Stop mixing up sex and gender GPs told

HCP's are exempted from the obligation to believe TWAW / TMAM, yes

No-one is compelled to believe TWAW / TMAM. HCPs will have policies which they are required to follow.

What about transgender people who never go near a Gender Identity Service and simply identify as male / female? And then change their gender on their NHS record? And change GP?

Self-identified transgender people?

Male and female refer to sex not gender identity. A doctor would have surely had to approve the modification of a NHS record and at the very least, they should ensure that their patient was aware they had not changed sex. There is significant sex based health check information such as removal from the cervical screening database which would need to be conveyed.

I'm shocked that any doctors went along with the corruption of such key data as sex. Its medical negligence to have done so.

Also, HCP's are exempted from the obligation to believe TWAW / TMAM, yes?

If people believe that a person actually transitions, i.e. actually changes or transforms, from male to female, then things like heart disease calculations, reference ranges for blood tests and screening programmes appropriate for males will of course no longer be relevant to that person, since that person is now female.

Doctors and professionals working in Gender Identity Services have a responsibility to ensure their patients are disabused of this.

Any HCP who believed such a thing would be putting patients at risk.

My Trans friend is in her mid 50's so her risk of prostate cancer is now climbing.
She also needs medical care linked to her "sex change" surgery 35 years ago
and the drugs and medicines linked to it.

Any doctor who did not properly record her (his) birth sex
would be negligent IMHO

At last. Now it's just everyone else (well, the koolaid drinkers, I think most people know perfectly well)

like heart disease calculations, reference ranges for blood tests

Some will change, depending on when/ if the person started hormone therapy and had surgery. Testosterone increases risk of heart disease, oestrogen decreases it.

If people believe that a person actually transitions, i.e. actually changes or transforms, from male to female, then things like heart disease calculations, reference ranges for blood tests and screening programmes appropriate for males will of course no longer be relevant to that person, since that person is now female.

This is not news to doctors. We know sex and gender are different and the way different pathologies present, drugs act and biochemical reference ranges are different in men and women.
Some are so embedded in Transgender ideology that (for whatever reason) they lose their sense on this. I recently read a colleague posting a comment online to say transwomen don’t identify as female, they are female
It irks me hugely that the demographics section on a patient’s record says gender:female rather than sex but it’s not in my control to change the way the IT system is set up.
What is ridiculous and has lead to patient harm is allowing people to change the “gender” marker on their notes along with the creation of a brand new set of records and NHS number so that the person is detached from their previous record and will automatically have their risk of heart disease calculated, their reference ranges for blood tests and what screening programmes they get invited to based on their ‘new’ sex rather than their actual, still existing biological one. So if their new GP has no idea they are trans (and with Covid may not have met them face to face) they may not receive accurate care. Which you’d think TRAs would want for trans people. But apparently not.

EmbarrassingAdmissions Is this the thread you're thinking of?

You're uncanny, R0wantrees - that is the thread I AS'd but failed to locate.

Sex, Gender & the NHS part 2
Anne Harper-Wright

Nov 13, 2018
(extract)
"And here I’ll let you know what I’ve discovered about our own NHS Patient Medical Records, and whether they hold sex or gender, or both.
Q: How does the NHS make the distinction between sex and gender on our medical records?
A: They’re supposed to record BOTH.
The NHS is legally obligated to respect a person’s ‘gender identity’, should they declare one. Why? A person’s inner feminine or masculine feelings has no bearing on their medical treatment. It’s because with the advent of the GRA 2004 and the Equality Act of 2010, the law enshrined the concept of gender identity, then gender reassignment, alongside the biological reality of sex. If a hospital is at risk of a lawsuit for failing to acknowledge a person’s protected characteristic of gender reassignment, (which may be solely the declaration of feelings, nothing more) it will capture extra ‘gender’ data to sit alongside the sex data, for those circumstances where a patient feels they have both a sex, and a gender. But the ‘gender’ data should be incremental, added only for those patients who want it. It certainly isn’t and should never be a replacement for bodily sex, not where medical records are concerned. Obviously.
Woe betide a medical system that takes gender affirmation so far as to completely ignore and overwrite sex. Biological sex is immutable, and medical treatment of the sexes differs by necessity between males and females. Male and female anatomy, genetics, reproductive organs, diseases, blood test reference ranges, response to drugs are different.
There is evidence that male blood transfusion recipients face higher mortality rates if their blood donor is female and has ever been pregnant. Transplant donor/recipient sex matters. Sex matters. To overwrite a patient’s biological sex in a medical record with a gender identity would be dangerous, even life threatening.
If the NHS ignores gender, well yes, it may hurt a person’s feelings, and it may get sued. But if it ignores sex, people might actually die.
Following the legal recognition of gender mandated by the Gender Recognition Act the NHS made plans to keep a record of both.
So how does the NHS capture ‘gender’ when it still must keep a record of sex?
The NHS Sex and Gender Standards
After the GRA 2004 was made law, an NHS exercise was commenced, to standardise patient information and data within the various IT systems across the NHS. Within this exercise a suite of documentation was created, dedicated to designing a system architecture that could attempt to cope with the challenges specific to using BOTH sex AND gender as data." (continues)
medium.com/@anneharperwright/sex-gender-the-nhs-bb86b0c3ebb

I think this is only the beginning of the medical profession getting their act together.

