This is just vile NHS again

''The Mental Capacity Act was preloaded against ideological distortion of policies such as Annex B. If NHS staff allowed a man to sleep alongside a woman who lacked legal capacity, and an assault occurred, they could spend 5 years in prison for the offence of wilful neglect.''
https://twitter.com/DearRebelAda/status/1678854032788529153

You can lack capacity temporarily, for example if you are unconscious, or have been prescribed sedating meds or an anaesthetic.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/contents

I don't see anything new in the DM story apart from towards the end where they mention asking the hospital Trusts about their policies on this. They say how many replies they got (out of how many?) and, not surprisingly, these read as though they were written by Tara Hewitt.

One of the comments asks why women are putting up with this! Some people have no idea, do they?

I'm with you 100%. I think that the EqA needs to be clear that any reference to sex is a reference to biological sex; that the biological sex of a person is the sex that a reasonable person would believe to be the sex of that person; that single sex spaces are mandatory unless there is a legitimate reason why they should not be and that any space or service that is advertised as single sex, e.g. a toilet with 'women' on the door, will be open only to the advertised single sex.

I take your point that GRCs were already in existence when the Act was granted Royal assent back in 2010.

But what is clear is that clarification is now required.

And there is a worrying push now for sex to mean self ID, not even legal sex meaning those with a GRC. I doubt this is what was intended by the Act because as I said, it would render the single sex exemption utterly pointless.

This.
Sadly.

It took me years, actual years, of talking about this issue to make my DH take any notice. It didn’t bother him, so he didn’t care.

I am so sorry the NHS is so captured.
Looking from the outside in now, it is horrifying to see the decline, and then they choose to spend funds on this shit.

I have to take issue with your assertion that the EqA meant biological sex. It was written 6 years after the GRA which was clear that acquiring a GRC meant acquiring that legal sex. There were a number of critical thinkers who pointed out the problems but, sadly, they were described as trogdalytes and ignored.

This is why there is discussion ATM about clarifying the EA - sex is a protected characteristic, but it can be argued that this means legal sex, or self ID sex, rather than biological sex.

Clearly when the Act was written it meant biological sex.

Some people want 'sex' to be de facto self ID. Then the provision for any single sex spaces in law would fall apart.

Racist as it disproportionately effects women of colour.

Ablist as it discriminates against those with disabilities.

Twats because they are racist and ablist which makes you a fucking twat

Fucking racist ablist twats

Reasonable and intelligent people can see it. Unreasonable people refuse to see it and the law is on their side.

Why is it so hard to have male, female and disabled toilets?

Why is the third way so reviled?

Why can’t reasonable and intelligent people see that by doing this there is only male toilets?

The EA comes from a first position that equality and non-discrimination must be the norm. It recognises that sometimes exemptions must be made in order to provide equity and because sometimes they may be necessary for other reasons.

So single sex provisions are permitted when they would be proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims.

But these exemptions are permitted, not required. Providers can choose whether or not to provide them dependant upon their political/philosophical position and their desire/ability to withstand bullying.

The point of that part of the Act was to ensure that women's access to single sex toilets and other such services would be legally defendable. It has appears been such an obvious, reasonable and proportionate requirement. I expect that it did not occur to any of the people drafting this Act that there would ever be a situation where organisations would refuse to provide single sex toilets.

Should the EA state that exemptions and separate provisions MUST be provided where appropriate? How would this be worded?

I'm not sure that it is unlawful. Fucking awful, yes, but unlawful, not so sure.

The EqA is one of the greatest sleight's of hand ever perpetrated on women. You might think that it would be illegal to turn single sex spaces into mixed sex spaces but you would be wrong. The provision of single sex spaces, where that provision would be lawful under the EqA, is discretionary rather than mandatory. If the provider chooses not to provide a single sex space then that is lawful. Daft I know but that's where we are.

If a colleague changes their name for any reason and you persistently use their old name despite being asked repeatedly not to, you would be harassing them and an employer could discipline you.

The bit that I think could be overreach is pronouns. You don't own your pronouns in the same way that you own your name and choice of pronouns is up to the speaker/writer. I would guess that trying to enforce specific pronoun usage is coercion and illegal.

Please be aware that I am not a lawyer, I just spend a lot of time picking holes in contracts.

The guidance is unlawful. They shouldn't have consulted with any women about it, because its unlawful.

It’s not Tara Hewitt’s old Trust - indeed, that was NW England & this one’s Yorkshire & NE - so not a parting gift, which I’d wondered. (Couldn’t remember where Hewitt was based other than around that latitude of England & not east coast 🤷‍♀️)

It does seem the advice Hewitt issued last year for NHS staff to ignore ECHR guidance on correct implementation of the EA (as discussed on FWR at the time) may have had an impact though 🧐

Obviously this needs to be retracted - & it creates the issue that reasonable bits, like not refusing to use a colleague’s new name (not meaning occasional lapse/slip of tongue) become seen as unreasonable as they’re bundled in with the whole. And doubtless they’ll devote more funding to rewriting it if forced to bin it - very much doubt they’ve expended even a fraction of those resources on other protected characteristics given the blatant absence of [the application of] an equality impact assessment here.

@JanesLittleGirl that is terrible. Fuming.

Sadly not.

Agree. I didn’t like the gender critical bit. I just don’t want to share toilets with men. Whatever.

Surely, since sex is a protected characteristic, this is illegal?!

I wonder wtaf is wrong with these people? But more than that I want to know where does the money keep coming from to fund this shit?!!! It's rife, there's at least one of these stories every week. The NHS is chronically underfunded where it matters, waiting lists as long as your arm and doctors striking for more pay. So where's the money coming from?!

Ah but you see, they will use their own dodgy definition of 'women' in their EIA and conclude that this ridiculous policy doesn't negatively impact women (meaning anyone who says they are a woman).

That's what the Trust I worked for did. I pointed out that that was illegal, they were therefore failing in their public sector equality duty, but they didn't appear to give a toss. (I also argued for the phrase female bodied to be used instead of 'cis' in policies - they replied that people on their focus group hadn't heard that phrase before and weren't sure what it meant!!! I replied that in that case their focus group couldn't be very diverse as its a well used phrase, and also that if NHS workers don't understand what female bodied means we are truly in trouble. No reply.....🙄)

OK they've done a consultation but what about an Equality Impact Assessment. They can't ask staff about the impact if they are at the same time point blank refusing to listen to concerns.

Because, of course, no harm could ever come to anybody in the care of the NHS, and if it does the NHS can deny the evidence and thus make it not have happened.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/17/hospital-told-police-patient-not-raped-alleged-attacker-transgender/

The NHS that had that horrific report regarding the number of sexual assaults taking place with its hallowed halls, that NHS? Good way to make sexual assault easier, NHS, slow fucking hand clap.