To summarise, during a Parliamentary debate about just how it came to be that the NHS has re-interpreted a law - not something the NHS is allowed to do - to update single-sex wards to allow single-sex and transgender people in, the case of a woman who was raped in a single-sex ward by a biological male was raised. This case was fought by the NHS for a year on the basis that because the biological male in question was transgender he wasn't actually biologically male, and therefore no rape took place - despite CCTV evidence to the contrary.
The NHS's response to this is to commit to supporting the NHS's regulations (not the law as written by Parliament) and to "supporting the maintenance/strengthening of trans rights in the update" - apparently granting trans women to right to rape is not far enough for the NHS.
Kind of a tangent but I don't understand why agencies funded by the government fight lawsuits or investigations by the government or the people paying them. Whether the actions are right or wrong, is there no sense of duty or "chain of command"? It happens in the US a lot with police departments and schools.
Whether the actions are right or wrong, is there no sense of duty or "chain of command"
Some of these bureaucrats appear to be more activist than bureaucrat; their own conception of their role is specifically to subvert the public will to instead conform to their own moral codes.
This case was fought by the NHS for a year on the basis that because the biological male in question was transgender he wasn't actually biologically male, and therefore no rape took place - despite CCTV evidence to the contrary.
Not that leftist freaks have to have a coherent reason, but how did they jump from "he's a female TO thus no rape can take place"?
Rape doesn't require a penis or penetration necessarily.
Also, does that mean lesbians can't commit sexual assault?
Other than fantasy land gender politics, why does his gender recognition negate the existence of a physical act?
You're coming at this from a logical perspective, trying to discern the operable rules and applying them.
They are coming at this from an activist perspective, and they are unwilling to punish somebody from a disadvantaged background. Thus they will use any of the rules available in any fashion required to prevent any harm being inflicted on the disadvantaged person.
And yes, that does mean that to these activists, some people are simply not within the bounds of the law.
To summarise, during a Parliamentary debate about just how it came to be that the NHS has re-interpreted a law - not something the NHS is allowed to do - to update single-sex wards to allow single-sex and transgender people in, the case of a woman who was raped in a single-sex ward by a biological male was raised. This case was fought by the NHS for a year on the basis that because the biological male in question was transgender he wasn't actually biologically male, and therefore no rape took place - despite CCTV evidence to the contrary.
The NHS's response to this is to commit to supporting the NHS's regulations (not the law as written by Parliament) and to "supporting the maintenance/strengthening of trans rights in the update" - apparently granting trans women to right to rape is not far enough for the NHS.
Kind of a tangent but I don't understand why agencies funded by the government fight lawsuits or investigations by the government or the people paying them. Whether the actions are right or wrong, is there no sense of duty or "chain of command"? It happens in the US a lot with police departments and schools.
Some of these bureaucrats appear to be more activist than bureaucrat; their own conception of their role is specifically to subvert the public will to instead conform to their own moral codes.
Not that leftist freaks have to have a coherent reason, but how did they jump from "he's a female TO thus no rape can take place"?
Rape doesn't require a penis or penetration necessarily.
Also, does that mean lesbians can't commit sexual assault?
Other than fantasy land gender politics, why does his gender recognition negate the existence of a physical act?
You're coming at this from a logical perspective, trying to discern the operable rules and applying them.
They are coming at this from an activist perspective, and they are unwilling to punish somebody from a disadvantaged background. Thus they will use any of the rules available in any fashion required to prevent any harm being inflicted on the disadvantaged person.
And yes, that does mean that to these activists, some people are simply not within the bounds of the law.