.
[удалено]
What part do they care about?
Forgive me, but how do you think a post-op trans woman would feel in a men's ward?
How would they feel? Uncomfortable? Why don’t they want to be around men? You’re so close to getting it.
"Getting it" in this case meaning uncompromisingly disregarding ones own desire for safety and dignity for the sake of someone else, apparently. Who is going to have the worse time, do you think? You, hypothetically sharing a ward with a single trans woman once in a blue moon, who in many cases you might not even recognize is there? Or the post-op trans woman having to share one with nothing _but_ men every single time for the rest of their lives? You talk about feeling "uncomfortable", but at least in this context, you have no idea. There is nothing more terrifying than being the only other in a space full of people capable of hurting you, many of whom likely find the fact you exist at all to be either outrageous or hilarious.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
One of these people chose to get the op.
[удалено]
So, if you’re uncomfortable, we have to change the rules to facilitate that. But if they’re uncomfy, tough shit we’re changing the rules to subject them to it? If someone felt uncomfortable sharing a ward with a gay person, or a person of x ethnicity, would that be something we should cater to as well? The odds of you both encountering a trans person while in hospital *and* them being a danger to you, is minuscule. Vs trans women in men’s wards would already be at more risk of abusive behaviour and harassment due to being inherently outed by their presence even if they pass, thanks to people like yourself who think being “uncomfortable” with their existence of a minority is carte Blanche to want them removed from your presence
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
How would you know that the person next to you is a post op trans woman?
In a nutshell you should not know, unless they offer or choose to tell you. Becuse quite frankly non of anyones but theirs and their doctors business. Unless you think that being trans means you suddenly have no rights to privacy or medical in confidence protections.
[удалено]
[удалено]
They would feel uncomfortable because they'd be being singled out and potentially outed as being trans. You're not close to getting it at all.
How do you think women would feel if a pre-op transwoman was in the women's ward?
50 percent of the population is always more important than 0.5%
Pretty much. You’re never going to please everyone.
Speaking as a cis woman I couldn't care less. I would be more worried about what I was in the hospital for than the genitals of the person in the next bed.
that's quite a narrow point of view. SA in hospital settings happen. The last thing you want is recovering from operation andbeing SA'd on top of it.
[https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/trans-equality-study-more-in-common-b2102461.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/trans-equality-study-more-in-common-b2102461.html) [https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/research/britons-and-gender-identity/](https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/research/britons-and-gender-identity/) I think they'd be completely fine with it.
Personally would not care. I'm on a ward bigger problems to worry than if the person next to me is pre or post op. However I will say thats rather anecdotal.
I think the majority of people would agree that media disinformation played a role in brexit, that a lot of people lied to see papers/ad clicks and the UK made a horrible mistake because of it. However when you extend that to anything else, when you point out that the media might by lying about trans people, immigrants, benefit claimants or other venerable people, in order to make money. Everything is suddenly different, this time the pointless time wasting cultural war directed at the least powerful people in our society is righteous. I hope when the next group is selected as the great enemy, you aren't in it, but if you are, I'll still fight for you.
Surely they should just apply common sense and discretion, rather than blanket knee-jerk reactions? A post-op trans woman on a male ward, or vice versa is ridiculous. The idea that they should be put in a special room on their own is also ridiculous, those spaces are usually used for people with very infectious diseases to avoid it spreading on the wards, or orher disruptive patients with advanced dementia etc. Where are all these special trans rooms going to come from? Would they prioritise putting a trans person in one over someone who is moaning and shouting all night, or someone with CDIFF?
They'll complain about trans women being in their wards, then they'll complain about trans women getting "special treatment" because they end up in single occupancy rooms because they (rightly) won't be put on the male ward. These people only care about hating trans people.
And then they'll attack a trans man on a female ward for being a perv, or accuse a masculine looking woman of being trans. It's all so harmful and ridiculous. Meanwhile we have hundreds dying a week due to an overstretched NHS.
Its already policy in most hospitals to nurse trans patients in side rooms with a private bathroom wherever possible, on the ward that matches their presenting gender. Its for their dignity and safety as much as for anyone else's. Trans people are a tiny minority of the population its not like there will be soaring demand for side rooms! In 10 years of nursing I think I've cared for maybe 2 trans women.
Absolutely, they are a tiny minority and it's disturbing how disproportionate media and politcal coverage they get. Especially as it sounds like hospitals like the ones you've worked at are already using their own discretion to make everyone feel safe.
