Women's Prize for Fiction ‘greatest honour' as an intersex woman, says winner
The book, which explores repressed desire and the unresolved aftermath of the Holocaust in post-Second World War Netherlands, was described as an 'astonishing debut' by the head of the judges.
The ceremony, held in central London on Thursday, saw the non-fiction prize awarded to physician Dr Rachel Clarke for The Story Of A Heart, which explores the human experience behind organ donation.
In her winner's speech, after thanking the judges, van der Wouden said: 'I was a girl until I turned 13, and then, as I hit puberty, all that was supposed to happen did not quite happen.
'And if it did happen, it happened too much, and all at once my girlhood became an uncertain fact.
'I won't thrill you too much with the specifics, but the long and the short of it is that, hormonally, I'm intersex.
'This little fact defined my life throughout my teens, until I advocated for the health care that I needed.
'The surgery and the hormones that I needed, which not all intersex people need. Not all intersex people feel at odds with their gender presentation.
'I mention the fact that I did, because in the few precious moments here on stage, I am receiving, truly, the greatest honour of my life as a woman, presenting to you as a woman, and accepting this Women's Prize.
Aria Aber, Miranda July, Nussaibah Younis, Elizabeth Strout, Sanam Mahloudji and Yael van der Wouden at the ceremony (Ian West Media Assignments/PA)
'And that is because of every single trans person who's fought for health care, who changed the system, the law, societal standards, themselves. I stand on their shoulders.'
The NHS website says intersex, or differences in sex development (DSD), is a group of rare conditions involving genes, hormones and reproductive organs that mean a person's sex development is different to most.
In contrast, people who are transgender identify as a gender separate to the sex they were born in and sometimes go through gender-affirming surgery.
Van der Wouden's novel follows Isabel, a young woman whose life in solitude is upended when her brother's girlfriend Eva comes to live in their family house in what turns into a summer of obsession, suspicion and desire.
The chairwoman of the judges for the fiction prize, writer Kit de Waal, said: 'This astonishing debut is a classic in the making, a story to be loved and appreciated for generations to come. Books like this don't come along every day.'
Van der Wouden will receive £30,000 and a limited-edition bronze statuette known as the Bessie, which was created and donated by artist Grizel Niven.
Rachel Clarke won the non-fiction prize (Ian West Media Assignments/PA)
The judging panel for the Women's Prize for Fiction included novelist and journalist Diana Evans, author and journalist Bryony Gordon, writer and magazine editor Deborah Joseph, and musician and composer Amelia Warner.
Clarke said she has 'literally been a feminist since I was too young to know what that word even meant', as she collected her award.
The physician's book recounts two family stories, documenting how medical staff take care of nine-year-old Kiera in her final hours after a car accident, while offering a new life to nine-year-old Max who is suffering from heart failure from a viral infection.
Clarke, who is behind the books Breathtaking and Your Life In My Hands: A Junior Doctor's Story, will receive £30,000 and a limited-edition piece of art known as the Charlotte, both gifted by the Charlotte Aitken Trust.
The judging panel for the non-fiction prize included writer and broadcaster Dr Leah Broad, whose work focuses on women's cultural history, and novelist and critic Elizabeth Buchan.
Previous winners of the fiction prize include Tayari Jones for An American Marriage and Madeline Miller for The Song Of Achilles, while the first non-fiction prize was awarded last year to Naomi Klein for Doppelganger: A Trip Into The Mirror World.
