Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has launched yet another attack at the trans community by saying that people “can’t be any sex they want to be.”
He made the remarks during his closing speech at the 2023 Conservative Party conference on Wednesday (4 October) afternoon.
At one point, Sunak said that people shouldn’t be “bullied into believing people can be any sex they want to be” as he made clear his stance on trans people.
“We are going to change this country and that means, life means life. That shouldn’t be a controversial position. The vast majority of hard-working people agree with it,” he began. “We shouldn’t get bullied into believing people can be any sex they want to be. They can’t,” – Rishi Sunak
“It also shouldn’t be controversial for parents to know what their children are learning in school about relationships.
“Patients should know when hospitals are talking about men or women,” which was met with a large applause.
He went on: “We shouldn’t get bullied into believing people can be any sex they want to be. They can’t.”
“A man, is a man, and a woman, is a woman, that is just common sense,” he added, to yet more noise from Tories in attendance.
Many on social media site X (formerly known as Twitter) reacted to the comments, accusing Sunak of making “persistent attacks” and labelling him “disgraceful”. “A man, is a man, and a woman, is a woman”
One wrote in response: “Trying to distract people from his government’s corruption and incompetence by attacking some of the most vulnerable people in society. Vile.”
Needlessly stirring up hatred where it is unjustified to make a cheap political dig, before going on to claim the country is wonderful because of its tolerance. Disgraceful excuse for a PM,” another went on to add.
Sunak can go and do one. Pandering to middle class transphobes isn’t the election winner you think it is,” someone else echoed.
“The persistent attacks on not only one of the smallest but most at risk communities is vile. Absolutely disgusting party through and through including anyone who supports them,” a social media user weighed in.
It comes after Health Secretary Steve Barclay outlined plans yesterday (3 October) to ban trans women from accessing female NHS wards.
This has since been backed by other senior Tories such as Home Secretary Suella Braverman.
LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall criticised the announcement, labelling it a “cynical attempt to look busy” instead of actually improving women’s healthcare.
Addressing party members in Manchester, Mr Barclay said: “We need a common-sense approach to sex and equality issues in the NHS – that is why today I am announcing proposals for clearer rights for patients.
“And I can today confirm that sex-specific language has now been fully restored to online health advice pages about cervical and ovarian cancer and the menopause.
“It is vital that women’s voices are heard in the NHS and the privacy, dignity and safety of all patients are protected.”
The post Rishi Sunak says people ‘can’t be any sex they want to be’ in new swipe at trans community appeared first on Attitude.
Okay, someone please help me understand as I genuinely want to.
I fully understand gender neutral (I am bringing up my own children to not restrict their behaviour and personalities due to gender norms because of the the sex they were assigned at birth), I understand being born 'male' but feeling more like the societal definition of a 'girl' in terms of both physical and social characteristics. I understand the difference between sex and gender.
I understand and believe that our body is our own and if somebody wants to change their body they should be able to do so as they see fit, including changing it to meet the societal norms in terms of appearance of another sex.
But here is what I don't fully grasp (but would like to) - why is it wrong to say that those born with a biologically male body should go to the male ward in a hospital? Isn't that where they would receive the best treatment for themselves? Aren't gender pronouns useful when distinguishing between biological differences in the medical field?
I don't mean any offense to anybody with these questions. I fully support everyone's right to identify as anywhere on the spectrum of the social construct of gender. Also, if there is a more suitable community for me to ask these questions in, please do share it.
As someone who is not LGBTQ+ but is trying to understand it myself, the biggest key to "getting it" is separating sex and gender. Sex would be your biological make up, regardless of genital configuration. That's your classic XX vs XY vs the rare "non-standard". It's important to note that there are multiple types of different physical configurations that are "male or female" - Anatomical, Hormonal, Chromosomal, and Cellular - and they frequently do not line up 100%.
Gender is separate from this as a mental construct/thought pattern. For most people, these two things line up, and that is your standard Cis person. A Trans person is where their mental configuration does not match their physical configuration. When this causes significant mental distress we call it gender dysphoria. For the rest, we call it being Trans, non-Binary or something else.
Why would there be a difference between gendered wards in the quality of the care? Health care is tailored to the patient, where in the hospital they are located shouldn't affect it.
Healthcare is tailored to the patient, and thus the specialists in the flavour of healthcare needed are assigned to the relevant wards. It's a recipe for medical mistakes if the patients get mixed
When I was in hospital I was on a floor devoted to ailments of the leg and foot. This was divided up into wards of 5 with them being all male or all female. The only difference in treatment between the wards (as far as I could tell) is there was a male nurse as part of the team overseeing two wards (one high visibility, one standard). I'd imagine he would have been able to provide the same level of care on a female ward but it could possibly have been handy to have him on male wards for the older,. possibly more confused, patients who might accept more direct instructions from a male nurse. However, I saw no evidence for this.