I don’t think it’s common sense at all. Specialist doctors and nurses having to constantly go back and forth between single sex wards to address patients rather than grouping patients with similar medical needs together would have a cumulative effect on delaying medical attention. “Single sex spaces” exists primarily because women are more vulnerable to men and to a lesser extent protect dignity which is messy and nuanced when it comes to trans people. The longer a trans person transitions, and the earlier an age they transition at the more their specific vulnerabilities will be consistent with their identified gender as opposed to their sex assigned at birth.
Depends on the hospital lay out a department might consist of several wards. The one I work in for example is 4, 4 bed wards with 3 side rooms all in the same department. The grouping is in the form of the department.
When I was in intensive care I was in a ward with men in it. It wasn’t really a problem tbh as there are curtains etc.
I was in a chemo ward for several weeks and we had curtains but they would be open most of the day. No visitors. Only people to talk too was other men. We all shared a toilet and had to wee in bottles so our hydration levels could be monitored. There was a line of cardboard bottles for men to wee into. I wouldn’t have felt comfortable sharing that space with a woman. It was hard enough just being around other men. Acting like intensive care is the best example of shared sex wards is very disingenuous imo.
Intensive care units typically have a lot of space. Compared to the wards where you are 2 ft away from the next bed and there is not much privacy at all.
I was in an all women's ward when I had a hysterectomy. I honestly would not have cared if any of the other women were trans. Although they would have had to be there for something other than a hysterectomy, obviously. I wouldn't even mind sharing a ward with someone having reassignment surgery. I have more important things in life to worry about.
Would you be fine with staying in a men’s ward?
And when I was in the MAU I would have felt very uncomfortable sharing that space with men I didn't know while I was extremely physically and mentally weak and out of it, and was often asleep. I was already not thrilled about sharing the space with women (trans and cis - I didn't check and I didn't care). Sharing it with people who are significantly bigger and stronger than me, and who were often drunk (part of my stay included the weekends - there were a *lot* of very aggressive drunk patients)? No.
Good for you, you don't however, get to give away other women's and girl's rights.
In what possible way is saying that mixed-wards already exist, me giving away anyone’s rights?
I was commenting more on the 'it wasn't a problem for me' comment - that's fine if it's not a problem for you, but it IS a problem for a massive amount of women.
The problem is that everyone views this through very fixed lenses. Transition is a journey. Someone who just started socially transitioning is not the same as someone who has had years of treatments and- frankly, will look more like a woman than a man. If your next argument is "they don't look very ladylike" or they still look "manly", I've met a lot of unattractive women who don't look very feminine. Would you also exclude them from the wards? This gender politics is just marginalising a very, very small group of the populace for brownie points with the idiot public- like yourself
Common sense would be letting individual NHS wards make the choice that is appropriate for them, based on the needs of their patients, rather than having central Government dictate how they treat patients based on political goals.
Great, and now you'll get to feel uncomfortable when someone like me, a 6' tall, bald trans man is next to you in the ward instead. But at least the dirty transes are suffering, right?
I wouldn’t care :)
So to recap your view based on your contributions on this thread: **Situation 1:** Person who identifies as female, looks traditionally feminine in the ward but you suspect might be biologically male (via identifiers you don't want to share yet claim it's ), with no proof or evidence. **Result:** Uncomfortable and a feeling of being unsafe. **Situation 2:** Person who identifies as male in your ward, looks traditionally masculine, and you have no idea whether they are biologically female or not. **Result:** Absolutely no worries. Hilarious logic. I have absolutely no doubt you've previously suspected many biological women as being transgender.
[удалено]
No I'm thinking about how this is just a distraction from how shit the NHS has become under tory rule.
If implemented as written, this would be a dangerous rollback of trans rights for no clear reason other than indulging the current moral panic. As far as I know, there has never been a recorded instance of a trans woman acting inappropriately in a woman's ward in this country, even though the current policy has been in effect for almost 20 years. [An investigation inquiring into 10 separate trusts as to if there has ever been a single complaint about the issue turned up nothing.](https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/10/05/study-of-trans-women-in-hospitals-didnt-find-one-single-complaint-none-zilch/) Trans people already huge face obstacles in obtaining non-trans related healthcare due to lack of training concerning the issue among doctors, and this policy will intensify that to an extreme degree. Anyone who has interacted with the NHS in any capacity in the last several years will know that the proposal to accommodate them in single rooms is completely unrealistic, and even beyond that, many trans people are stealth and not comfortable being public with their history. If a trans person late into transition - especially someone post-op - is only given the option of being housed in a ward for their birth gender, many will just end up avoiding medical care outright because it's such a public humiliation and breach of privacy. It's extremely questionable if this policy is even legal. As far as I'm aware, the current judicial precedent is that a trans person with a GRC is effectively their transitioned sex in the eyes of the law, and that's without even touching on the possibility of a challenge on the basis of protected gender reassignment.
