Three NHS trusts to adopt guidelines written by a trans activist

Surely it is perfectly possible to respectfully and flexibly respond to the needs of a trans patient by providing them with accommodation not in an open ward of the sex they would prefer not to be with, but in a room or area of their own to ensure their dignity, privacy and support of their chosen identity. And maybe hospitals need to be looking in new build and site development into ensuring there are these accommodation options for trans patients of either sex. And they can negotiate with individual trans patients on a case by case basis as to whether they would feel safe and able to share that space with another trans patient depending on circumstances at the time.

None of this requires female patients having a male patient put in their midst without their consent and against all practice and public policy, and not really being allowed to show their feelings or concerns about it or opt out, because the male patient gets all the choices and female patients are apparently just props in this situation. Who get to endure, without anyone caring about their privacy or dignity or stress, or fears or impact on recovery, or what they may have to disclose on the spot to staff who may or may not accuse them of hate speech, or whether they will have to discharge themselves.

It is possible to meet the needs of male trans people without harming the rights, interests and needs of female people. The one does not require the other.

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

the previous thread on this - a good one thanks FOI. I will be writing another letter or three while they are still taking comments on this policy - at least it sounds like they have started listening to concerned people.

Under the Equality Act 2010, individuals who have proposed, begun or completed reassignment of gender enjoy legal protection against discrimination. A trans person does not need to have had, or be planning, any medical gender reassignment treatment to be protected under the Equality Act: it is enough if they are undergoing a personal process of changing gender. In addition, good practice requires that clinical responses be patient-centred, respectful and flexible towards all transgender people whether they live continuously or temporarily in a gender role that does not conform to their natal sex. General key points are that:
• Trans people should be accommodated according to their presentation: the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use.
• This may not always accord with the physical sex appearance of the chest or genitalia.
• It does not depend on their having a gender recognition certificate (GRC) or legal name change.
• It applies to toilet and bathing facilities (except, for instance, that preoperative trans people should not share open shower facilities).
• Views of family members may not accord with the trans person’s wishes, in which case, the trans person’s view takes priority.

So self-id into the ward of their choice, staff are required to maintain utmost privacy of the transgender status of a patient and it is only relevant in a medical context (I can't find the quote now but it is buried in there somewhere) so they probably can't even acknowledge that there may be a male-bodied transgender person on a female ward.

Transgender children's wishes over-ride the parents views (presumably for older children) so there are potential safe-guarding issues if accommodated on a ward not according to their natal sex.

If anyone has any issues with an effectively mixed sex ward, at least they have dropped the 're-education' policy but no mention if the patient that objects will still be removed from the premises (as per the leaflet issued by the Devon NHS Trust).

Breaches of the single sex accommodation policy are regarded as being very serious and recorded in ALL cases for inpatient/mental health wards EXCEPT, guess what - where the breach is caused by a transgender patient. Housing a male-bodied transgender person in a female ward is not considered a breach of single sex accommodation.

No real mention of how a clash of rights will be resolved esp. in the case of religious requirements, traumatised women etc - they leave that up to the hospital staff to argue out on a case by case basis - I'm sure that will be fine as they all have so much time on their hands to arbitrate between two completely conflicting requirements. A very poorly patient may be unlikely to be able to advocate effectively for themselves.

Any doubt that anyone might have that single sex wards are not essential would be dispelled by reading the case of the 17 year old girl in Cork, severely injured in an accident. She was placed on a ward with 3 males and during the night, when a nurse came into check why the heart monitor of the 64 yr old male patient was highly elevated, it transpired that he was sexually assaulting the girl who was too injured to raise the alarm.

Everybody who allowed that to happen should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

anotherFOIrequester

This new acknowledgment in an EQIA that sex as a protected characteristic exists might be worthy of its own thread.
to all those who did so much to finally get women acknowledged.

We know someone was killed when 20 bricks fell on their head but we now have 22 bricks suspended above them and we don’t know what will happen if 22 bricks fall on them so we don’t need helmets..
^^
Oh 22 bricks falling on someone’s head kills them too? Well that is different to this situation. Those were red bricks and these are yellow ones.

Good analogy.

Well done to those involved in getting the Equality Impact Assessment done.

Michelle it is worse than that.

We know someone was killed when 20 bricks fell on their head but we now have 22 bricks suspended above them and we don’t know what will happen if 22 bricks fall on them so we don’t need helmets..

Oh 22 bricks falling on someone’s head kills them too? Well that is different to this situation. Those were red bricks and these are yellow ones.

Just reflecting - does anyone work in any situation where the risk assessment goes 'do x and hope it works until someone gets harmed, then rethink x and find alternative'?

For example:

Helmets will not be worn until a head injury occurs, then we'll renegotiate helmets for that specific group and situation on a case by case basis.

DBSs will not be necessary until it's evidenced that a serious safeguarding breach has occurred; in this case we may do some DBS type work with the specific people involved on a case by case basis.

*On a basis of, assume things will work out until the male born person's behaviour has harmed enough women patients to have grounds to remove THEM. My apologies. Obviously the male born person may choose to identify their pronouns in a range of ways.

