A woman who asked for her NHS breast-screening to be carried out by a female-born clinician was pilloried as a transphobe by a hospital trust

sorry for the old thread revival, but....

does this patient now have a good case against Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust?

years ago a black HCP used their hospital trust over an incident where a patient had refused to be treated by them and demanded a white hcp.

While I think that is an awful thing for the patient to ask, I'm not comfortable with asking patients to se any doctor they are uncomfortable with, even for stupid or unethical reasons. And I realise that while it might not be that relevant today, this sort of thing used to cause real problems for women doctors or those of certain ethnicities, or even social class backgrounds.

But it's an intimate relationship, not just in terms of personal examinations. Someone is touching you, asking personal questions, knowing details of your life that might be quite private. Patient centred care is an important principle IMO.

The crunch f course is always availability. My father lives in a town with one female doctor. So if you want to see a male doctor, you need to drive an hour. In an emergency that might not be a real option. I think that affects how people see this, they imagine that in an emergency most people would take what was available, and so for most people asking for a doctor o a particular sex is a want rather than a need.

Further to the late night phone in, Nick Ferrari on LBC also had a short piece on this during his morning show. This is not the first time he has included an item regarding transgender issues and I am delighted as his programme has a very wide reach. The two female callers were excellent in clarifying some of the details and the wrongful confusion of the words gender and sex was highlighted.

Just a few moments later, the suggestion that only gay actors should play gay parts was discussed. While musing on the lack of opportunities of good parts for trans people, a chap who was once associated with Gay News asserted that the correct word for a non-trans person was cis gender. Hell will have to freeze over before I accept this definition of women and men.

Steve I was talking to a relentlessly Woke colleague who was abroad on a work trip and was taken for a steam bath/massage. He was shocked at how uncomfortable he was to find all the masseurs were male, and to have to cope with being intimately touched by another male. I explained to him that this was his first experience of feeling sexually vulnerable, and many women feel like this much of the time.

Patient choice about hcp sex should be absolute and unquestioned.

• Your feelings/needs/inclusion based on your race, age, sex, colour, faith, disability etc will definitely be respected by the NHS....

unless they happen to upset a male. In which case your requirements as a patient must in all cases be subordinate to the male health care provider's*

It's disgraceful. Men aren't immune though, I was browbeat and essentially forced into having a digital rectum examination by a male, despite it clearly being visible on all my records I have PTSD, and intimate exams should only be performed by female HCPs. I complained to trust who essentially told me to fuck off. No chaperone either.

They don't know the difference between sex and gender

LBC haven't heard of the single sex exemptions in the equality act.

LBC are having a phone in about this now

Now that's very interesting Pencils

and c) that recognising the needs of females implies that there is a lack of respect for someone's chosen gender identity, ie permission in law to perceive someone as male in fact regardless of their chosen identity.

This demand for respect (not enshrined in law yet) should according to them outweigh any need for reciprocal respect of disability, faith, culture, sex, or the need to not create an environment that is hostile or humiliating for the user.

Well tough shit for them, there is case law that says the use of an EA exception cannot constitute harassment. They don't have a counter claim.

www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/the-reverend-canon-j-c-pemberton-v-the-right-reverend-richard-inwood-former-acting-bishop-of-southwell-and-nottingham-ukeat-0072-16-ba

This case concerned the use of a religious exception against a minister who had married his male partner but the principle is the same.

The first tribunal judge said that it would be 'an affront to justice' if the lawful use of an EA exception constituted harassment.

The appeal judge agreed with the ruling but didn't like the wording, 'an affront to justice'. His preferred wording was: 'that would create an inherent contradiction within the statute'.

Siameasy
That's a really important question. Who accessed a patient's file in order to access her letter and then use it in sinister bullying training materials? Is the Trust not subject to GDPR regulations? The more you look at this the more it stinks.

I really want this policy to be subject to judicial review. I would chip in for any legal challenge.

So there would easily be an EA exemption here whereby a male born transsexual could legally be excluded from performing a mammogram yet the trust are misinterpreting the EA and ignoring the exemptions?

Stonewall et al would like to convince the world that
a) the exemptions don't exist to protect the interests of female people
b) they're naughty and should be removed (even though they don't exist)
and c) that recognising the needs of females implies that there is a lack of respect for someone's chosen gender identity, ie permission in law to perceive someone as male in fact regardless of their chosen identity.

This demand for respect (not enshrined in law yet) should according to them outweigh any need for reciprocal respect of disability, faith, culture, sex, or the need to not create an environment that is hostile or humiliating for the user.

The trust are demonstrating wholesale policy capture by a political lobby to the major disadvantage of a large swathe of the population, including those protected in law. It would appear highly debatable that this would stand up in court. Maya and Harry's results from their court cases get ever more important.

But there are particularly strong reasons for using an occupational requirement on the grounds of sex in cases like this because the legitimate aim is to prevent harassment, which is prohibited conduct.

So Clare wrote to BSUH about a personal matter and the letter was placed on her file.

Someone took that letter from her file and published it out of context within that “best practise for trans staff” document.

So who took the letter from Clare's file and decided it was appropriate to use it in that context? How did they get hold of that letter? How did they know it existed? Who is going through patient’s files?

Thanks birdsfoot and pencils. I stand corrected!

Yes the occupational requirement exception can apply to any PC, as long as it's a genuine requirement and a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/9/part/1

Should add - 1% of breast cancer cases are men - so they need to be aware too. Not common - but most men are completely unaware that it is possible.

They have missed out that during a mammogram, the radiographer can need to use their body to physically squash you up against the machine whilst flattening out your breasts to ensure all breast tissue is on the film for analysis- most likely if you are petite.

To remove Woman’s right to choose in the course of breast cancer diagnosis not to have a male body pushing up against them is horrendous.

NB - REMEMBER TO CHECK YOUR BREASTS and visit the GP if indicated! My female radiographer was wonderful!!!

Yes I am pretty sure there are racial exemptions eg. you are allowed to cast someone of a particular race in a play or film. You can also require eg. a priest is of a particular religion.

Afaik there aren't any racial exemptions in the EA? Or sexuality exemptions? So anyone banging on about the other protected characteristics can GTF.

any female could now sue BSUH for harassment

Any female affected - she would have to come under BSUH care. She wouldn't need to have actually been sent a tw when she requested a female HCP, she could just have been made to feel intimidated etc. by the presence of this guidance and its promise to disrespect her wishes, or she may have opted out of screening/treatment because of it.

So there would easily be an EA exemption here whereby a male born transsexual could legally be excluded from performing a mammogram yet the trust are misinterpreting the EA and ignoring the exemptions?

Stonewall law again.

can some sort of case be filed against that NHS trust?

Yes I think it can. I think Clare has a strong case for victimisation and as long as BSUH are saying they will not use this specific exception they are also risking harassment cases from any woman affected. Also they do not appear to have met their public sector equality duty.

There's a separate type of prohibited conduct that is instructing, causing or inducing others to discriminate against, victimise or harass someone. They've probably done that too, through this guidance.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/111

Staff who are expected to abide by unlawful policies will also have a case under this section and of course, if they are treated badly if they refuse to abide or question the policy, they will have their own victimisation case as well.

For maximum power this needs to be a judicial review (the same type of case as Harry's against the college of policing).

I think this is doable but I am not even a pretend lawyer.

I suspect they'd back down quite quickly because there'll be some statutory guidance somewhere that says NHS mammographers must be female.

My understanding of the role of EHRC is that this is exactly the kind of case they should be taking to court on behalf of WOMEN. By failing to do so they are surely discriminating against women?