I complained to CQC, here's their response (I'm not impressed)

It's not thousands of people who work for the NHS.

It's over a million. Around 1.3 million.

Its the 6th largest employer in the world at the moment. Behind the US, Chinese and Russian armies, Walmart and McDonald's.

It's also an employer that has a significant number of women working for it.

But yes by all means read a post from one poster (I missed it but see she has replied), decide everyone else on the thread agrees. And despite the fact that it's clearly about the guidance being issued.. Decide that the thrust is that every single one of those men and women is a misogynist. And say look see obviously you come across as extremists.

???!!!

Thanks for your thoughts Neonprint and I take on board your comment about appearing to write off everyone in an organisation when calling it out for misogyny.
However, I initially became aware of the dangers of trans activism via real life issues (rather than via online) and seeing this played out in real life and the harm being done to children, I make no apologies for the occasional exasperated comment.
But if you believe that the GC women on here are merely 'internet radicalised' then you really haven't been paying attention to what is happening to women in sport, schools, prisons, hospitals, charities and government.

Which was to write of thousands of people in any organisation who do something you disagree with is just a bit embarrassing. It makes you look like you have no nuance and just as bad as the TRAs you all complain about as being extreme and having no real understanding.

The complaint was that the people writing the equalities policy are disregarding the concerns of women. It's the organisition which is demonstrating misogyny. That's not to say that everyone working there agrees with their misogynistic attitude. Some of them might even be posting here, frustrated that they can do nothing against the Stonewalling of the organisation they work for. I thought this was obvious, but perhaps some people need to have this spelled out to them.

Radicalisation doesn't win arguments and tbh all of the GC people here absolutely smack of Internet radicalisation just like TRAs do.

So you have just made a blanket assumption about everyone posting here after saying that we 'have no nuance' and 'no real understanding'.

But this has absolutely nothing to do with my point. Which was to write of thousands of people in any organisation who do something you disagree with is just a bit embarrassing. It makes you look like you have no nuance and just as bad as the TRAs you all complain about as being extreme and having no real understanding.

Radicalisation doesn't win arguments and tbh all of the GC people here absolutely smack of Internet radicalisation just like TRAs do.

But couldn't "more inclusive" language mislead people, if they aren't actually legally covered on the wider meaning they are thinking of?

Exactly - they are hovered for sex, it by using gender they are removing the rights for, example, to choose a healthcare professional based on sex.

But couldn't "more inclusive" language mislead people, if they aren't actually legally covered on the wider meaning they are thinking of?

Neonprint
Do feel free to explain what motivates the wholesale removal of women's rights, language, single sex spaces (prisons, hospitals, showers and changing rooms), and sport? And why organisations like the CQC feel empowered to change the precise language of laws relating to equality because they don't like the words used?
I see misogyny (hatred or dislike of, or prejudice against women) as a major factor but am happy to consider alternative propositions.

And if you're interested in trans rights (dunno if you are?) the fact that this way of gathering stats is unhelpful for trans people as well is surely of interest?

It is mysogyny when orgs decide that stats on sex are not needed, or it doesn't matter if they're accurate. Because of the historical and current differences in attitudes and experiences of people who are male v female, with female people usually getting the shitty end of the stick.

While collecting info on the experiences of children about their time in hosp. And not collecting sex info. But only gender ID. And somehow thinking that because some people will take gender to mean sex and some people will take gender to mean gender means everything is cool. When it fact they end up with no solid info on the experiences for children of different sexes, no info on how many are trans, and no way to know if trans children, male children, or female children are reporting a negative experience compared to the others.

Yep yep that is really very sensible indeed.

Unhinged 🙄

These generalisations make people look unhinged.

I'm coming at it from the pov that there is no way they are going to change it because women complain.

My point is that their data collection does not collect decent data on trans people and therefore is not supporting them properly.

I suspect that will make them sit up and take notice.

The arguments of gay rights, feminism, those fighting against racism, and DSD groups have been taken twisted and turned against the very groups who came up with them in the first place.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander at it were.

I was recently at a work thing for employee data and asked why sex was not asked. I was told 'you can't ask people about their sex'...!!!

So I said honestly that if they ask gender only, and people who are non binary say they have experienced sexism. You will have no way of knowing if they are male or female. There was a very long pause and they ummed and ahhed and moved on. The people who had said you can't ask sex didn't offer an argument against my point.

The points I raise are all ones I have seen raised by trans rights supporters. So it's not out of line.

I think this is the only thing that lots of orgs will listen to at this point.

Of course I understand if people disagree- I know exactly where you're coming from!

"EHRC stated [in court when she applied for judical review] that it had informed some organisations that their policies were unlawful and that it would do the same with other organisations that came to its attention.
Some of you might like to think about letter-writing…"

And this seems a prime case. Good luck!

