Is this legal? Barts Health NHS recruiting for a director of Operations who identifies as female

I would laugh my tits off if it went to a trans woman who transitioned late in life (by which I mean sob in a corner while questioning when it all started to go so wrong)

And this is the crazy thing. If they want to find women with autism, they will miss a whole massive segment by using this language and will INCLUDE a load of people they aren't interested in. Under their tweet is a man replying saying he's NB 🙄

Also, the NAS was captured a few years ago. When the GRA consultation was out, they said something GC and were pounced on by "activists", so I'm not sure if they are true believers or if it's more of a hostage situation.

Exactly, that's my point. They have followed a classic trajectory of ROGD then late autism diagnosis. A typically female pattern and exactly the kind of thing the research should be looking at. Yet, because they don't "identify as" a woman, they would not be included. It's ridiculous!

@Notmanybroadbeans so the person you know would not be included at all?

See...I'm confusing myself now!

No, it probably isn't and it is clearly something that warrants some research so that support and understanding can improve. It's just they wrote identify as women and non binary on their twitter but then say it's about women and girls and non binary making no differentiation on those born male identifying as women, on their website. It just seems confused.

I'd say anyone who is a woman (don't like cis but not sure what the allowed language is now on here) would not respond to a call out for people who identify as women. The data will be skewed?

The late-diagnosed female person I know is currently identifying as a man... Not uncommon.

@apintortwo I don't think it is aimed that way. I think that is a knowing interpretation if you have looked into things through a GC lens. I think their advert was just confused. This is the link from the ad.

www.autism.org.uk/what-we-do/campaign/our-new-campaign?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=womenscampaign&utm_content=stories

And in twitter there were some responses about not representing women and girls due to their poor language choice. twitter.com/Autism/status/1556630313207533568?t=7jClHNFbrzV_UXhxGKMhmg&s=19

A friend who works at St Barts sent me this a couple of years ago.

Aren't most of these sexual identities the same thing?

Here's an archived copy for the DMphobic:
web.archive.org/web/20220819074417/www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11122945/Fury-sexist-NHS-job-ad-says-preferably-identifies-woman.html

I nearly posted a similar thread the other day when I saw a campaign by the national autism society of all places.

If you saw this advert, who would respond... particularly if autistic? I would not respond as I don't identify as a woman, I am a woman. I don't use the identity as language for myself.

I hear you!

Yes, I'm aware of that @BettyFilous. However the point I was making was that sex discrimination has been with us since 1975, nearly 50 years, yet the NHS still behaves less favourably to wen than it does to men. I think that needs addressing ahead of chest feeding and rainbow crossings personally.

You can welcome applications from any group. So for example, you can welcome applications from members of the Asian community without it being discrimination, even though that does not include all other ethnic minorities and Asian descent is not specified in the Act.

That's true - but it's not the same. Race is a protected characteristic, so you can specify that you want applications from a particular racial or ethnic group.

Similarly, sex is a protected characteristic, so you can specify that you want applications from biological women - or indeed from biological men, if the role requires it (eg maybe it's a men's sexual health role).

Gender reassignment is also a protected characteristic, so you can specify that you want applications from people who have undergone, or are undergoing, gender reassignment.

What you can't do is say you want applications from some biological women, but not all (ie trans men), and some people with gender reassignment but not all (again, trans men).

If only the NHS could focus a bit more on the basics and adhere to the Sex Discrimation Act 1975 I could take it's other equality issue agendas rather more seriously.

The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and other equality-related legislation was rolled into and superseded by the Equality Act 2010.

I don't think anyone forces them to but it is regarded as a positive action in the context of accreditations: Stonewall, etc, and is probably also being increasingly demanded by funding bodies for research grants.

But who forces them to do this? What would happen if they didn't?

As far as I can tell no one is forcing them to do it and nothing will happen if they don't!

One trust replied to the FOI sent saying they were unaware of the scheme (they must be living in another planet).

If that group is under-represented in their workforce it's entirely legal.

However the NHS has far bigger equality issues to deal with. For example at my local trust all the women are referred to as Jane Smith; all the men are referred to as Mr John Doe. The men are afforded the courtesy of a title but the women aren't. Don't get me on the equality issues of Dr's of either sex expecting patients to address then with a title when they do not afford patients that level of courtesy. Notwithstanding the fact that women's pain has been under estimated and under treated by HCPs for generations.

If only the NHS could focus a bit more on the basics and adhere to the Sex Discrimation Act 1975 I could take it's other equality issue agendas rather more seriously.

How about hospitals just abide by the Equality Act, full stop. Why the need to 'sign up' to any 'scheme'?

Exactly apintortwo

Looking again at the requirements for Leadership to demonstrate LGBT friendly activities, supplying evidence with specific dates, names, job titles it's just mad that trusts are beholden to these organisations, having to do their homework and send it in for marking like this. The time and money involved is mind boggling. And I'm not sure names should be shared like this.

I'd like to think NHS trusts and their leaders had more important priorities.

Added screen shot of Barts' reply to the request.

Well well well...excellent sleuthing Magnolia.

Indeed they are.