As the articles by Anne Wright demonstrate, politicians, likely influenced unduly by TRAs, had undue influence in affecting NHS systems and policies which have compromised patient Safeguarding.

It’s ridiculous that it’s taken the medical profession so long to get their act together on this.

Patient confidentiality needs protecting though. Eg receptionists don’t need to know people’s birth sex. It could lead to misgendering (or dodgy furtive glances) which would put some people off from seeking care.

I disagree, receptionists along with all NHS staff need to have access to key patient data. They are bound by confidentiality and policy guidelines to treat all patients with respect.
Reception and clerical staff are responsible for inputting the data so it would be ridiculous to hide 'sex' as a sensitive field.

Crazy that in 2021 there is still confusion.

Human biological sex is binary and cannot be changed.

There is male and female. Intersex is not a 3rd biological sex, it is a term for various chromosomal abnormalities.

"gender" is a social construct, and in this age it appears we are told there are over 100 genders.
We all know the facts of life.

If a biological male states he is a "trans woman", he can only change the gender he IDs as. He cannot change his biological sex.

GPs like any medical professional MUST ensure their patients are told that they can have cross sex hormones to give them "secondary" sex characteristics of the opposite biological sex, THEY do not change biological sex.

ANY endocrinologist would make that clear. There is no debate, and as an intersex person it is crazy that I have to avoid upsetting people by giving them biological and medical facts they actually know, but prefer to deny.

Shocking that ANY one employed by the NHS can get this wrong.
Shocking that liberal lefties in social media ban people for stating simple biological reality that ALL society actually denies and is afraid to state.

I have a vague memory of a thread and this article about the NHS and the classifiers of sex and gender

EmbarrassingAdmissions Is this the thread you're thinking of?

OP Barracker wrote (Tue 16-Oct-18),

"We've been lied to about 'Single SEX' wards since 2010.

medium.com/@anneharperwright/sex-gender-the-nhs-1e8f4e6363a6

They were ALWAYS based upon 'gender'.
The evidence is in NHS documents from 2010.
And the Department of Health were told, by the NHS team, not to tell people wards were segregated by sex, because they knew the policy was based on gender.

But the DOH purposefully used the word sex to the public instead.

We've been deliberately misled."

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

And in other news, bears poo in the woods.

The New Bioethics
A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body
Volume 26, 2020

'De-sexing the Medical Record? An Examination of Sex Versus Gender Identity in the General Medical Council’s Trans Healthcare Ethical Advice'
Sara Dahlen
Published online: 03 Feb 2020

Abstract
"What do the terms sex and gender identity, or gender history, mean in a medical context? When does it matter to a healthcare professional whether a patient has male or female reproductive biology? How should a doctor approach a patient who does not wish for their biological sex to be openly acknowledged? The General Medical Council (GMC) advises doctors that transgender patients may have the marker for their sex amended to instead reflect their gender identity. This paper will attempt to critically examine two key points in the GMC trans healthcare ethical advice using Beauchamp and Childress’ Four Principles approach, exploring how doctors might consider an incongruence between sex and gender identity in clinical practice." (continues)
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20502877.2020.1720429

Sydney Selwyn Winner
Speaker: Dr Sara Dahlen
Lecture title: An examination of sex versus gender identity in the GMC's Trans Healthcare Ethical Advice

9 Oct 2020

As Dr Dahlen makes clear in both the paper and lecture the additional field relevant to those who identify as transgender is 'gender identity'

@EmbarrassingAdmissions - thank you for the links. It's evrn more shocking that the NHS already has this facility but it hasn't been used correctly.

Stop the press!

Patient confidentiality needs protecting though. Eg receptionists don’t need to know people’s birth sex. It could lead to misgendering (or dodgy furtive glances) which would put some people off from seeking care.

In situations where it really matters then yes a consultant for example might need to know in which case a note that the patient is transsexual m2f or f2m can be included in the referral (which I believe many doctors discretely do) or perhaps there could be different levels of access to records based on position and a need to know basis.

we do need sex/gender/organs recorded more accurately on everyones medical records.

I must admit that I was irritated it took >6 weeks for the vaccination programme to start asking people which ethnicity category they would pick (no data collected previously).

I think this is based on the article in the BMJ a couple of weeks back which will now reach more people via the Times.

Some trans activists commented on this article this morning as according to them it proves how we do need sex/gender/organs recorded more accurately on everyones medical records.

The idea is that we do away with the simple M/F sex box but obviously the gender category is a necessity with as many options as people need. Then there will be a list of organs (uterus, cervix, ovaries, breasts, penis, testicles, prostate etc) and an individual ticks whether they have them or not. I guess they will also need to specify how many of each they have?

Do they really think that would work well for the vast majority of the country? I suppose that wouldn't matter provided it's an inclusive system and no trans person is forced to 'dox' themselves.