The awards were announced by the Women's Prize Trust, a UK charity that aims to 'create equitable opportunities for women in the world of books and beyond'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Panel backs decision over Shropshire out-of-hours GP service
An independent panel has backed a decision to select a different company for a proposed contract for a Shropshire out-of-hours GP a not-for-profit company staffed by local doctors, has run the service since 1996. But in February, NHS Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin (NHS STW) said approval was granted for intending to award the contract to Wiltshire-based representations by Shropdoc, the panel stated it found STW integrated care board (ICB) acted in accordance with regulations and so it had advised it to proceed with the proposed contract said due to the "legal standstill period" in place, it was unable to comment. Healthcare campaigner Gill George from Shropshire Defend Our NHS said she was devastated and thought most people in the region would be."They know local services like the back of their hand – Shropdoc has got that local knowledge and local expertise of GPs and community services."The contract had an initial term of three years starting on Tuesday this week, with the option of a two-year extension and an estimated value, including the extension, of about £36m excluding VAT, the panel ICB had six bids, according to Tuesday's report from the independent patient choice and procurement panel's review of the proposed award. Nearly 600 surveys The document said that in February the board announced the successful bidder. Shropdoc's proposal was ranked fifth, with a score of 68.52%, compared to 86.85% for Medvivo, the report STW launched a scheme in August last year that saw residents share views and said nearly 600 surveys were completed. If a GP out-of-hours service contract was awarded to a new provider, NHS STW has stated, one of its priorities would be to ensure as little change to patients as would be no change to its palliative care line and home visits would still be available, it stated it acknowledged the "outcome of the procurement process and the associated report relating to the GP Out of Hours (GPOOH) service have now been published".Medvivo is based in the south-west of England, according to its website, and in 2020 joined HealthHero to become the group's NHS service specialises in integrated urgent care and associated services. Follow BBC Shropshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
We need a culture change in maternity services
Photo by Matthew Cheetham / Getty Images The Health and Social Care Secretary is staking his reputation on providing safe care to women giving birth. 'Maternity safety will become the litmus test for all safety in the NHS,' Wes Streeting said on 23 June, as he announced a rapid investigation into maternity and neonatal services. He will take 'personal responsibility for it', noting that successive governments have failed to grip this national scandal adequately. Streeting has said the government's long-awaited ten-year plan for the NHS, which will be published on 3 July, will tackle maternity's 'safety crisis at its root, with an overhaul of the wider patient safety landscape'. The Health Secretary has already placed new personnel at the top of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to turn around the 'failing organisation' – part of an attempt to 'declutter' the regulatory landscape in which more than 150 bodies will be scrapped. A shift from analogue to digital will be seen first in maternity, too, where AI technology will flag higher than expected rates of stillbirth, neonatal death and brain injury, triggering inspections. A focus on tackling inequalities in health outcomes – another theme of the plan – is also hugely relevant to maternity care: black women are two to three times more likely to die during pregnancy or shortly after birth than white women. While Streeting's aim to tackle 'the biggest patient safety challenge facing our country' is admirable, the task is mammoth. The rapid investigation will look at up to ten English maternity units that give ministers and NHS bosses the 'greatest cause for concern'. How will they be chosen? In its National Review of Maternity Services in England 2022 to 2024, the CQC found nearly half of all units either required improvement (36 per cent) or were deemed inadequate (12 per cent). Not one was rated outstanding for safety. Nearly two thirds (65 per cent) either required improvement or had inadequate safety provision. Streeting is right: the problem is systemic. 