Thread for discussing how women can ask NHS for female HCPs

There's no guarantee that 'man' or 'woman', 'male' or 'female' can be taken to mean what sane people know them to mean. Particularly after the demonstration by Upton who completely pretzeled the language. With some individuals getting a straight (fnarr) answer is akin to deciding which is the safe door when one guardian always lies and one lets him.

The letter states that two gender options are available 'man' or 'woman' but this is a lie. The options shown are 'male' or 'female'.

I read somewhere recently that the GMC say they are going to drop recording gender. If I can find it again, I’ll post it.

My guess is they have realised it is a hot potato so are getting themselves out of it. It dumps the problem somewhere else.

The GMC see fit to publish doctor’s qualifications, which is one of the key criteria for me in selecting a doctor (in situations where I’d be able to). For me, the doctor’s sex is another key criteria in at least some matters. I think the GMC should publish this, and doctors should accept patients need to know.

Applies to other HCPs too.

And what is the Sullivan Review?

Got it. Not sure how easy this will be to read.

The letter also stated that since 2015 i think it was. there has been no need to record sex, only gender, so we really need to find out how that decision was taken [on every female in the country's behalf, without permission] and how it can be revised back to sex.

If anyone has a copy of that letter to hand, before I go and find it, can they post it?

Good idea for a thread.

I posted this on one of the Peggie threads but they move so fast it's hard to find it. Worth noting this hear, just a part of what women might want to do in their particular area/NHS trust etc. even before you find yourself in a situation where you could be vulnerable or unconscious or scared etc.

https://x.com/allanpetrie91/status/1889591533013242177?s=46

"In response to NHS Taysides Intimate Personal Care and Chaperoning Policy (Adult and Child). i have sent this letter.

Subject: Grave Concerns Regarding Policy and Legal Compliance (Intimate Personal Care and Chaperoning Policy (Adult and Child)

Dear Ms Connor

I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the information contained within NHS Tayside Intimate Personal Care and Chaperoning Policy (Adult and Child).
This policy appears to be an ill-thought out, politically motivated initiative that lacks respect and dignity for some of the most vulnerable members of our society. It is shocking and unacceptable that such a policy would be proposed, given the clear breaches of legal protections that it entails.
Breach of Legal Protections
The policy in question purports to align with existing legal frameworks, but a careful examination reveals that it in fact contradicts and undermines fundamental legal rights. Specifically, it appears to breach the following:

1.The Equality Act 2010:
This legislation provides distinct protections based on Sex and Gender Reassignment as separate protected characteristics. Policies that fail to differentiate between the two may result in unlawful discrimination against individuals whose rights are specifically protected under this law.

2.The Human Rights Act 1998:

This Act guarantees the right to privacy, dignity, and non-discrimination. The implementation of policies that disregard biological sex in favour of gender identity alone could infringe on the rights of women, particularly in healthcare settings where sex-based protections are vital.

3.The NHS Constitution:

The guiding principles of the National Health Service require patient centred care that respects the specific needs of individuals. A failure to recognise and accommodate the unique medical and biological needs of individuals based on sex undermines these commitments.

4.Offences Against the Person Act 1861
It is essential to remember that medical professionals, like all individuals, are bound by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. While they are legally permitted to carry out procedures that would otherwise constitute assault, such as physical examinations, injections, and surgeries, this is only lawful with the informed consent of the patient.
Without such consent, any physical intervention, regardless of intent, constitutes assault under the law. This includes a woman’s explicit refusal to be examined by a biological male doctor, requesting a same sex doctor is a valid and lawful exercise of bodily autonomy. Any attempt to proceed without consent, or to pressure a patient into accepting an unwanted examiner, is a breach of legal and ethical standards and may constitute criminal assault under this Act.

Sex v Gender: A Crucial Distinction.

It is particularly alarming that a health service policy does not differentiate between Sex and Gender, given that both are distinct and have different legal and medical implications.

Sex is a biological classification (male or female) based on reproductive anatomy and genetics. It is immutable and has direct implications for medical care, such as differences in disease risk, drug metabolism, and specific healthcare needs.
Gender is a social and psychological identity that may or may not align with an individual’s biological sex. While gender identity could be a consideration for personal and social recognition, it does not replace or override the biological realities that must be considered in healthcare.

