No male here

Written by

Ophelia Benson

in

Oh that rape.

A hospital has finally admitted a woman may have been raped by a transgender patient after denying the possibility of an attack for almost a year, the House of Lords has heard. 

When police were called to the unnamed hospital in England, they were allegedly told by staff that ‘there was no male’ on the single-sex ward, ‘therefore the rape could not have happened’. 

And that was a lie.

Now they’re admitting one of the patients was trans, i.e. a man.

The details of the case were shared by Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne during a debate on single-sex wards in the Upper Chamber yesterday. 

She claimed: ‘They forgot that there was CCTV, nurses and observers.

‘None the less, it has taken nearly a year for the hospital to agree that there was a male on the ward and, yes, this rape happened.

‘During that year she has almost come to the edge of a nervous breakdown, because being disbelieved about being raped in hospital has been such an appalling shock. 

Disbelieved and lied to. That would push me to the edge too, I must say.

Lady Nicholson believes the incident stemmed directly from the NHS’s Annex B policy, which allows patients to be placed on single-sex wards depending on the gender they identify with. 

The policy states that trans people should be accommodated ‘according to their presentation: the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use’, rather than their biological sex at birth.

…

Lady Nicholson added: ‘The result of Annex B is that hospital trusts inform ward sisters and nurses that if there is a male, as a trans person, in a female ward, and a female patient or anyone complains, they must be told that it is not true – there is no male there.

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

It’s gaslighting. It’s outrageous.

Comments

2 responses to “No male here”

  1. maddog1129 Avatar
    maddog1129

    “rather than their biological sex at birth.”

    What is this “at birth” nonsense? Cross those two words out. Whatever sex you were “at birth,” that’s your sex for the entirety of your life.

    “rather than their biological sex.”

    That’s better.

  2. Mike Haubrich Avatar
    Mike Haubrich

    I don’t quite follow how English law works, but here is a segment of CPS advice on charges for sexual assault:

    https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences

    Rape (section 1)

    Key points

    Rape is a crime of basic intent, and drunkenness is not a defence.

    Section 1 Rape involves penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by a penis, therefore a woman can only commit this offence as an accomplice.

    Rape is an indictable only offence and carries a maximum of life imprisonment

    Charging practice

    Prosecutors should specify in the indictment whether the vagina, anus or mouth was penetrated.

    Where penetration of more than one orifice occurs, separate counts of rape should be preferred.

    The Court of Appeal in R v K [2008] EWCA Crim 1923 held that where it is unclear whether penetration was of the vagina or of the anus, it is permissible to allege penetration of “the vagina or the anus”. The jury will be entitled to convict if they are sure that there was non-consensual penetration of one or the other by the defendant with his penis.

    Assault by penetration (section 2)

    Key points

    There must be penetration of the vagina or anus but not the mouth.

    Penetration can be with any part of the body (e.g. finger, tongue, toe) or by anything else (e.g. bottle).

    This offence should be charged where, by virtue of the fact that the complainant is unsure if penetration was by a penis or something else, there is insufficient evidence to charge rape

    Assault by penetration is an indictable only offence and carries a maximum of life imprisonment

    (emphassis mine.)

    Since this is from the CPS itself and not a defence barrister’s opinion, I don’t see why a prosecutor or the police are barred from charging a trans-identifying male with either rape or penetrative sexual assault. If there is an unofficial policy that only “cis men” should be charged, then that needs to be corrected toute de suite. And the NHS needs to be directed in no uncertain terms they are not to guard rapists from prosecution.

More posts