Twitter thread from Joani Walsh re Trans hospital guidance

Mermaid woman really has no sympathy for people who have been abused does she? Nope, feelings over facts.

anotherFOIrequester
That guidance is . The bit where they say GNC people may also like to be called cross dressers..
The more I see this, the more obvious it is about reinforcing gender roles and boxes. The only difference now is that there are more boxes and stronger penalties and disapproval for those who object to being put in a box.

My local NHS (Bristol/North Somerset/South Gloucestershire) is about to adopt similar guidance.

There is NOT ONE mention of the reasons women need single sex wards - nothing about trauma. Any opposition to mixed-sex provision is framed as 'transphobia' and/or 'lack of education'. They have skipped straight over the risk assessment and equalities impact assessment requirements.

Guidance: bnssgccg-media.ams3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/attachments/govbody_5Nov19_item6.4.pdf

FOIs: www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/guidance_on_supporting_trans_peo#incoming-1474290

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/further_information_on_sari_supp#incoming-1481217

I'm not on twitter , if I was I'd post that section of the EA.

A more directly relevant example is in section 789:

'A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to avoid causing them further distress.'

I see that the usual lot are calling her transphobic. There's some real nastiness on that thread but glad they're being so open about it. The more people who see it the better, sunlight and all.
mobile.twitter.com/mimmymum/status/1203476252268662784

It's shocking that healthcare staff who are going to be regularly working with people who have been traumatised appear to have absolutely no knowledge at all about the impact of trauma. In addition to having no knowledge of the Equality Act.

There might be a better example, but this is a note in the EA that talks about transsexuals being excluded from a counselling session for rape victims:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7/5/3

"A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful."

It seems pretty clear that in some cases a general exclusion can be a proportionate means to achieving a legitimate aim.

However, the response from the trust seems far more concerned about affirming gender identity (regardless of whether an individual has gone through the process of obtaining a GRC) than women traumatised by rape or cancer screening.

No - there are specific exemptions for sex

I'm shocked by how little many of these Trusts understand Equality law and policy. As pointed out on other threads, many appear to think an Equality Impact Assessment only needs to be done for the specific protected characteristic covered by the policy. Or only consider whether trans people are affected on the grounds of age, race, etc, Failing to consider and mitigate its effects on the other protected characteristics is a breach of their Public Sector Equality Duty.

Am I reading a different thread? I don't think they have apologised or withdrawn the guidance.

We are very sorry for any offence or upset caused by the inclusion of these letters in our equality and diversity guidance and have now removed them.

They have apologised for causing offence and removed a specific letter, not agreed that they were wrong. (the classic 'sorry you were offended' non apology)

However, it is not possible to guarantee to any patient that they will only be treated by a clinician assigned to a specific gender at birth

Why is a hospital trust assigning genders to anyone?

We recognise our employees by the gender they identify as on a daily basis as it is essential that we respect the gender identity of all our staff

What is a gender identity?

Additionally, we have a duty to apply the same principles here as we would if a patient requested clinicians from particular backgrounds/ethnicities or any of the nine characteristics protected by law.

No - there are specific exemptions for sex.

We want to be able to mandate clinicians of the same SEX.

I don't actually care on a personal level but I'm a gobshite with no fucks left to give about being a pain in the arse and I shall be requiring, in writing like Clare, a same sex clinician for all intimate procedures going forward.

As Lang says, we should all do this. And maybe include with our letters a copy of this article to show that BSUH had to apologise to Clare, even if it was the most mealy mouthed, Stonewall pandering, insincere words they could muster up.

*Why

It’s going to take legal action isn’t it? I mean, their guidance is against the Equalities Act. What are they getting away with it!

What's so frustrating is that the request is reasonable for ANY woman. You don't have to have been abused in order to want non-urgent intimate examinations to be done by someone of the same sex.

Thanks and excuse me while I belly laugh at 'prides itself on our commitment to diversity and inclusion.'

Give yourselves a big pat on the backs while branding victims of child sexual abuse, along with any woman who wants a female HCP, as bigots.

This Trust is a disgrace.

Thank you!

Share token :
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/patient-branded-transphobic-after-asking-for-female-medic-3jh3snddt?shareToken=412f21b1846cf5dca5d036d78a8bed8a

The comments aren't up yet - they sometimes don't go up until mid morning but they're normally well worth reading.

Janice is right: putting self-ID in manifestos has opened the topic and the wider societal implications up for scrutiny.

Hoping for a share too.
The Times is a 'catch all' this weekend isn't it?

Does anyone have a sharetoken for this article?

@lumene the Trust have failed to understand the interaction between the exemptions in Equality Act (like occupation requirement allowing for staff of particular sex or single sex exemptions for facilities and service) and indirect discrimination.

If it would be proportionate response to legitimate aim, to provide staff or facilities for one protected class, to not do so,( even though it causes particular disadvantage to some women on grounds of sex, disability etc, ) would be indirect discrimination (and the burden of proof will be on the Trust to justify their policy).

My sense is they won't have done the requisite research to justify the current policy

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Lumene, but what we actually have in the NHS is single gender wards

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3396859-Weve-been-lied-to-about-Single-SEX-wards-since-2010

I've felt stronger this week but this article had me a bit down!

This is important. Really important. Most of the people (not all, but most) you'll speak to on social media and who are politically engaged will be fairly safe. They'll find it hard to imagine a scenario in which they'd feel vulnerable. Elderly relatives needing hospital stays or care will likely be the first groups to experience and suffer from this. You might be fine with it but would you expect your elderly parents or grandparents to understand prominence of, variation of, gender identity? Presence of males and females when they're told they're in single sex wards? The confusion or lack of empowerment to do or say anything about it?

Or faffed even.