Telegraph - Patient safety fears as NHS allows trans sex offenders in female-only wards

Male patients were assessed as presenting a certain problem when mixed with female patients, so all males are excluded and as transwomen are all males , that should include them

NHS single sex policies are gender [identity] policies and as such they are currently unable to exclude male patients from female single sex accomodation. In fact excluding male patients who identify as women and vice versa would incur financial penalties to the hospital trust.
What has happened is that policies have been shaped by the demands of lobbyists for individual males' 'rights' to affirmation of gender identity rather than the recognition of responsibility to Safeguard female patients.

Vulvamort (via Twitter)

"About NHS single sex wards.
Let me explain something.

The 2010 policy which is called "Eliminating Mixed Sex Accommodation" (MSA) is based upon Gender, NOT sex.
It's CALLED sex.
That's the PR.
But it is based on gender.

And it involves financial fines for breaches.

It means that if you have a ward of 5 cervix-havers and a 6th cervix-haver joins them, the hospital will be fined for a breach if the 6th identifies as 'a man'.
That would be a mixed gender breach.

But if you place a penis-haver in amongst them, that's no breach, if he identifies as 'a woman'.
This would be a single gender ward.

The 5 women's 'genders' are assumed for them.

And the policy reports on 'gender'."

twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1422501854970253337

Unless a prisoner is transferred to hospital , how would the medical staff know if someone had previously been convicted of a sex crime? Safeguarding should always be based on worst case scenario and that is why the single sex policy was introduced. Male patients were assessed as presenting a certain problem when mixed with female patients, so all males are excluded and as transwomen are all males , that should include them

Chickenyhead It is difficult reading, however the more of us who are aware and demand the re-establishment of Safeguarding principles and policies that protect children and women the sooner dignity, respect and humanity will be restored.

@r0wantrees

Thanks, I will keep reading it, but that story of the 88yo woman made me teary. How on earth is this right?

No dignity.
No respect.
No humanity.

For historical background the thread below is useful.
AngryAttackKittens wrote, Thu 03-Jan-19
"I'm going to point every "but the nice, harmless old school transsexuals whose movement has been unfairly appropriated by the nasty transgender people" person to this thread from now on.

All the same elements we're seeing now were there in that old BBC roundtable from the 70s with the 4 transwomen, the politician, and the doctor. None of this is new."
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

A great template letter with all the links on how to find who in the NHS in your locality to send a letter to is here:

docs.google.com/document/d/1YaacyWCeXwK001LDY0mW57LdHMzpDwFsaypxyrmTUkc/edit

So all of that fuss last year about how the self ID laws would not pass was a smokescreen for the fact it isnt necessary anyhow?

So in effect, we have self ID every way except legal documents.

Self ID exists for legal documents. These can all be changed with support from those private clinicians who follow 'affirmative practice' principles eg self ID.

So sex offenders feelings are more important than women’s? We really are at the bottom of the pile, aren’t are

So in effect, we have self ID every way except legal documents.

www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/experts/legal/transgender-rights-in-the-workplace#gref

Since the court ruling in Land rover stating that transgender people need not take any action to change sex. I believe we are living in gender no man's land currently. Very scary as one side is more scary than the other.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jamiewareham/2020/09/16/non-binary-people-protected-by-equality-act-in-landmark-ruling-against-jaguar-land-rover/amp/

So how is it that vulnerable women in prisons, in hospitals are being forced to live with it as if it is law and if they complain they are branded as bigots or even criminals?

Good question. Trans lobbying groups have brought in self ID by the back door, with no or inadequate equality impact assessment.

Self-ID isn’t law in this country is it or have I missed something?

So how is it that vulnerable women in prisons, in hospitals are being forced to live with it as if it is law and if they complain they are branded as bigots or even criminals?

Presumably this will apply whether or not the patient has a GRC? It’s self-ID by the back door!

The sex/gender data in NHS records are changed without a patient having a GRC. The GRC requires 'evidence' of having lived as if the opposite sex so having changed NHS record and acquired a passport etc with opposite sex data would be expected. GPs who provide the supporting form for passports and action change of sex/gender on medical records will have no way of judging who will/intends to obtain a GRC in the future.

Since 2004 approximately 6000 GRCs have been issued.

I would be fine about sharing space with a post-op trans woman. What I have a problem with is penises. I don’t want penises in my space when I’m vulnerable or undressed, regardless of who they’re attached to or what the owner’s gender is. I find it shocking that I would be refused treatment because I don’t feel comfortable about having a penis wafted in front of me.

Presumably this will apply whether or not the patient has a GRC? It’s self-ID by the back door!

I also doubt that the majority of male patients would wish to share single-sex accomodation with female patients.

All of the major political parties identified single-sex hospital accomodation as an important policy. This has been a target indicator for many years and hospital trusts are required to submit data confirming compliance.

Every former minister who has announced success in achieving single-sex NHS accomodation should be held to account.

ibid. Anne Harper-Wright
(extract)
"The claim: Elimination of Mixed Sex wards.
In 2010, to great fanfare, Health Secretary Andrew Lansley of the Conservative party announced the Coalition Government’s laudable commitment to place all NHS hospital patients in single-sex wards — with any mixed sex breaches made public and financial penalties imposed.

