Bristol clinical commissioning group refuses to endorse trans toolkit after public consultation

[exexpat]

I think some people on here responded to the consultation - looks like the message got across:

www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/health/health-chiefs-not-endorse-trans-5628804

This was the thread about the original call for responses:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3784009-Are-you-in-Devon-Bristol-North-Somerset-or-South-Gloucestershire-Tell-NHS-your-view-on-trans-guidelines-NOW

Interesting thumbs up thanks to all who contributed

The story's a bit confusing - essentially, the trust wanted to remove the claims about PBs being life-saving and the authors refused?

And now they're not seeking endorsement for the toolkit? Would it be used anywhere else?

The first paragraph of the article - Bloody ace.

Well I’m very pleasantly surprised as Bristol is woke central and now has a joint Labour/green council but it’s so good to see all the responses made by people here have had an effect :)

Also, how incredibly entitled. When asked to stick to the law, they flounce. What other pressure group does that, most are happy to have any input and realise compromise is part of campaigning.

Shows how important it is to complete the consultations.

Well done to everyone that responded and the group of clinicians who raised their concerns. 👏

The Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group wanted ... it to recognise sex as a protected characteristic.
I wonder why this was so contentious...

The CCG wanted to make changes after concerns were raised by clinicians and an equality impact assessment highlighted potential negative impacts on the basis of sex, age, disability and faith/religion.
Ooh - someone's actually done a proper EIA for a change, rather than scrawling "Not Applicable" all over it.

@dyslek

Also, how incredibly entitled. When asked to stick to the law, they flounce. What other pressure group does that, most are happy to have any input and realise compromise is part of campaigning.

The pressure groups that are hoping to create such confusion about the actual state of the law such that a lot of public bodies don't check and implement these special laws?

That then move the pressure group to argue for the actual laws to be rewritten inline with 'everybody is doing this anyway'?

We see what they're doing. It's unfortunate that so many public bodies, including the health service and judiciary, are signally failing to carry out their due diligence.

Well done to everybody who responded to this consultation.

Thanks to everyone who responded to that, well done

Fantastic, encouraging.

🥳 the lawyers are in the building

Its encouraging that some NHS Trusts are learning what the purpose of an Equality Impact Assessment is.

Good, I’m glad the CCG has refused to endorse this.

This CCG has also left Stonewall.

Well done.

I read that EIA last year I think. It really did get right down to the nuts and bolts of all the impacts and not just on women but I believe it looked at disability and race.

This is really good news - thank you to everyone on here who wrote to the CCG! Great that they understand that there are multiple 'stakeholders'. (The results of the CCG's public survey never saw the light of day AFAIK).

All the apologising in the article is quite weird - what's happening about the £7k the CCG paid to SARI to write the guidance! Guidance they had to reject due to safeguarding and legal risk, and not being in line with EA2010.

Any NHS body continuing with this project is knowingly signing up to those risks and the likelihood of illegal discrimination.

The safety stuff is weird too - who's more unsafe, a male person putting the view that males should be able to sleep on female wards and carry out intimate procedures on females, or the females who have to cope with the reality of that, perhaps drugged-up post surgery?

Strange to see two women being the ones in the press apologising and defending, while the actual author, who is of the opposite sex to them, is not mentioned. The author claims to able to breastfeed.
Recent discussion of a similar situation by Sarah Phillimore:

twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1414857831065559042

This has come up again!

twitter.com/SARIcharity/status/1596550250725986305

Stand Against Racism & Inequality
@SARIcharity
It was an absolute honour to be invited to be part of today's Trans Pride South West event.

We were also so proud to finally launch our Trans and Non-Binary Best Practice guidance, which has been seven years in the making and a major collaborative project.

What's going on?!

I have too much Christmas stuff to sort but putting this here as a marker...

I think this toolkit was recently adopted and circulated to staff working in the mental health trust in Bristol and surrounding areas, AWP. There is a FOI request response on their website about it but its not linked.

Wow, that's fantastic that the Equality Impact Assessment actually worked as it was meant to: weighing up the impact on the other protected characteristics!

It would be great if that could be shared with other groups considering endorsing the 'toolkit' . Could the Trust's EIA be sent to the Bristol mental health Trust @Runningintolife mentioned? It would be very interesting to see both EAIs side by side...

“The safety stuff is weird too - who's more unsafe, a male person putting the view that males should be able to sleep on female wards and carry out intimate procedures on females, or the females who have to cope with the reality of that, perhaps drugged-up post surgery?”

Dont be daft- of course men should be able to do whatever they want no matter how it affects women. A man’s feeling are paramount no matter how if affects women’s safety. It’s almost like you think women are human or some silliness.

Launch it where, I wonder? Were SARI involved in the recent consultation by Bristol City Council?

Well done my loverrs!