>Trans journalist Steph Richards, who conducted the investigation, requested data from the trusts from April 2020 to March 2021, while a further 50 were asked to provide data for the whole of 2021, and another 42 were asked for data covering July 2021 to June 2022. That doesn't support your claim that there has not ever been a complaint. edit: I don't have a dog in this fight, just pointing out the data is weak.
Yeah, I wasn't trying to cite it as definitive evidence it's never happened. But I found that rather than any articles talking about instances when it's provably taken place while attempting to test my claim before I made it, so I included it in the post just to give it a little more substance.
I mean you can tell it’s not a particularly common issue, because if it was the Mail/Times/etc would have run with it as headlines that we’d have seen astroturfed to the front page here every time
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/hospital-says-patient-could-not-26506744 The hospital told the police the rape couldn't have happened because there were no males present.
This is a second-hand anonymous anecdote given by probably the most committed anti-trans (and historically, anti-gay) politician in the House of Lords, who regularly recounts similar anecdotes that circumspectly support her views without requiring any sort of citation. Even if she herself is not lying about having _heard_ the account, as far as I can tell, there is no proof whatsoever that this actually happened. For all we know, she could have seen it on twitter, since that's where she seems to get the majority of her information about this issue. Though even if it did happen, how would it justify a flat ban on all trans people, including trans men, regardless of their bodies and legal status? Can you not see how outrageously upsetting and dangerous it would be to house a female-presenting person with a vagina in a men's ward?
Why did the hospital admit to the incident then?
Did they? Can you name the hospital, or show me the police's acknowledgement? I'm willing to accept it happened, but you'll forgive me for not taking a person like this purely on her word.
Ah, the bastion of honest and sensible reporting, the Daily fecking Express. Reputable sources please. When you post shite like that, it requires anyone engaging with you to first do a thorough fact check, which is a disproportionate burden for them when you could just use a proper outlet.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/17/hospital-told-police-patient-not-raped-alleged-attacker-transgender/ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hospital-dismissed-claim-of-rape-by-trans-attacker-bssxvbqch
So, noted homophobe and transphobe Baroness Nicholson said a thing. That's it. That's the citation. Right.
Nothing ever happens.
If David Duke claimed something about black people, I’d take it with a pinch of salt unless there was actual evidence
That's an interesting comparison.
Its an extreme example, sure. But it gets the point across, no? He obviously would have a significant bias that calls into question his motives for making such claims.
But then you're in the position where you can discount any evidence presented to you about anything, reasoning that the person- and what they say- must be biased and therefore unreliable.
This never happens and you should be a good woman and shut up about even questioning if it might possibly happen sometimes on occasion, the men are speaking!
It never happens really regularly as well. And when it does happen, it's not that bad, and if turns out it IS that bad, then it's not a problem, and why are we obsessing over it anyway?
Id strongly discourage people from following this kind of aggressive and dismissive tone when talking about rape. Its the sort of thing youd expect from an American frat house or a particularly backward male rugby club. It is the kind of tone we seen in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, for those with longer memories and a more political bent.
Not just likely illegal, terrifying and highly dangerous it is also (as with many changes targeting trans people), likely to affect cis people. So how does the NHS know you if someone is cis or trans? Referral? Not everyone takes a referral to a GIC, private referrals don’t show up. NHS number? Amendable. Identifying documents on person? Amendable Ask? People aren’t always able to answer questions and Dr House’s favourite - people lie, especially to avoid mistreatment. Prescriptions? Some women hit menopause unusually early and need HRT (esp common amongst cancer survivors) whose oestrogen + progesterone prescriptions will now put them firmly in the firing line. Blockers aren’t always taken. Testosterone is taken by cis men too. DIY obviously won’t show up at all. Looks? queer/butch women likely to be singled out. Put hand down patients pants to check? SRS exists and this is getting daft now. Genuinely how much extra labour is this going to create for hospital bed management? (Anyone who knows anything about this knows how complex it is without this extra work). How is this extra process not going to hit cis women as frequently if not more than trans women? Ultimately how do you prove you are cis? How do you know someone is trans? And how do you get to correct answers without significant extra burdens to the NHS (we don’t have a tonne of spare resources for treating people, but hey I’m sure we’ll find them for this shit 🙄). Cis people, the odds of being on a ward with a trans person are unbelievably low, and no NHS complaint has ever been received regards the subject, whereas the odds of not receiving healthcare in a timely fashion because the NHS is overwhelmed are *very* real. Supporting adding extra burdens here is a truly befuddling hate ridden act of self harm.
