Whatnow? Pregnant "persons"

From the Gender recognition Act 2004:

"Prohibition on disclosure of information [essentially, revealing that the subject has undergone gender reassignment]

(1)It is an offence for a person who has acquired protected information in an official capacity to disclose the information to any other person.

(2)“Protected information” means information which relates to a person who has made an application under section 1(1) and which—

(a)concerns that application or any application by the person under section [F14A,] [F24C, 4F,] 5(2) [F3, 5A(2)] or 6(1), or

(b)if the application under section 1(1) is granted, otherwise concerns the person’s gender before it becomes the acquired gender.

(3)A person acquires protected information in an official capacity if the person acquires it—

(a)in connection with the person’s functions as a member of the civil service, a constable or the holder of any other public office or in connection with the functions of a local or public authority or of a voluntary organisation,

(b)as an employer, or prospective employer, of the person to whom the information relates or as a person employed by such an employer or prospective employer, or

(c)in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of business or the supply of professional services.

(4)But it is not an offence under this section to disclose protected information relating to a person if—

(a)the information does not enable that person to be identified,

(b)that person has agreed to the disclosure of the information,

(c)the information is protected information by virtue of subsection (2)(b) and the person by whom the disclosure is made does not know or believe that a full gender recognition certificate has been issued,

(d)the disclosure is in accordance with an order of a court or tribunal,

(e)the disclosure is for the purpose of instituting, or otherwise for the purposes of, proceedings before a court or tribunal,

(f)the disclosure is for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime,

(g)the disclosure is made to the Registrar General for England and Wales, the Registrar General for Scotland or the Registrar General for Northern Ireland,

(h)the disclosure is made for the purposes of the social security system or a pension scheme,

(i)the disclosure is in accordance with provision made by an order under subsection (5), or

(j)the disclosure is in accordance with any provision of, or made by virtue of, an enactment other than this section.

(5)The Secretary of State may by order make provision prescribing circumstances in which the disclosure of protected information is not to constitute an offence under this section.

The BMA already clarified that it's guidance for dealing with transpeople not in all cases- see upthread

The actual BMA document suggests a wider use. See upthread.

Maybe they are back-peddling, which is good, no?

I'm no doubt just repeating what's been said upthread but wanted to add my tuppence. I'm pregnant for the first time, almost 10 weeks. I've had 2 early scans due to bleeding, my body and mind have been all over the place.

The thought that someone would think it was fair to diminish the significance of my biology is so insulting that it makes me furious (got a shorter fuse than usual anyway at the mo). I am not a 'pregnant person,' I am a woman with a womb with a baby in it who I desperately hope stays there and comes out healthy. My body has never been through such risk, responsibility and pressure. Eroding the rights of one group because you think it makes things better for another is a fucking disaster.

It must be difficult for professionals who do deal with people who have transitioned and the language they use.

Such as when a trans person goes to a parent's evening. 'Is this your Dad?' / 'Is this your mum?' Are you the mother of / father of?

Or the language children use to describe parents...

Yes, pleasegetdressed, Datun is correct. That is what medical posters have said. That is obviously how the BMA/GMC interprets the law/CPS guidelines.

Outing a transperson is presumably a hate crime if done maliciously. I'd be amazed if a reference in a doctor's referral letter counted.

The poster, a GP, said that if the transperson didn't want their trans status noted in the referral, it would be a criminal offence to do so. She said if she was left with an option where she was convinced someone at ovarian cancer, she had to send a letter to say please check out the abdominal pain of this patient. She said that letter would not, in this case, be fast tracked to oncology as she couldn't specify the condition.

She reiterated it would be a criminal offence.

She was very concerned, as it went against all her ethics.

Another poster said she was duty-bound to only offer surgery, as opposed to therapy. She said it is quite well known that surgery can actually feed into gender dysphoria, not alleviate it. (Statistically, there is a spike in suicide about 10 years after surgery).

It is both scandalous and concerning that a medical condition has been politicised to this level.

But even more concerning is that people are fully aware, particularly in the medical profession, but are being silenced.

Yetanotherspartacus,
The BMA already clarified that it's guidance for dealing with transpeople not in all cases- see upthread.

Outing a transperson is presumably a hate crime if done maliciously. I'd be amazed if a reference in a doctor's referral letter counted.

We can include intersex men and transmen who may get pregnant by saying ‘pregnant people’ instead of ‘expectant mothers’.

As an aside to all of this nonsense (pregnant people indeed...) I actually did not know intersex men could get pregnant. I didn't know any male (human) could get pregnant

Have not read the whole thread. What the fuck is this world coming to?

IMHO, misogyny or sexes against women is a now a much bigger problem than racism.

The CPS consider outing a transperson to be a potential hate crime. So maybe the BMA or GMC were interpreting it that way.

I'm sorry. I wouldn't refer to a vagina as a front hole whether a transman asked me to or not. It's misogynistic language.

I wouldn't either. And this isn't theoretical because I am a midwife. I would gladly call it the birth canal, which is a commonly used alternate term for the vagina in midwifery anyway, and really cannot offend anyone. But front hole? No.

What criminal offence?

"Where useful" includes in "all forms of communication, including conversations, committee papers, documents, letters, emails and the website. Anything that we produce reflects the association and it is vital that all our communications are free from discriminatory language, or what could be interpreted as discriminatory language. Using our values and behaviours as the foundation, inclusive language does not discriminate against.."

In other words .. Widely.

That's right because I was aghast that she could be sued. She said not sued, a criminal offence. Jail.

Yes, I think so. She also said that they were told that referring to a transperson's birth sex in a referral to another doctor is a criminal offence.

Other posters who work in medicine have described how the BMA and GMC have drunk the trans koolaid.

A GP on here said if she ever suggested therapy as opposed to surgery to a transperson she would be called before the GMC on a disciplinary.

(is that right, Venus? I've read several comments from people in the medical profession who feel they are going against their own ethics out of fear. Lose track).

Which the BMA clarified should be used only where useful...

You say "clarified", I say "backpedalled when picked up by the media"

Other posters who work in medicine have described how the BMA and GMC have drunk the trans koolaid.

Which the BMA clarified should be used only where useful...

The comments under this article are a really good, albeit highly sanitised, version of why language is important, particularly with regard to women and their biology.

If you get involved in any online conversation with a transwoman, this is the way it always goes. Although usually with a lot more abuse in it.

www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/03/13/what-is-a-real-woman/comments/#disqus_thread

I thought that in respect to intersex as in - if they can ovulate, conceive, gestate and give birth does that not mean they are really women? But I know little about intersex in that way. The others are women who identify as men and I'm afraid my poor head explodes at the thought that an individual might carry a child to term and object when someone calls them a woman... but sill.

A large majority of people that have been pregnant or have given birth identify as women.

I can't get past that sentence. I am not a biologist or a medic, but surely 100% of people who have been pregnant or have given birth are women? It's not a matter of identifying as a woman, it's an undeniable biological fact that a human who gives birth is a woman.

Not I am in a debate! 'Why did they have to..

I am in a debate also have to change 'expectant' to 'pregnant'?

And how is mother more of a biological faux pas than pregnant?