What are you on about? When I (a woman) got eye surgery and put on a mixed ward afterwards to recover, how did it affect my treatment?
Ah sorry, I didn't realise that eyes were especially different between the sexes
A couple points to get you started:
Thanks for the reply. I'm going to pick out a couple of specific points to check my understanding.
Are you referring here to individuals who have undergone hormonal replacement therapy? If so, yes, that I totally understand and hadn't considered.
Okay, so in very simple terms, we're saying that biologically, man and woman isn't such a clear distinction, for a very simple example, some men have much higher levels of testosterone, etc.? If so, I can understand that too. But, I suppose it is the actual biological parts that are different, which I was thinking about.
So, if somebody with born as 'female' body parts undergoes hormonal and sex changing therapy, their reason for being in a hospital is probably more important than the sex they were assigned at birth, and so they should be able to choose the best option for them?
Am I right in thinking the main issues is that we have created a society in which sex and gender were separated and defined so distinctly, that for transexual individuals, there just is no 'correct' option available to them?
one thing i think is important to recognize is that, while gender is socially constructed, so is sex to some extent. we have a number of features we generally say are "male" or "female" characteristics, including genitalia, but keep in mind that there are around 1-2% of the population that are born intersex. the way we determine sex assigned at birth is almost always through an inspection of genitalia, but for some people that isn't conclusive.
in a lot of places, doctors will attempt "fix" these natural variations, deciding for the child which category they belong in. there is enough variation from "male" and "female" characteristics, and enough people with traits from both categories, that the categories themselves can't really be said to have a purely biological origin, even if statistically they are highly correlated.
that's very much part of the problem. lots of trans people really don't fit neatly into the boxes doctors currently expect of them, especially once they've gone on hormones, and sharply delineating sex categories like doctors do measurably leads to less positive health outcomes for trans people. the intersex population is also affected by this kind of marginalization.
the reality is that the health of a person has a lot more to do with their specific traits than it does with the collection of traits a sex category expects them to have, which is in reality composed of a cluster of related physical, cognitive, and social traits that can vary independently of one another, and affect our health in specific ways. assuming any of these traits are one way simply because of how somebody's genitals are supposed to be is almost always going to be more wrong than just allowing people to describe and denote their personal experience as they see fit. checking M or F on a box is, unfortunately, not really the same as just saying you have a penis or a vagina. it implies a lot more than that, even if your personal experience does not align with that implication.
I feel much better informed on the issue now. Thanks.
Good explanation!
Hi, I'm a nurse so let me chime in here from direct experience.
NOPE! Unequivocally NOPE. We don't separate hospital wards based on gender (in the US). Your gender has absolutely zero fuck all not one thing to do with your general biology and medical care. Doesn't change or impact what we do in the least regarding your internal organs - heart, kidneys, lungs, all get approached the same.
What does change what we do is your weight which affects medication doses. And in very, very, very niche specific situations the anatomy of your genitals changes what we do. (Say, if you're having a problem urinating, the length of your urethra and any potential obstacles like a prostate will matter.)
But see, here's the things about that: We can't approach the genital anatomy of two different individuals who both identify as male with the exact same treatment plan. The exact things we do are hyperspecific to the particular anatomy of that individual person. So if we're dealing with a trans woman who didn't have bottom surgery and still has a vestigial penis, then it doesn't make any difference that she's trans. We need to approach the anatomy that is present in front of us, whatever shape and condition it's in regardless of the sociological characteristics of the person to whom the anatomy is attached.
I think part of the confusion in the general public with medical care is the assumption that everyone who identifies as the same gender as you has very similar anatomy to you. Let me tell y'all, I have seen more genitals than a Las Vegas prostitute, and there is more variation than I would ever have imagined. You can't go by a person's stated gender and know exactly what you're gonna get, even if that person is cis. The number of times you lift that gown on somebody and go, "What the fuck is going on here?!" that has nothing to do with a person being trans or not, y'all just have no idea lol.
All medical care is approached specifically toward you as an individual person. Your particular responses to medications (which we can't predict by the way - there's an absurd amount of educated trial and error involved) and your particular anatomy. And 90% of the time, the response to anatomical variations is just "Huh, that's unusual. Anyway, you can pee without any problems, right? Ok good idgaf ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"
The only time your sociological characteristics come into play is when I'm talking to you about your life, providing education, trying to understand your obstacles to medical care.