GMC - sex-based registration

💯 And an effective policy would also protect all of these butch lesbians that TRAs have suddenly sprouted concern for. If patients know that the hospital’s procedures ensure that the person treating or caring for them is female, when this has been requested, then they are unlikely to upset all of these male looking females through the aggressive questioning that is definitely currently happening.

As far as dating things is concerned, there’s the government’s 2008 The Provision of Public Toilets. It mentions a gender equality duty and gender throughout though this is in terms of the polite way of saying sex. There is no mention of people of one sex going into the toilet of the other sex out of any other reason than to have sex.

I think the blurring of what gender means is important and the exploitation of its usage when the real intent was a way of avoiding ‘doing sex’. I had a form at the doctors last year that mentioned gender at the top instead of sex then started going on about sex and gender. The woman agreed to change the form, saying they had done a cut and paste job at the top so it was from an older form.

In which case someone is either terminally insane or believes gender woo to the extent they could be termed terminally insane. Oh, that's the same, sorry.

The GMC said they stopped asking for sex and started asking for 'gender' but said the regulator told them to. Would it be the PSA? I can't find the reference at the moment but I've got it somewhere

The patient doesn't need to know anything about the doctor, he just has to see a female patient requesting single sex care and keep out of the way. The hospital admin can pair the patient with a doctor of the corrext sex. Once the patient has made that request, it's really unfair to put them on the spot about an individual doctor.

It isn't that unusual for a doctor to say they can't treat a patient, especially in smaller towns and cities where you know a large proportion of local people. It can't be handled discretely, it doesn't have to turn into the "please validate me," show.

I hope it’s ok to revive this thread. I’ve been thinking about this a lot since February but haven’t had much time to deal with it. I did try writing to the GMC and was told that Drs don’t have to declare information related to their protected characteristics due to privacy. Which obviously interferes with my privacy and right to bodily autonomy…

The more I think about this, the more I think their blanket rule is unlawful and impractical.

I happened on this podcast by Michael Foran which touches on these matters and the law. If you want a really deep dive on the history then listen also to part 1 but it’s part 2 that’s key:

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/knowing-ius-podcast/id1754957520?i=1000670154256

Great examples on the podcast of what is private medical information and what is not. So what is reasonable to ask for information on and what is unreasonable. Sex is almost always evident to people without asking - so in most cases people can’t legally expect privacy on that. Disability - it’s evident to anyone if they’re dealing with a wheelchair user but having to deny what you can see for yourself could mean you’re in breach of meeting legal responsibilities to that person. Then pregnancy there’s a point where no one (eg an employer or healthcare setting) don’t know by looking. There are legitimate reasons to know and there are others which aren’t. Some relate to discrimination and then others to do with accessing rights/protections - what if we weren’t allowed to acknowledge a pregnant woman was visibly pregnant for either their rights or their safety? The point at which most pregnancies become obvious to everyone- means that there’s no privacy entitlement then. They also mentioned the gap between what someone thinks themselves and what others see using the example of a wig (tupee?) which is a useful vehicle for “passing”. Also is it right if the receptionist at a medical practice doesn’t step in to prevent a criminal assault when a TW Dr offers themselves to a female patient who has requested single sex care? There are references to the Goodwin case and how there’s a difference between interaction with the state and interactions with the rights of other individuals. I’ll have to listen a few times to get a good grip on it.

However I think the GMC’s guidance on Fitness to Practice really needs to get a grip on this and be much more nuanced.

Would be interested to discuss - thanks

His employer past, current and future should be appalled that he
a) reached his level of training and did not understand the basic obligation to obtain permission thats not even without adding the informed bit.
b) he would expect other staff members to do the same and ignore training.

Patient hospital records changed from recording gender rather than sex in about 2009, so it wouldnt surprise me if the GMC did so at the same time.

The baroness tweeted a letter which suggests 2015, though.

Many Thanks for doing this NebulousHog!

suggest a key point is that patients need to know the sex of their care-giver and their trans status. So GMC should publish this along with their other qualifications. And doctors should accept this.

The GMC used to let the public know if a doctor was a man or a woman in the past, and before the trans issues era, it was enough that GMC published doctors’ sex (and doctors accepted this). What’s needed now is simply an updating of the GMC’s approach to keep in line with modern practices.

Also applies to other HCPs, but that’s a separate piece of work.

thanks again!

I was appalled that he would treat a female patient that had requested same sex HCP