Differential Legal Rights
The legal framework recognises and protects sex and gender separately.
Sex-Based Protections: Women have the right to single sex spaces in certain contexts (e.g., hospital wards, prisons, and changing facilities) under the Equality Act 2010.
Gender-Based Protections: The Gender Recognition Act 2004 allows individuals with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) to be legally recognised as their acquired gender, but this does not erase sex-based rights or override biological considerations in all circumstances.

By failing to uphold these legal distinctions, the policy in question risks violating the rights of vulnerable groups, particularly women and those with specific medical needs based on biological sex.

I urge you to reconsider the implementation of this policy considering its legal and ethical shortcomings. Policies within the health service must be based on clear, lawful, and evidence-based considerations that respect the dignity, privacy, and rights of all individuals, particularly the most vulnerable in our society.

I would appreciate a response outlining how these concerns will be addressed and what steps will be taken to ensure that legal obligations are met. I look forward to your prompt attention to this serious matter.

Yours sincerely,

Allan Petrie
Chairperson
Glenlaw House parent/carer support group"

But equally I think it's important to think how we can 'arm' ourselves with whatever information we can to rely upon in 'the moment' when faced with an HCP like Upton or his many supporters. So I'm hoping someone will post something that helps with that too.

Slightly different but I had an OP last year. It was private but only day case and I was put in a ward not a private room. I immediately asked if it was female only, the nurse knew exactly what I meant and assured me it was. I can't remember her exact words but something like 'they would be given their own room'.

I do think this is difficult. I like to think I am a strong woman but at you are often very vulnerable in medical situations. I have decided to always ask for a natal woman and let those around me know this.

Given the way things are at the moment tools seem that if someone has a GRC then in the eyes of the law they are the gender they say they are and a person would be discriminating if they refused to be treated by them in the same way that if they refused because the person was black.

I had another situation where I changed consultant because I couldn't understand him, he had a heavy accent, and I felt he was dismissive of me. This again was private but was a gynaecologist appt. I'm not sure if I could have done this in the NHS.

Anyway I think the only way around this is for women to push back and refuse although the medical profession seems totally captured and women still seem to be seen as 'making a fuss'. I also think that unfortunately too many women seem 'fine with it' so it's a real battle.

For doctors, the GMC Register records gender (not sex). So there is no help there.

The GMC reply to Baroness Nicholson’s letter (she published it on X) is that where a doctor changes name (as most transitioners do), they keep a confidential record of the connection between the old record and the new record for ‘administrative and regulatory purposes’, with access restricted to the few staff who need to see it. In other words, they keep it a secret from patients.

I’m sorry to hear of your past trauma @OuterSpaceCadet

But yes you’re totally right, the trauma response could make it impossible to challenge even if you wanted to say something.

It is so so hard to advocate for yourself in a medical setting and in my view the GMC need to make absolutely crystal clear that a request for female/ same sex/ woman only care is a request for a biological woman (I.e. excluding a trans woman) and that it is to be treated as such and trans women HCPs do not attend in that situation unless the patient has specifically freely said that’s okay.

On the trans man question I think that’s harder because she would be biologically female but her male presentation may be alarming or distressing to some women.

Thanks @OuterSpaceCadet, I agree this is an important discussion that merits its own thread. Good suggestion @alisondonut.

Just copying over my post from the other thread:

1. I get why people are asking how we can ask this without getting a trans woman, but all of that is expecting average women to have any idea of the intricacies of gender identity theory. I can’t imagine my grandma knowing what a ‘cis’ woman is or ‘assigned female at birth’ means, even if we put aside the fact that expecting patients to understand such concepts means forcing them to engage in a contested belief system.
2. I don’t think one can underestimate the guts you’d have to have to refuse a trans woman doctor when you have already requested female care and you are then presented with a trans woman. It’s a direct challenge to you isn’t it? They understood your request, ignored it, presented you with a male who identifies as female and now you have to have the guts to say ‘not you’ in a way that somehow doesn’t offend. It’s absolutely insane to think that most women in that situation, knowing what happens to ‘transphobes’ would feel free to say what they really want. Plenty of women (me included) find it hard to be assertive at the best of times, let alone faced with such a direct challenge, in a setting which already had a power imbalance and when you are already vulnerable.