Definitely from Stonewall training. We've seen almost exact same response from other organisations

@Leafstamp here's an idea.... FOI them to see if their response is a cut and paste from stonewall...

1. Go to www.whatdotheyknow.com/ and register as a user. (Keep that tab open.)

1. Go to Stonewall’s list of Diversity Champions, and choose CQC

1. Go back to www.whatdotheyknow.com/. Type the name of CQC into the search box.

1. Scroll down the results page a short way to check that there hasn’t been a recent #DontSubmitToStonewall request made to CQC

1. submit an FOI asking if the phrases in their response are from Stonewall communications in any form, including training, or email or correspondence

more here legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/02/04/shining-a-light-on-stonewalls-activities/

Because everyone covered under the term ‘Sex’ is included in the term ‘Gender’, whereas some people may feel excluded by the use of the term Sex.

Presumably those whose 'gender' doesn't match their sex, those for whom 'gender' isn't just a polite euphemism for 'sex'. The people who, in point of law, can be excluded in situations where the EA exceptions allow for single sex provision which should (though shamefully doesn't) include hospital wards.

Collecting gender only could also feel like pressure to declare their trans identity before they are ready.

Mixing in (sorry) cisgender people who will assume it means sex with trans people gives no insight into the trans cohort.

Gerbil, "cisgender" is not a thing. Please don't use it about everyone who doesn't identify as the opposite sex, as it includes me, and I don't have a gender identity, just my sex.

Ps I also head that form for my 12 y o son. I also crossed out gender and wrote sex. Because they ask the form to be completed by the child, it prompted some interesting discussions where I could explain that there is a difference.

Put it back to them - how can they uphold their responsibilities to monitor protected characteristics under the EA when their wording diverges from that in the legislation? They are confusing 2 words that mean opposite things.

Those of us who don't have a gender are being excluded - why is that ok?

Diseases don't give a flying fuck about how you ID, they are relevant to your physical sexed body. Normal ranges of observations, drug doses, physical exams etc do not very by gender, they vary by sex. If I identified as male, I would still need mammograms (unless I had a bilateral mastectomy). I wouldn't need a prostate exam because I don't have one. Medicine is all about the body.

If my car(a Kia) needs a service, I don't take it to the BMW garage because I've decided that it identifies as a BMW - because physically it's a Kia and it needs Kia spare parts!

God how is this not obvious?

In order to turn the tide on the ‘gender is inclusive’ message, we need gender critical people to refuse to give their gender (prefer not to say) or if that is not an option, to it give it as something meaningless as non-binary.

'Non binary' really isn't a good option. It might be meaningless to us, but there is a push by genderists to get it legally recognised. The more people who use it, the more it will be viewed as a popular 'identity' which should be legally recognised.

It's much better to push them to use the word sex when they mean sex.

Gerbil - there should be no ‘prefer not to say’ option for sex as everyone has a biological sex

In order to turn the tide on the ‘gender is inclusive’ message, we need gender critical people to refuse to give their gender (prefer not to say) or if that is not an option, to it give it as something meaningless as non-binary. If workplaces started having lots of people withholding their gender, their data would get messed up and they would have to think again about having a biological sex question

And I'd be really interested to know how they respond to those points (which are points that many trans groups etc have flagged).

Ok

I think that it might be fruitful to point out how their wording fails to cater to the trans community in a meaningful way.

They are not capturing whether the person is trans or not. In capturing only male or female they have no way of understanding how many are trans. This is a failing as it's vital to get meaningful info on this protected group.

In addition. It fails to cater to those who have gender identities that are neither simply male or female. Children in particular are identifying as non binary. The form as it stands really enforces a binary (male female other) which may feel oppressive/unsafe/undermining to children who are gender diverse and identity with a non binary identity or are agender.

Collecting gender only could also feel like pressure to declare their trans identity before they are ready.

Mixing in (sorry) cisgender people who will assume it means sex with trans people gives no insight into the trans cohort.

As the data protection act states that sensitive info should only be collected if necessary, and kept under stricter access than data that is personal. To conflate sex and gender is potentially a risk.

To fully support trans patients it would be beneficial to ask along these lines-

Sex male/ female/ prefer not to say
Gender identity if different from sex. (Again sorry). Woman or girl/ man or woman / non binary/ agender / other (free text) / prefer not to say

Something like that.

I cannot understand at all why trans activists want to obscure collecting meaningful data about trans people in this way. It makes no sense to me.

Their message to you is plain wrong. They’ve said they are using the term gender to mean the protected characteristic of sex, but those two words are no longer synonymous hence their later comment that one term is seen as more inclusive than the other.
In fact not longer are they not synonymous with each other, they are demonstrably at odds with each other!