'It's not just a few bad units up and down the country. Maternity units are failing. Hospitals are failing. Trusts are failing.' Streeting could limit his choices to the 20-plus units that are currently rated inadequate by the CQC: from Scarborough and York hospitals in the north, to Poole in the south; Great Yarmouth's James Paget Hospital in the east, or Somerset's two failing units in the west, one of which was closed in May for at least six months. This approach would still leave half the services acknowledged to be unsafe unexamined. The units to be investigated will be chosen after analysing various NHS data sets. But each data set provides different answers. In the 2024 maternity survey, the CQC found two trusts performing 'much worse than expected': University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. Six trusts were 'worse than expected'. While some run inadequate maternity services, the majority do not. Then there's the danger of putting too much faith in the CQC when the regulator is facing heavy criticism. It has been accused of failing to heed concerns about maternity services until long after they've been raised by whistleblowing staff and by families who have been harmed. In Leeds, for example, where a BBC investigation found that the deaths of two mothers and 56 babies could potentially have been avoided between 2019 and 2024, maternity services were not rated inadequate until May – at least five years after concerns were first raised. In Oxford, where more than 500 families are calling for an inquiry, maternity services are not judged inadequate. Nor are Nottingham's, where around 2,500 families are taking part in the former midwife Donna Ockenden's independent investigation into failings. The Health Secretary could look at data on deaths. Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust had a neonatal mortality rate nearly twice the average of similar services in 2023. Among smaller hospitals, Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust appears to be an outlier in the rate of stillbirths. But official data sets can be flawed. As Streeting acknowledged to doctors, 'some services don't even record incidents that have resulted in serious harm'. Other information indicating poor maternity care doesn't exist at all: there are no recent, reliable data on the life-changing injuries women can suffer during childbirth. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Behind every number, every set of statistics, are real lives – and deaths. Too many babies are dying and being harmed because of poor maternity care. Too many women are receiving life-changing injuries. Too many mums and dads are being left traumatised. And we are spending an eye-watering amount compensating families for that poor maternity care. In the financial year 2023-24, maternity payouts comprised 41 per cent of total NHS clinical negligence payments: £1.15bn of £2.8bn. The NHS predicts that 49 per cent of the £5.1bn it will pay out in future as a result of care delivered in 2023-24 will be to maternity cases. To put that into perspective, NHS England spends around £3bn a year in total delivering maternity and neonatal services. It is vital that maternity services are not seen as just another part of the NHS that needs improving. For there is something bigger going on – something unique that cannot simply be explained by staff shortages, low morale or a lack of funding. Many hospitals provide good care in all other departments but have an inadequate maternity unit. This is a problem of culture. And with the best will in the world, that is the hardest thing of all to change. [See also: Cover Story: Just raise tax!] Related
Leader Live
2 hours ago
- Leader Live
Hancock: Moving patients from hospitals to care homes was least-worst decision
Bereaved people whose loved ones died in care homes have urged truth and accountability from those appearing before the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, as its focus for the next month falls on the care sector. The inquiry has previously heard there were more than 43,000 deaths involving the virus in care homes across the UK between March 2020 and July 2022, and a civil servant was quoted earlier this week describing the toll as a 'generational slaughter within care homes'. Appearing before the inquiry on Wednesday, Mr Hancock acknowledged the discharge policy was an 'incredibly contentious issue', but he added: 'Nobody has yet provided me with an alternative that was available at the time that would have saved more lives.' When the pandemic hit in early 2020, hospital patients were rapidly discharged into care homes in a bid to free up beds and prevent the NHS from becoming overwhelmed. However, there was no policy in place requiring patients to be tested before admission, or for asymptomatic patients to isolate, until mid-April. This was despite growing awareness of the risks of people without Covid-19 symptoms being able to spread the virus. Mr Hancock, who resigned from government in 2021 after admitting breaking social distancing guidance by having an affair with a colleague, has given evidence to the inquiry multiple times. Returning for a full-day session to face questions specifically about the care sector, he said the hospital discharge policy had been a government decision but had been 'driven' by then-NHS chief executive Sir Simon Stevens, now Lord Stevens. Mr Hancock said: 'It was formally a government decision. It was signed off by the prime minister. It was really driven by Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, but it was widely discussed.' The inquiry heard Mr Hancock said in his witness statement that NHS England had 'insisted' on the policy, and while he did not take the decision himself, he took responsibility for it as then-health secretary. He said it was an 'incredibly contentious issue' but added that 'nobody has yet provided me with an alternative that was available at the time that would have