“It should be more than an expectation, it should be a requirement that patients who are admitted should be admitted to single-sex accommodation,” the Health Secretary told BBC Radio 4’s PM programme.
“Patients should be in single-sex accommodation, meaning that all of their period that they are admitted they should be in a bed or a bay which only consists of people of the same sex.
“And they should be able to come and go, for example to all their washing and toilet facilities, without having to pass through a part of the ward or another ward where there might be people of a different sex… so to that extent they would have the kind of privacy and dignity people have a right to expect.”
And he added:
“Patients should not suffer the indignity of being cared for in mixed-sex accommodation. I am determined to put an end to this practice, where it is not clinically justified.” (continues)

The truth: “The policy commitment relates to gender, not sex”.

Despite what the public were told, the policy was always explicitly based upon segregating by ‘gender’ and not sex, right from its inception.
NHS documents and records dated from 2010 show that before the policy was implemented, whilst still in its design stages, the specifications always related to gender, not sex. And yet the name of the policy, and all references to it to the general public were explicitly instructed to be sex, not gender. The opposite of the truth.

The deliberate use of the word SEX to name the policy, whilst using GENDER to facilitate it, was a Department of Health mandate from Andrew Lansley.

The NHS Information Standards Team who were tasked with creating the infrastructure to execute monitoring and reporting on breaches of this policy understood their task. To utilise patient data relating to gender, not sex. To segregate wards by assumed or self-declared ‘gender’, not sex. Discussions at that time between the NHS team and the DOH left no doubt; what was being created was a standard that measured breaches in mixed-gender, not mixed sex wards. Mixing people of differently sexed bodies was acceptable, whilst ‘psyches’ were separated.

The NHS team told the Department of Health that the name of this policy was misleading. They insisted it should truthfully be called “Eliminating Mixed Gender Accommodation’. A source within the NHS confirmed that they fully understood that this policy related to gender, but that the DOH was explicit in its directive:
Segregate wards by gender. But definitely tell people it is by sex. “To ensure a better public understanding”. (continues)

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

You know what, though, I'm an agnostic, no religion, I'm liberal and experienced and open minded. Not prudish, not especially shy.

I dont want to share a ward with a male when I am vulnerable. That's all. No special circumstances, I'm an average woman.

It would be much simpler and cheaper to segregate on the basis of sex.

NHS records do not accurately record the sex of patients. They were intended to record sex and where applicable gender [identity] however sex was migrated to the 'gender' data field where it could be altered at the request/demand of patients. This is despite 2009 NHS assessments identifying the serious risks of doing so.

'Sex, Gender & the NHS part 2: Your Medical Record and your Ladybrain'
Anne Harper-Wright
Nov 13, 2018
(extract)
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. (continues)

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.
One of the main documents was called the Common User Interface — Sex and Current Gender Input and Display.
The consequences of an NHS mix up between sex and gender were recognised as dire.

“The term ‘Gender’ is now considered too ambiguous to be desirable or safe” (continues)

And the documentation prescribing the architecture of the systems is liberally peppered with warnings about the consequences of conflating the two. Sex and Gender are NOT the same thing, and confusion has serious consequences. (continues)

Having ascertained what the sex fields and gender fields are in our medical records, and having read the NHS documents determining how the data should be entered and used, I was confident that my own personal medical record would reflect the safety guidance. And perhaps look something like the linked examples above:
e.g. Sex = Female, Gender = unknown.
I submitted my Subject Access Request to my local hospital to look at my own medical record data.

And what I found was this.
My personal medical record sex field is BLANK. Unpopulated.
In a disturbing turn of events, the hospital that cared for me in pregnancy and childbirth, twice, doesn’t know what physical sex I am. (continues)

I think the NHS should probably urgently consider that whilst their sex and gender design guidance was exemplary, their execution of it has failed, horribly, and that failure is now exposing patients to actual, physical risk.

The NHS have monumentally screwed up here. There are very real risks to having patient medical records that do not capture sex, but which instead log only purported masculine or feminine feelings, changeable at will, or at the careless keystroke of an administrative assistant or busy healthcare professional. And a field which can be altered and edited easily is a field which exposes a patient to risk. Should sex be easily editable? No, it should be cast-iron locked down, and it should be the field used for every significant clinical application. And it should be sex, not gender that is the measure used to analyse patient outcomes for diseases, treatments. And it should be sex, not gender, that is the characteristic used to segregate wards for privacy." (continues)
medium.com/@anneharperwright/sex-gender-the-nhs-bb86b0c3ebb

Template letter here:

mobile.twitter.com/sleeepysandy/status/1422475320444268589

Channel you inner Baroness Nicholson and get writing!

YY Lemon and R0.

It’s not only about sex offences though, is it? It’s about how women feel sleeping, washing, being catheterised or being examined in an area where there are trans women patients too.

A devoutly religious woman might feel very uncomfortable sleeping beside a stranger who was clearly born a man.
A young 16 year old girl feel very uncomfortable sharing a bay with two adults with male genitalia visible.
A woman being admitted might feel very uncomfortable talking about her periods, sexual activity or breasts with just a thin disposable curtain between her and a man.