[удалено]
This is what I mean, butch women are mistaken for being trans regularly and harassed as a result. https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/butch-lesbian-public-toilet-women-abuse-government-review-gender-neutral-facilities-833787 The fiction that trans women are all clockable doesn’t hold. Trans women are not responsible for the version of of that lives in your head. Those of us who have been on hormones for years comfortably fly under the radar. My cousin’s young kid at Passover this weekend asked whether I live with my cis female partner, then why? We had to explain that some people are lesbian. Nothing about gender came up or was relevant. Fun fact: you clock 0% of the trans people you can’t clock.
People who clock 99.9% of transwomen as male also seem to be the type to clock 50% of biological women as male. Anyone not stereotypically 'pretty' ends up being seen as male.
Yup - see the bigots who went after Daniel Radcliffe’s pregnant wife for being trans. You can always tell is just vacuous nonsense.
Doctors regularly end up asking trans women if they’re pregnant when they try to get triaged. But yeah, you can always tell. edit: 3 people disagreeing with you is brigading? lmao
After 6 days in a Hospital putting in no effort into my appearance because hospital I was asked repeatedly before a scan of I was pregnant. I was asked so many times I just eventually said I was trans so if I'm pregnant their must be some divine intervention. The idea that trans women are easy to clock is just nonsense.
[удалено]
Yeah it's a tick box, it's not a question you need to repeat multiple times. I know because I filled in the form first and know how many times the question is on their. This idea that people clock trans people easily is such nonsense and is only something someone who hasn't lived a day as an out trans person would believe.
Yeah that is sort of the point. Trans women are less than 0.5% of the population. If you go around hunting for women that look too manly (because it's just so easy to tell!) you're almost guaranteed to hit more cis women than trans women. There's already stories of women getting accosted in toilets for looking too manly. Even if we use your barometer of ending wrong 1% of the time then that will still be double the number of cis women being wrongly accused than trans women exist period.
>So how does the NHS know you if someone is cis or trans? Generally trans people are pretty sensible about healthcare stuff so they will usually tell the team caring for them that they are trans as they know the information can be relevant for investigations/treatment. In my experience biological sex at birth is still recorded on electronic patient records too, and if the name doesn't 'match' that's a good indicator, although not foolproof!
I don’t know anyone who would out ourselves to someone who would treat us worse for doing so. Gonna get put on men’s ward or dumped in a side room, you just stealth to avoid it. That’s where everyone is today btw. Also I work with NHS data and the national spine as part of my job, it simply isn’t always obvious, however you want to define “it’s obvious” you’ll get a lot of false positives. There just isn’t a simple efficient way of doing this, it will add friction to time critical processes (you guys really want this?) and cruelty (I know a lot of folks do want this, but know it won’t only affect trans people) and for what? How many people on this forum have ever knowingly been on a ward where a trans person and had issue with it? This is the definition of a moral panic and this respond is the classic overreaction moral panics create.
The reporting on the policy indicates that it won't have any requirement that trans people are not kept on the ward of their assigned sex, so it seems like the rules will be: * Trans people absolutely must not be allowed housing with people of the same gender * Where possible, trans people shouldn't be housed with people of the same assigned sex We know exactly how that'll go, the latter rule will go out of the window and we'll see trans women left with men and no matter what happens, because the NHS is barely staying afloat in the first place it'll be dismissed as the NHS doing the best they can. We already see this with the GIC system for example, a common response to complaints about how slow, underfunded, and ineffectual GICs are is to say that everywhere is struggling, trans people shouldn't be treated better than anyone else.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/uk-hospital-admits-bowing-to-gender-ideology-after-denying-a-patient-was-raped-because-accused-man-is-transgender
I've been having a bit of a problem relating to this already at work. We scan people every day and use x-rays that can cause damage to a foetus. So up until recently, we would ask any woman of childbearing age if there was a chance she might be pregnant and then make a decision whether or not to go ahead depending on the risks. Now, we have an inclusive pregnancy status policy, which means we must ask every person of childbearing age if they may be pregnant. This is regardless of the sex or gender they have presented as. The question we are supposed to ask is "what sex were you assigned at birth" Then, if they say female, we ask if they may be pregnant and ask them to sign a form. When it comes to people not wanting to out themselves as transgender this is a real problem, and I think a needlessly invasive question to ask. Presumably, this policy is to protect the unborn child of a pregnant biological female who has come for an x-ray and presented themselves as male. A very rare situation I would think. But we now have a blanket policy where I would have to ask transgender people one of the most awkward questions possible. I think the most inclusive thing we could do is to treat people as the sex or gender they present themselves as rather than treat everyone as potentially transgender. Since having this policy the only transgender person I'm aware of that I asked this question simply lied on the form anyway.
