By the same token, why should a religious persons personal preference come before that of a transperson?

No rights are being denied here.

West Suffolk NHS Trust said the transgender patient’s right to be in a single sex environment of their preferred gender “supersedes objections raised by other patients” despite women and men having a right to segregated facilities under the Equality Act 2010. It said that while a female victim of sexual assault could “reasonably” object to being on the same ward as someone they “perceive to be male”, staff should “seek the view of the trans service user” before any action was taken.


I am reading that as the trans person has more rights than anyone else? How are you interpreting it?

Wow! your school in Scotland was so White and Scottish, that's shocking. That's like schools in China being all Chinese or schools in Kenya being all Kenyan or schools in Japan being all Japanese or schools in Nigeria being all Nigerian. It just wouldn't happen, because they're not racist, Scotland must be racist for having a school so White and Scottish?

My point is, why did you bring up your school being so white and Scottish?

Let me tell you about my school, there was zero Muslims and I only remember 2 black people, the rest were white. It was forced upon me, I had no control of it, it's not my fault.

we had a Chinese guy and a Pakistani boy and that was it at secondary - i dont recall anyone who wasnt white Scottish at primary

The Chinese boy told the headmaster I dropped a metal sharpner on his head from 3 floors up and I got into big trouble so i want keen on him. :oh:

I'm interpreting it as anybody who objects to a specific dangerous individual or has valid reason to be uncomfortable will be dealt with.

Someone who just doesn't tolerate a transperson I imagine would be treated like someone refusing to share a ward with a black person. Either take the bed or don't, that's your choice.

I don't think the answer is to mollycoddle intolerant people who are stuck in the dark ages in regards to LGBTQ people being treated like perverts.

Wards are not secure units divided by gender anyway so any backlash is absurd.

The example quoted of a rape survivor not wanting to be on a ward with a penis is quite OTT. I imagine in an extreme case like this she would be given a private room anyway, as that is not a regular occurence. It's an exception.

I remember the film Gregory's Girl, the school in that was all white and Scottish, how did they get away with it? but at least it showed that girls could play football better than the boys.

Abronhill High School (gregorys girl) was a mile or so up the road from the High School I first went to. we used to have fights with them.

naturally both have been pulled down now as has the high school i went to after that one

:oh:

Both my schools are pulled down. One is now an Asda and one is now houses. My history has been erased, but I don't complain.

i believe Claire Grogan suffered a similar fate when she sang happy birthday

It doesn't really matter if it is an exception, what I read from that was the 'rape case' had to be discussed with the trans person so they could agree with the outcome, and who are you to say what is OTT in the rape victims case :umm2:

The whole point of me pointing out it is an exception is that it's a special circumstance that's not going to happen very often. Therefore any "rules" being discussed are useless when discussing a hypothetical special circumstance as the usual rules rarely apply in those situations.

Kind of like what a wheelchair user might think of the new urinals.

As for what "could" happen, that's just what sticks out to me. An article making guesses as to what "could" happen in such an exceptional circumstance. In practice, I highly doubt it. Normal, rational people which hopefully make up the majority of our population would come to a compromise.

Then again, we had a woman being racially abused on an airplane and she was the one shooed away to hide in the corner. :shrug:

and the airline was brought to book for it and will be paying handsomely for discomfort

We are not talking about hypothetical heres, have you read the OP article at all? we are talking about rights being taken away with no consultation whatsover

You literally just brought a hypothetical situation up into our discussion about what "could" happen. That is a hypothetical.

No "right" has been taken away from anyone.

Read the article why don't you or do you want me to read it to you?

Just double checked my last post. Thought I posted in French by mistake.

Nope it's all there and above board.

Here it is again. No. Right. Is. Being. Taken. Away.

I think most people would just be happy to be looked after by the NHS and there isn't really a reason to get offended for them and think up things that could "possibly" be offensive. No rights have been taken away, nobody is getting special treatment, they are just taking care of people who already have enough prejudice against them. If you see it differently then it must be a problem that you have yourself.

No penises in women only spaces. The only exception should be if you are in the process of transitioning but haven't yet reached surgery.

Anyone "identifying" as female ( because it's never the female to male trans people who have a problem...) should be on a male ward.

As far as I can tell the only people who DO have a problem with any of it are straight women :think:.

I mean I get it, it's fear-based, on the notion that they might somehow be in danger but honestly since when did we start structuring our lives and public services around people being worried about hypothetical situations? I'm not saying that it doesn't matter that people are afraid, but surely we have to base things on what's actually rational.

That's because having female only spaces invaded by penises only affects women. And actually, I'm not any surer than you are that lesbians are okay with it.

And disallowing it only affects trans women, so why would the rights of one demographic automatically trump the rights of another? Especially as it seems that it's a minority of women who are actually uncomfortable with it, with the majority not actually caring much either way.

The argument seems to be that it's a privacy / comfort / dignity thing but that should be the default in any hospital setting. Certainly it shouldn't be assumed that these things are less important in a same-gendered situation, there are plenty of people who want privacy regardless, and the idea that "it doesn't matter because it's just other folks of the same gender" is wildly outdated.

Yeah, why, after centuries of oppression, should women have a say about their own safety, because it might upset a man who, after all the privileges of being raised male, identifies as a woman.

This doesn't affect trans women at all. Trans women in the process of transitioning who have had or will have surgery... I have no problem with them and would be happy to share a changing room, a toilet, a ward...

Men who "identify" as women but have no interest in transitioning, they should be put in a ward where everyone else has a penis too.

And incidentally, when it comes to women's rights, I'm not comfortable with anyone with a penis changing the rules.

I’m pretty sure a penis has put a smile on your face more than once.

:rolleyes:

Well some of is men are are more than a penis

what about at a swimming pool?

women in Bath are complaining that men are walking around the communal showers naked, they demand some privacy and respect