saved more lives'. He said there were no good options, adding: 'It's the least-worst decision that could have been taken at the time.' Pressed further, he said he had both agreed with and defended the decision at the time. The High Court ruled in 2022 that Government policies on discharging hospital patients into care homes at the start of the pandemic were 'unlawful'. While the judges said it was necessary to discharge patients 'to preserve the capacity of the NHS', they found it was 'irrational' for the Government not to have advised that asymptomatic patients should isolate from existing residents for 14 days after admission. Asked about March 17, 2020 when NHS bosses were instructed to begin the discharge process, Mr Hancock said officials were 'pushing very hard' to get more PPE into care homes. He said not advising care homes to isolate returning residents without symptoms was a 'mistake', but it was in line with clinical guidance at the time. In 2023, appearing for a separate module of the inquiry, Mr Hancock admitted the so-called protective ring he said had been put around care homes early in the pandemic was not an unbroken one, and said he understood the strength of feeling people have on the issue. At a Downing Street press conference on May 15 2020, Mr Hancock said: 'Right from the start, we've tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.' Mr Hancock told the inquiry: 'I would stress in that piece of rhetoric, what I said is that we had 'tried' – it was not possible to protect as much as I would have wanted.' He added: 'The protection, what at the time, was clearly not as much as we would have liked, but the alternatives were even worse. 'We were trying to put as much protection in place as possible. 'All I can do is take you back to the actual decisions and the resources that we had at that moment. He went on: 'We were trying to do everything that we possibly could, we were in bleak circumstances.' Counsel to the inquiry Jacqueline Carey KC highlighted anonymous evidence given to the inquiry, saying: 'One person in particular said he (Mr Hancock) blatantly lied about the situation with care homes, there was no blanket of protection. We were left to sail our own ships. He wasn't heartfelt. He had no understanding or appreciation of the challenges care homes face, pandemic or not, it felt like we were the sacrifice, a cull of older people who could no longer contribute to the society.' Mr Hancock said it was 'not helpful' for the inquiry to 'exchange brickbats', but went on: 'I've been through everything that we did as a Department, a big team effort, and we were all pulling as hard as we possibly could to save lives – that's what I meant by saying that we tried to throw a protective ring around. 'Of course, it wasn't perfect. It was impossible – it was an unprecedented pandemic, and the context was exceptionally difficult. 'What I care about is the substance of what we did, the protections that we put in place, and most importantly, what we can do in the future to ensure that the options available are better than they were last time.' Bereaved families have previously called this 'protective ring' phrase a 'sickening lie' and a 'joke'. Nicola Brook, a solicitor representing more than 7,000 families from Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK (CBFFJ), said Mr Hancock's claim that the discharge policy had been the least-worst decision available was 'an insult to the memory of each and every person who died'. She added: 'He knew at the time that many care homes did not have the ability to isolate the people who would be discharged from hospital and that Covid was airborne. 'It's frankly ridiculous and insulting that he says they tried to throw a protective ring around care homes when his department's policies caused Covid to spread like wildfire amongst society's most vulnerable loved ones. 'Mr Hancock claims the decision to discharge people into care homes was driven by Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, yet the inquiry is not calling him. We would call for this decision to be urgently reviewed.' The CBFFJ group had already written to inquiry chairwoman Baroness Heather Hallett, to express their concern at some 'key decision-makers' not expected to be called in this module, including former prime minister Boris Johnson. Outlining the state of the adult social care sector at the outbreak of the pandemic, Mr Hancock said it 'was badly in need of, and remains badly in need of, reform', but rejected the suggestion of it being a 'Cinderella service to the NHS'. He said pandemic contingency plans, prepared by local authorities for adult social care, had been 'as good as useless' at the time, and described a 'hodge podge of accountability' between local councils and Government departments. He claimed the situation has 'got worse not better' for care homes in the event of another pandemic hitting, and suggested a series of recommendations, including having isolation facilities in care homes and ensuring a stockpile of personal protective equipment (PPE). Module six of the inquiry is focused on the effect the pandemic had on both the publicly and privately funded adult social care sector across the UK. Public hearings for the care sector module are expected to run until the end of July.
