Does the RCOG specifically support this intervention?
Or just the principle of Gillick competence?
The position paper mentions 'numerous cases' ...but the RCOG does not put out other position papers on individual cases, or talk about them specifically here.
Lay members are people who have personal experience of obstetric and/or gynaecological services.
Of course this could include a transman or a female person who identifies as non-binary
What possible reason is there to co-opt a male person to take up one of the spaces for women to talk to powerful decision makers their experience and needs related to pregnancy and birth?
What on earth made @RCObsGyn think this was appropriate?
Back in September 2018 I asked this question, which lead to a twitter discussion, which lead to me losing my job.
The Q wasn't about Bunce really but about whether, when you have a policy that is about empowering women, you change the definition to suit a man?
People who responded, smart people, usually robust economists said things like this.
I was surprised...but I could why they might fence sit, or SEK to be (apparently) inclusive, since the #manels question is fairly minor.
But when it really matters people might say no?..no?
Like when someone who has lived all their life as a man and has recently "become" a woman asks for a seat on a forum where women have a chance to talk to medics about how women are treated in pregnancy and childbirth.
On single sex spaces they say the law is clear that service providers are able to restrict access to spaces on the basis of biological sex where there is clear justification.