Interesting reading.

The buck keeps being passed back to single sex is important and should definitely be provided for women but at the same time male born people should be treated in the sexed group of their choice. And while this now refers several times to 'competing legal needs' so at least this is being acknowledged, it keeps going back to 'government guidance is due' (which will be the conflicting dichotomy above), and mention of 'case by case basis'. Which does nothing to solve the problem.

We know guidance such as this when written by activists states to perceive a distressed woman as ignorant and in need of education/ordering to stop mentioning her own needs - at least the section about 'educating' women out of their distress has been removed. But a 'case by case basis' still means in effect situations where women will be faced with being in a highly vulnerable and undignified situation with the fear and uncertainty of a male person who may or may not choose to respect the situation and those around them. Such as, referring to cases mentioned here on other threads, flashing, sexually threatening staff and sexually harassing female patients. On a basis of, assume things will work out until the male born person's behaviour has harmed enough women patients to have grounds to remove him.

Case by case in effect means nothing other than to dump the buck on medical staff placed in a very difficult position, with no easy answers. Women will discharge themselves under these circumstances, rather than deal with the loss of privacy, the additional stress and embarrassment, and I will be one of them.

What gives me some real strength here is that women highlighting issues are making a real difference. I know we shouldn't have to be doing this but nevertheless, we are making an impact.

On a negative note, when will our publicly funded services start doing their jobs. Is it the fact that there are so many outside agencies relied on to do the job they should be doing and they will be paying a fortune for all these outside agencies - they are paying people with my taxes to undermine an Act of Parliament that directly affects me. Haarumph

How much time, money and effort is being wasted by agencies leaping wholeheartedly into this bandwagon without engaging brains?

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

Scroll to the last page.

Interesting list of partnerships?
SARI + ...

Is this the shielding / capture effect?

But then what about internal ‘pulls’ within SARI itself? A group set up to help BME groups (which would include a religious element) & ‘protected characteristics’.

Or, am I just reading too much into it?

Does anyone know about SARI?

Theres a mistake in it, under Pregnancy or Maternity they say neutral but the reasoning given is just a copy/paste of the one below it for civil partnership/marriage

It's illegal. Women (and men) have a right to same-sex accommodation in hospitals. Anyone who says otherwise is just plain wrong.

So don't worry about it too much. Just call it out if you ever find yourself on a ward with a male and don't be fobbed off with gender bullshit.

Noting that this thread started in February 2020 -- thanks for alerting us, Jadefinch (and the Sunday Times), and thanks for the update, AnotherFOIrequester.

These health authorities have finally done an impact assessment, 10 months after formally endorsing a list of trans-lobby demands without presumably a moment's care about the effects.

The assessment of impact on people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act highlights potential negative impacts on the basis of sex, age, disability and faith/religion. So, four large groups of people potentially disadvantaged by the trans toolkit.

The potential impact on all other characteristics was identified as ‘neutral’, apart from gender reassignment where a positive impact was noted. No shit, Sherlock.

The edits, listed by Clymene above, show how flawed the original, endorsed document was. And that is the kind of thing that's been quietly slipped into policy documents throughout the public, private and charity sectors.

I find it horrifying to read that the NHS would publish a myth like sex is assigned at birth. Followed up the links to the author and found this: a thank you to the Good Law Project. I had thought that (at least some£ organisations supporting trans issues were actually very well funded?

www.cheryl-morgan.com/?p=28404

I think that if a transwoman was in a female ward the other women would be better off asking to be moved to a male ward. I would rather be with men who know they are men and respect boundaries than with men who claim they are women and wish to impose themselves on women’s spaces.

The hospital might refuse but the solution is simple: tell them you are trans and demand to be on the ward of your ‘gender’. You should then, of course, be given priority.

It states that sex is “assigned” rather than observed at birth

You would think that medically trained people would know that sex is "assigned" at conception, the moment the genes from the sperm and egg combine.

So when its very wrongly claimed there's no conflict/issues we can list links to this risk assessments and say otherwise ?

I mean we all knew this already, akd we also know its been pointed out to multiple people for years , yes seeing it in writing is great but it clearly makes no difference to anyone

They adopted it without doing an impact assessment and then some women challenged it. Original article in the Times below:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2d7d6724-4f57-11ea-b112-75acb94b3417?shareToken=6b9da2b4b5092ac54799a65540b7f545

I really hope bodies which have responsibilities to all of the population will think more carefully in future about rubber stamping guidance without doing an EIA. Women are waking up to the institutional capture and stuff like this is so easily challenged.

Sorry I'm a bit thick really, does this mean they adopted it regardless of the fact that it only benefits one protected characteristic and has a negative affect on several others or is it still pending approval ?

The thing I don't get is that a transman or a transwomans medical needs are different to biological men and women. If people were actually concerned about the health and wellbeing for these people, they would surely be fighting for more research into taking hormones, the psychological impact, pushing for advances in surgery, and most importantly, would be welcoming of further investment and access to mental health services before having any physical medical treatment. As it is, the woke dont actually give a fuck about these people, but are all about pushing an agenda which doesn't benefit anyone except for themselves.