NHS update on recording patient sex and gender identity

Vulnerable people can be abusive too.

We really cannot have a subgroup of people where sex is considered sensitive information in any situation. Its the foot in the door abusers will use.

And how is it going to work? Sex is hiden for trans people in certain situations? This would out them surely?

Sex is replaced with gender for trans people and then revealed? when and how?

Or will it be the case that sex will be hidden for everyone? A step towards making it sensitive information and making safeguarding harder?

The definition of trans is a person of one sex identifying as the other. Why does sex need to be seen as sensitive? Why does a man get to hide his sex the moment he decides he is trans?

Agree with both posts above - am all for compassion… but it starts with honesty

no issue with someone even who says I made this choice and now xyz

but to want to hide everything while still expecting good service is a bit much

@akkakk

the trans community make their own choice to take their journey - it is not imposed on them / forced on them / etc. as such they need to pick up the consequences of those decisions - it is totally inappropriate to believe that the NHS should take responsibility for any of it...

Yeah, this bit really annoys me. The majority of trans people transitioned as adults. That's a choice we made - no, in fact, it's several choices, many choices, one after the other, even repeated over years for some of them. There's literally zero obligation for anyone else to hold our hand as we deal with the consequences of those choices. It's nice when people make efforts to accommodate us, but expecting them to do it is taking it way too far. As for medical professionals, the very least we can do is be fully truthful with them!

EHRC guidance has to follow the law. The EHRC is not allowed to write guidance saying things that they think should be the law but aren't. So it's not the fault of the EHRC if you don't like the guidance. The guidance just says what the law says in simpler language and it gives examples of how the law works in practice and how to stay reasonably within the law. That's all. They do occasionally make mistakes but they've been over this one with their legal team and a fine-tooth comb and going to court over it is a waste of time and money.

The Supreme Court did not affect the legal position for people who don't have

a GRC. It just spelled out that current law does not have gender
self-identification and so any policies based on self-id were not legally
based. You may not be aware but organisations such as Stonewall had
misrepresented the law for years, in the belief that if they "went beyond" the law and confused sex with gender identity then eventually the law would chnage to reflect their views. They thought they could train people to believe that gender identity had legal status and they could persuade other organisations to write policies as if the law meant something different from what it actually said. Their notion was that then people would start taking the idea of gender identity for granted and so the law would easily be changed to fit that. So the Supreme Court gave a bonus clarification for everyone who'd been told that going beyond the law was the law. But that was a bonus.

What the Supreme Court judgment mainly changed was to remove from current law any hope that getting a GRC could allow men to be treated as women (or vice versa) under the Equality Act. The Supreme Court considered that possiblity seriously and decided that "certificated sex" couldn't reasonably be used in this way, it would (a) make an incoherent mess of the Equality Act and (b) make life too difficult for people with other protected characteristics who also need the Equality Act to work for them. So anyone who was still hoping that getting a GRC would get them other benefits under the Equality Act, like access to the spaces and protections for the other sex which were previously - and incorrectly - being claimed on the basis of self-id, is wrong about that too.

If you want to change the law and use gender id in place of sex, you do have to go through Parliament. And these days you can't even sneak gender id through Parliament on the back of more popular legislation as happened in Ireland with gender self-id. Now people will notice and it isn't popular so politicians wont go there.

You are rather defeating your own messages here...

clearly if that were the case then it would be important for the NHS and HPCs to understand both the natal sex and that the person had been taking drugs which might have changed results... HCPs need to know the full picture.

reference people feeling less comfortable, then surely the answer is to work with the trans community to find ways of making access a more comfortable experience and that starts with honesty on both sides - there are no circumstances where one part of the dialogue starts from deceit and you get a good outcome - so having a section of society where they want to hide pertinent information and still expect the same quality outcome is simply not going to work.

I am not sure where the arrogance comes from that makes some people feel that they can dictate how the NHS is allowed to deal with them - and yet still expect a high quality outcome... It is a two-way relationship - the NHS provides the highest quality care it can deliver and the patient needs to play their role of openness / honesty / accuracy...

using emotional excuses such as 'feeling even less comfortable' is a form of emotional blackmail which is inappropriate - lot of people feel uncomfortable going to the doctor / talking about medical issues - the NHS does it best to make sure that access is as easy as possible - but at no point should pressure be put on the NHS to falsify information and therefore create danger to the patient - just for a feeling of comfort. The most serious implication for the health of the trans community would be to lie / disguise / hide the fact that someone is their natal sex and the treatments they are taking...

the trans community make their own choice to take their journey - it is not imposed on them / forced on them / etc. as such they need to pick up the consequences of those decisions - it is totally inappropriate to believe that the NHS should take responsibility for any of it...

