[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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?

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.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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.

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

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

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.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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.

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

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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?