CQC are at it now 🙄

Not RTFT not all of it.

1. many women have been and continue to be addressed by names that are not theirs. We have always been told this is trivial. And to STFU. Not words used when you're not there, his hers. But actual incorrect names titles. See all the threads on MN. Majority opinion is, get over it.

1. I have a work call with 15 people I have never met. They are in different offices, maybe overseas. What's the plan? Do I need to look on the intranet before every meeting to check pronouns? And then remember them? I am terrible with names and faces. As it is. This will be well a lot of work. And there will be long pauses while people look up the pronouns. In the real world. It just doesn't work.

Yes of course if I have a friend or colleague who is trans I will be respectful. Use their name and correct pronouns.

But when you're talking to loads of people you've never met and will never meet again. It's a big research and time sink to check all this out.

It's. Unrealistic in the real world. It just is.

The CQC is a government agency. I'd love to know why all of this madness is happening under a Conservative government.

Why wouldn't it? The Conservatives don't give a shit about women's rights, as a whole. Neither do Labour, unfortunately, so we're fucked either way.

The CQC aren't fit for purpose so sadly their pronouns claptrap is no surprise.. nevertheless I've sent them a message suggesting they familiarise themselves with the Equality Act and correct their list of protected characteristics accordingly, much good may it do...

Yes, Minister wasn't a sitcom; it was a documentary.

In any case, the points being made on this thread are that pronouns are a courtesy, not a "basic human right"; that "sex" is a protected characteristic, not "gender".

The CQC is a government agency. I'd love to know why all of this madness is happening under a Conservative government.

Yes it tiresome now. I feel like not bothering to even discuss it anymore as that gives the impression it's up for discussion at all. Completely sick of being called a bigot over this.

and confirmed that this meets the requirements of the Equality Act 2010.

Does this mean then that the term gender can only be narrowly used as an exact synonym for the protected characteristic of sex?

Potholes - I must have read a different book - In the book I read Mrs Bennett spent the whole novel worrying about 5 people with vaginas , because for some inexplicable reason - the law knew exactly who to discriminate against before the discovery of chromosomes and without the need for genital inspections...

Interestingly, the law managed to discriminate correctly each time.

Whole book about her attempts to marry these sexless adults off to eligible bachelors and bachelorettes.

current CQC board
www.cqc.org.uk/about-us/meet-our-team/our-board

thanks Uppity how interesting

Written Question
Care Quality Commission
6 Jan 2021, midnight
Questioner: Lord Lucas

Question

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Care Quality Commission’s justification for the use of the word gender in the equality and human rights statement on its website reflects Government policy.

Answer (Lord Bethell)

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has used the word ‘gender’ instead of ‘sex’ in their Equality, Diversity and Human Rights Policy and Principles of Workforce Equality Monitoring since these documents were introduced in 2011.

These documents were reviewed by the CQC’s Staff Equality Networks and approved by the CQC’s Joint Negotiating and Consultation Committee, which includes trade union representatives and senior managers, alongside external, national union officers and were signed-off by the CQC’s board at that time.

The use of the word ‘gender’ did not arise as an issue of concern whilst completing Equality Impact Assessments for new human resources policies. It was neither subject to a specific assessment nor to legal advice at the time, but Government Legal Services have now reviewed the CQC’s use of the word gender in these documents and confirmed that this meets the requirements of the Equality Act 2010.

www.parallelparliament.co.uk/writtenanswers/search?document_type=writtenanswers&mp_type=1879

A woman is a biological female. A man is a biological male. This is all I have to say on the matter anymore, I no longer have the energy

X post with Pothole!

Yes - the CQC therefore don’t believe everyone has a sex! Worryingly...

Didn’t Lord Lucas submit a parliamentary question about this - after the CQC tweeted about the use of gender instead of sex.

Does anyone have an update?

The CQC stated that they wanted to expand the definition without realising that if you expand the definition, you destroy the definition of sex, and who isn’t included sex anyway?

I think the CQC got themselves monstered on twitter last year by saying they used gender instead of sex to be more inclusive, because "everyone had a gender"

Email sent complaining about omission on page below.

www.cqc.org.uk/about-us/our-strategy-plans/equality-human-rights

CQC are a waste of space. I recently took over from an HCP who works for the CQC as part of an inspection team. It was incredible how inadequate the practice was in CQC terms. They had not been inspected for years because the owner/CQC employee had ‘arranged it’ so they were put back to the bottom of the inspection list whenever they reached the top ( this was openly disclosed). It was strange how quickly the business was inspected when taken over. Also they timed it so that we were right at the peak of chaos while remodelling and updating.

Over-apologising may stop people from sharing pronouns in the future, you say...?

Hmm...

[quote OldCrone]I get why people care about pronouns. But I think a lot of people feel like it seems petty. So I'd rather focus on the things which have potential to have a negative impact on women in a bigger way.

Read this and see if you still think the same about pronouns being unimportant.

fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/[/quote]

Thanks for this link.

Exactly. It's a crock of shit. I loathe every single thing about this. A generation of children in adult bodies.

I believe that after CQC's previous 'good' assessment of GIDs, they had to do a reverse ferret in the light of the High Court determining that the service were treating children with experimental medicine with untested outcomes on fertility, bone density, brain development etc. Oh - and these children did not have the capacity to give informed consent because they were too young.
Last month the CQC suddenly found the service to be inadequate. Not sure what has changed apart from a damning court case that exposed a complete lack of research and evidence into the use of this "experimental" medicine. What a shame that the CQC were unable to spot this in their previous inspection as all of the above existed then. Such a worrying lack of curiosity into the health, safety and welfare of children. Still, they were a Stonewall Champion, so all was well.

Ccgs develop their own treatment pathways too absed on nice and mhra so pathways can differ in different areas too.

You are right OKbussitout that CQC dont decide if a treatment is clinically safe, that's NICE job however CQC should ensure that NICE guidelines on treatment are being followed

This is my understanding anyway. Not defacto the truth!

Let's all contact them pointing out they have made up some of the 9 protected characteristics and ask them to change back to the correct ones.

CQC has declined to regulate GenderGP ffs