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

Director of operations is most definitely not a pointless role, it's a genuine and very necessary role in a hospital (it may have slightly different names in different Trusts), and in this case reports directly to the a chief exec.

It's likely to be band 8d or 9, the highest paid bands under the NHS agenda for change pays scales, plus Higher cost area allowance. The role is essentially running the day to day operations of the hospital. What do you think would be a fair wage for it? You're not going to get anyone decent applying for it if you pay, say, £40,000. The director of operations in many private companies is likely to be paid a lot more than that.

It is odd though because the NHS say diversity monitoring forms are not viewed at interview stage and not used to select candidates...

So, that's going to throw up some interesting issues. How do they know someone is a woman if they aren't looking at the form where the woman would state she is indeed a woman?

What a tangled web we weave

If you look at Bart’s Exec Board: www.bartshealth.nhs.uk/executive-directors
It is comprised of 8 white men, 1 white woman, 1 man from an ethnic minority. This is incredibly unrepresentative of the area they serve.

It’s hardly surprising that they’re trying to encourage applicants in areas where they are lacking, particularly as there is plenty of evidence that exec teams with a mix of backgrounds and viewpoints perform better.

They have not said that only women or people from an ethnic minority could apply.

Ah, but he'll have special feelz not available to the other men, so it will be all very inclusive and diverse.

'Well, they'd have to refuse to consider your application first' - it didn't stop the Men and Boys Coalition charity from complaining to the Mail, or the Mail from publishing it.

From the article:

'Its chief executive, Dan Bell, told MailOnline: 'This advert is implying in a very clear and unsubtle way that men should not bother to apply, and if they do, they are unlikely anyway to be successful.
'This is illegal and discriminatory against male applicants as set out in Government Guidance and the Equality Act.''

I'm pretty sure what he's complaining about will be also applicable to GC women.

I read it as they are looking for a biological woman or someone who identifies as a woman as all their senior staff ( and it is a senior job) are pale, male and stale.

The wording is confusing

It's been explained they want to level out their senior board positions by employing a woman.

But they'd accept a man.

Not sure this particular expression of gender critical belief has been set in a legal judgment, so it may not be possible to legally challenge it

Well, they'd have to refuse to consider your application first. Presumably you'd hit the crunch when you refused to tick an "identify as female" box.

If they refused to consider the application because you refused to say you "identified as female", then it would be clear direct discrimination on belief, because they would have considered another woman who did not refuse to "identify as female". Requiring you to "identify as female" to get a job is a belief test - such things may be permitted in some circumstances, but much more limited than the sex exemptions, and almost certainly not relevant to this job.

Also, if they refused an application from a transman, at least without a GRC, whether or not they "identified as female" that would be discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. If the transman didn't "identify as female" it would be indirectly discriminating on the basis of gender reassignment, as they would have considered (genderologist) women who do "identify as female".

If the transman had a GRC, then it's above my pay grade.

They want a woman, their language is just crap - as they knew there would be a pile on if they said "a woman". It's been explained they want to level out their senior board positions by employing a woman.

Also Barts are one of the trusts about to get a lot of sexual violence funding (via the London violence reduction scheme - it now includes sexual violence and trauma funding seemingly) - it makes sense they have a more diverse board in terms of sex for this as well as diversity reasons.

Yep, I read that as they are looking to recruit a transwoman.

No, I don't think they mean that. You would have be nuts to target an advert for a role of this type at TW, when the pool of suitable people of any sex or gender identity is pretty small.

I think they mean that they encourage applications from women (including TW). Historically, in the NHS, senior ops roles are male-dominated and, as a PP has said, it is not unlawful to encourage applications from under-represented groups.

However, because they are fuckwits, they have chosen this ridiculous wording, which potentially opens them up to accusations of discrimination from men who are not TW, as well as confusing the hell out of potential applicants, and probably pissing off TW (who won't want to be distinguished from women) into the bargain.

Is the Forstater ruling relevant?

I’m a female identifying as a male identifying as a female so I thought this would be the job for me.

but when I tried to apply it was page not found ,job no longer available
what has happened

Yes, I think that's actually quite clear that they are. Not sure this particular expression of gender critical belief has been set in a legal judgment, so it may not be possible to legally challenge it

It's just their mindless way of saying "a woman". They obviously want to redress an imbalance and want more women, but before going to print some helpful zealot has piped up to say "we should say "identifies as" to be trans inclusive", and nobody has had the wit or the courage (or foolhardiness) to question it.

What I'm interested in, given that gender identity is not a protected characteristic, is whether they can indeed discriminate to their heart's content on it, just as they could say "particularly seeking a Star Wars fan" or "a Sagittarius". Is there a situation where you wouldn't be justified in saying "women only" or "men only", but could say "people who identify as X only?". Which would be discrimination by the back door, in effect, but it would be interesting to see a fine legal mind untangle that.

TO clarify, by 'not allowed' I mean according to Stonewall law.

I imagine they mean they want a woman but they know you aren't allowed to say that any more.

To me it appears from the article that the trust wanted actual females if possible to apply (re-listed ad to widen the short-list in the job where women are underrepresented).

The complaints described in DM are by MRAs claiming it's discrimination. It is not a well worded ad, so they may have a point. If you 'particularly welcome' applications from certain groups you need to explain why, in the advert, clearly.

The trust, however, also seems to think that being female is an identity, which is worrying, but is not addressed in the article at all.

It seems that DM has mixed in rather different issues here, as half the article quotes men's rights groups complaining about the poor discriminated menz, and the other half talks about Stonewall-inspired de-sexing of women's NHS advice pages.

Are they disxrimating against gender critical women because we do not 'identify' as female?

I don't read it as specifically seeking a transwoman but rather as requiring a belief in gender identity. I'm no lawyer but that sounds pretty dubious to me.

Even better. You could open with:

"I don't just identify as female, I actually am female!!"

Within gender woo 'ciswomen' (shudder) identify as women as much as men do, because being a woman is an idea. Hope they are flooded with applications from woman identifying GC feminists!