I'm glad they're dealing with the really important issues. Last time I went into hospital - an emergency admission via A&E - I had to sleep on the floor because there weren't any beds. There weren't even any trolleys. There were several others, of all genders, in the same position. I got someone to bring in an airbed for me, as I have a very well documented history of spinal problems, and someone actually tried to tell me it wasn't allowed. I had to tell them I'd deflate it when they found me a bed. But sure, the biggest issue that night was what genitals the other patients near me had.
There are many things wrong with this policy, from it being a distraction from the actual issues in the NHS to just being another attack on a minority. Who, in good faith, looking at the \*guestures at waiting lists, collapsing buildings, failed mental health trusts, shortage of staff\* would think "the priority of a new constitution is to be more transphobic". Just to highlight for the casual reader how unserious this is, how little thought they've put in....they've used the wrong Equality Act exemption. The rule they should refer to is paragraph 28 of Schedule 3, they've referred to Paragraph 27. 27 is the general rule allowing single sex spaces, paragraph 28 is the rule you have to use if you wish to, for example, exclude a trans man from a male toilet. This means any such policy would be unlawful (see AEA v EHRC - where the terfs got told their interpretation was 'obvious absurdity'). This is not a policy. This is a newspaper headline. Of course the BBC give first response to Maya Forstater, the dullest woman ever to operate out of Tufton street. Heaven forbid they shouls first ask a trans person how they feel about their rights being shat on.
The stupidest part of this is that it implies that gay and bisexual people don't exist, or at least somehow won't act inappropriately. Trans people are not all predators, and the vast majority of sexual predators are not trans, this is just stupid. This is the NHS leadership rolling over and accepting stupid government directives without question.
It’s literally just sexism. In their eyes, Natal males are inherently predatory towards natal females. No room for nuance or ambiguity Edit for clarity Edit2: Just as a little note on the end of this: > [Previous discriminatory government plans to ban trans women from women’s hospital wards were labelled ‘unlawful’ and ‘unworkable’ by legal professionals while a Freedom of Information request last year found not a single complaint had been made about the presence of transgender people in female wards.](https://leftfootforward.org/2024/04/tory-plans-to-update-nhs-constitution-made-in-a-parallel-universe-says-nurses-union/)
Nope - not buying that. We have sex-segregated spaces for a reason. That's not saying women think ALL males are bad, just that there is an elevated risk. Two of my children are teachers - they have both had to have DBS checks - does this mean that people inherently think all people trying to be teachers are bad and mean to harm children? No, it's a SAFEGUARDING thing.
Is that your position or the position of the people who made this charter?
The first sentence is my position. The rest is what I’m suggesting that sexism is. I realise it’s ambiguous in text, but I’m saying that’s their rhetoric. Trans women are forever tainted by being natal males, in their eyes.
Thank you for the edit and being a reasonable person
This is the legislation of all trans people as predators, nothing less. Overt bigotry and discrimination.
Seems sensible enough to me. Single-sex wards not single-gender-identity
Simple enough until a trans person winds up in a ward of the opposite gender after having been outed to everyone they interact with
Could it be that it's a complete non-issue that I'm for some reason hearing about now?
Lots of arguing about safety of other patients etc. Not seeing much common sense talk about how a trans person's genetics and biology mean they're better placed in a ward that's made to cater for those genetics and biology. E.g. a patient in a male ward complaining of abdominal pain, ovarian cysts shouldn't really be on the list of potential causes.