I didn't mean to suggest there was anything inherently inappropriate about changing policy 😀

What made a GRC irrelevant is an equalization in pensionable age and pension contributions between men and women and the institution of same-sex marriage. Nothing else.

The new guidance didnt make a GRC irrelevant, reality did.

Its bonkers that the NHS allowed a data field to be corrupted in the way it was. It served no purpose.

The completely stealth transperson is a myth. Every sensible trans person would want HCP to know their sex, and know having inaccurate data could harm them.

TRA who campaign for this false data are often doing it in knowledge they wont be the ones damaged by these lies. They arent trans, or are trans people who claim stealth but have accurate data.

As I've said already. Its not about the privacy of trans status, its about trying to remove sex as a PC and as an indicator of safeguarding.⁴

Policy changes around criminal law have real impacts on the lives of criminals, policy changes around human rights law have real impacts on the actions of employers (and employees) and policy changes around road traffic law have real impact on the lives of drivers. There is nothing inappropriate about it.

Policy changes that impact the lives of people by requiring them to follow the law are a good thing.

The honest way to get what you seek is to campaign to change the law. Not to complain about people being made to follow it.

Sure I've no doubt it's being used by different groups in different contexts. I was just explaining the context in which it's apparently been used several times on this board over the last week.

I was simply offering one example of how policy changes are having real world impacts on the lives of trans people. The legal challenges that have brought these changes about are what people are referring to collectively as "lawfare".

I didn't really mean to get embroiled in a debate about GRCs!

It was used about the legal attempts to stop Brexit. It’s been used about people you no doubt approve of many times, most notably about the “Good” Law Project which is a key example of “lawfare”.

https://conservativehome.com/2017/03/07/christopher-howarths-guide-to-brexit-lawfare-desperate-remainers-last-throw-of-the-dice/

If having a GRC afforded any practical benefit to trans people, that was only ever to about 8,000 trans people (a small minority of people identifying as trans) as only that number had a GRC. Whatever practical benefit it was ever thought to have conferred it must have been small to have such a low uptake, even prior to FWS2 and EHRC guidance.

Whereas prior practical policy did not require trans-identifying men to have a GRC before self-identifying into women's facilities. The fact that men not holding a GRC ever thought that they were allowed to do so must be agreed by alll sides to be a complete overreach.

Your complaint really is nothing to do with GRCs. The vast majority of people upset by the recent EHRC guidance have never and will never have a GRC.

I'm glad we can find something we agree on. 😀

I quite agree, feel free to join the campaign to repeal it.

I'm not going to debate those things.
However, previously having a GRC afforded some practical benefits to trans people. With the new EHRC guidance, and changes like these in the NHS, it's difficult to see what the relevance/ practical purpose of having one now is.

To all intents and purposes it renders having a GRC fairly meaningless

A GRC could never change an individuals sex.

There are lots of situations where sex is relevant.

Therefore holding a GRC is never going to be relevant when sex is a factor.

I understand the argument - that this was an interpretation of existing law, not the creation of new law.
That's why I said changes in policy.
The EHRC guidance is a new document and will have very meaningful practical effects. To all intents and purposes it renders having a GRC fairly meaningless now, whereas that was not the interpretation previously, including by institutions. Whether you feel that the interpretation was wrong in the past and correct now or vice versa is besides the point really.

As I've said above I don't see the value in debating speculation about my person or motivations. You are welcome to draw whatever conclusions you wish about me, I'd just like to talk about the policy questions.

You have put the cart before the horse. You have said that policy changes have undermined legal protections. But policy flows from law, not law from policy. Policy now more accurately reflects the law. Not adequately or sufficiently, yet, in practice. But one can be hopeful, and progress is being made.

To an extent, yes it does. It doesn’t speak highly of your integrity or the goodness of your faith if you’re an old hand posting on a familiar subject, but under a new name with the intention that nobody recognizes you.

I asked a simple question; I’m not sure there’s a good reason to dodge it.

Sure. That would work. Let's go with that. Thanks.