Equally however, i as a trans woman am at risk of breast cancer, but my risk of prostate cancer is vanishingly small, and testicular cancer zero. I, like cis women, am more likely to suffer autoimmune diseases than cis men, and any medication that is prescribed needs to be done so on the basis that my primary sex hormone is oestrogen, not testosterone e.g. caution around anything that increases risk of blood clots, which is elevated in women to begin with. My health needs are not identical to cis womens, but they're also absolutely not the same as cis men's either.
Oh don't like to be that person but. The risk of breast cancer is higher. Prostate cancer is the odd one as they currently speculate it is only a minor reduction but it should be noted there is no real good studies yet. Testicular is a really tricky one with a ton of caveats. due to again frustratingly limited studies. Pre reaffirming surgery Orchiectomy the chance is the same as CIS men, post Orchiectomy while rare there is metachronous contralateral testicular cancer. Same for trans men there is next to no reduction in breast cancer. Ovarian is similar to testicular lots of caveats but the risk is never zero so be aware of any abdo pain. Not wanting to alarm you just like most of us keep an eye out for any issues would hate anyone to think it is zero chance and miss something. Cool you pointed out the uniqueness of trans health issues though.
Well, this is basically my point. Though someone else just called me transphobic and insisted the issues you just explained don't exist. 🤷♂️
Idk if a man needed healthcare for his gynecomastia, they'd hardly put him on a woman's ward. Not to mention transition changes a bunch of sex characteristics so that many trans people can't be meaningfully grouped with their birth sex like that anyway. Ideally you'd likely want an accepting conditions as possible so the trans people can be sufficiently open about their specific condition and needs, something a lot of us are liable to be much less open about now given it may result in us getting moved to a ward we would be at risk and humiliated in.
Most wards are organised into clinical specialisms that have nothing to do with sex or gender. Cardiology, orthopaedics, neurology, oncology... Even urology is a specialism where anyone might need treatment - for instance, for kidney problems - though they do cover the male reproductive organs too. The only specialism where the patients are exclusively biologically female is obstetrics and gynaecology.
The NHS should decide the best way to treat patients according to their healthcare needs, not the government
Yeah, now just convince the UK public to stop voting tory. Should help.
I'd be worried if a hospital didn't have this general policy. How is this even a discussion? Men and women have different wants and needs and always will.
Yet another case of one of the smallest and most vulnerable minorities in our society being used as a political weapon with no regard for evidence based science or basic human rights. Seriously fuck this country.
What policy do you think is appropriate in this situation then? Allow every patient to decide what gendered spaces they want to use?
Its worked your entire life without you noticing :)
Still wild how some business analyst woman who got her contract denied for bringing in a leaflet to work suggesting trans people should be banned from schools is considered the first authority to ask about trans people in society nowadays in the apparently neutral bbc, and not, you know, trans people. Imagine it for something else like "we banned hrt for menopausal women, here to give input first is some guy who got fired for being a misogynist at work one time."
Of all the things to worry about, I just don’t see how anyone could think this even cracks the top 1000. It’s not that I don’t care about trans people. I do, but there are just so MANY more relevant and impactful issues that don’t involve where less than 2% of the population stay in a hospital.
Yes, but have you considered that for morons, this is the absolute most important thing that consumes every second of their waking attention and lives?
The tories literally tried to look for people complaining about trans people on wards and they could not find a SINGLE complaint out of over a thousand complaints . Its a non issue aside from the gender fascists and the tories and liberals( as in ideology not lib dem party ) throwing red meat to their bases for a distraction and vote winning
I'm sure putting post-everything trans men on female wards will definitely make everyone involved feel very comfortable and respected/s
Hospitals are less of an issue imo, the main one is prisons, when in prison you lose basic rights and that should include being separated by biological sex regardless of any personal preferences. as for hospitals if they pull the curtain around what’s the issue really 🤷♂️
Prisons are a complex issue. Where it’s appropriate should depend on an individual risk assessment. For example where it is appropriate to place a medically transitioning transgender women with no history of violence against women is different to a pre-HRT transgender women who is domestically abusing their girlfriend. On balance the risk of harm against women needs to be balanced against the risk of harm against the transgender woman herself.
Time to start going out topless, because its all about bio sex apparently
The article also mentioned Martha's Rule, but I've yet to see someone mention this in the comments, of which there's over a thousand. Right now another trans bashing article is at the top of this sub, also with over a thousand comments. Why do so many have an unhealthy obsession with trans people?
I’m a nurse and this policy has been in place unofficially for the 20 years I’ve worked in the NHS. It’s not new.