EHRC abandon claim against NHS - failing to provide fertility treatments to trans

[justicewomen]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/30/legal-case-against-nhs-failing-provide-fertility-treatments/amp/

Anyone tell me what this says? Sorry another trans issue

Would love to read this in full if anyone has a share token. I saw a BBC online film of demands from a MTF and a Non Binary person a while ago and the language of entitlement was astonishing.

via @telegraph www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/30/legal-case-against-nhs-failing-provide-fertility-treatments/

Can’t read the whole article but it’s good news.

This talk of equal rights to form a family is one to keep an eye on. The language of rights leads to an assumption of entitlement, and in the context of reproduction, that leads gay men to think that they are entitled to hire a gestational carrier - a uterus-haver - a woman. Perhaps my phrase "gay men" is old-fashioned: I should say, a potential family of one or more adults, none of whom has a uterus. Young gay men are growing up now, if they're in a supportive family environment, thinking they are equal (great) and one day will find love and get married (great, if that's your thing) and that they just like everyone else in society (not true). They will have the expectation that the NHS will provide them with the fertility services (read: woman) they need. Anyone who cares about how poor women make unhappy choices under societal constraints needs to keep this on their radar.

Thanks for that

First I am sure it hardly needs pointing out that NHS fertility services are patchy and varied according to a postcode lottery. For actual women. So I wonder if part of this backing down is a recognition of what it would mean to the NHS if a ruling meant that trans people had an entitlement sealed by the law over and above that which was provided to women.

Then there is the whole business of surrogacy,which anyone who is familiar with me will know I am implacably opposed to irrespective of sexuality, best friends, sisters whatever.

I am glad this has been dropped but I'm not sure that it hasn't been a pragmatic decision not to scare the horses and raise awareness with the wider public. I remain suspicious.

Can’t read the whole article but it’s good news

Is it? I hoped it was, but I’m so bloody cynical these days I wasn’t sure.

Good

I'm with you MsTiggywinkle

There's a popular YouTube FtM teen that I keep an eye on by way of trying to keep up. One of the clips posted documents egg collection and storing (privately funded I think). Along with a cheery commentary is a throw away "Thanks future surrogate".

My feeling is the general public have been softened up with heartwarming stories of infertile couples who have had babies via surrogate, closely followed by more heartwarming stories of popular gay couples who have had babies by surrogate. If I ever raise the topic (which is a furious hornet buzzing in my bonnet) I am always amazed at the people who casually condone it as a perfectly valid way to obtain a baby without a thought about the ethics etc either with respect to the woman (uterus for hire person) or the baby (product for sale person).

Quite a few European countries ban surrogacy although I believe there is a growing trend for parents to bring back a baby obtained abroad and present a fait accompli to the courts. Even I can't deny that the best interests of the child (in most cases I would expect) is to remain with the (hopefully loving) parents who commissioned them. So there is a reluctance to do anything more than rubber stamp the new citizen or whatever legalities are required.

I am keeping a close eye on the surrogacy consultation paper that is due anytime soon.

www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/surrogacy/

Personally I would like all forms of surrogacy banned in this country in keeping with other more enlightened European countries but there is a public appetite for the availability of surrogacy and I am expecting the consultation recommendations to facilitate the exact opposite.

The EHRC are looking to the NHS to prioritise transgender people. The NHS should not prioritise any one group, we should all be treated equally based on need.

See page 8 in particular - assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721367/GEO-LGBT-Action-Plan.pdf

Government appoints first National Adviser for LGBT Health - www.gov.uk/government/news/government-appoints-first-national-adviser-for-lgbt-health?fbclid=IwAR2-hvFH-g_zJk__uWopZJu02NPl_fS25p_f3yIb4B3ncFUXJh00rkpQpiU

I’m also very uncomfortable with the push towards commercial surrogacy with the ‘right’ to a baby and the ‘right’ to use a surrogate.

The rights we should be concerned about are the rights of all women to bodily autonomy and the rights of babies. Babies have the right to stay with their mother (whenever possible). There is no right to have a baby.

Who is the ferret and vole alike couple who are very keen to have a baby via surrogate?

The rights we should be concerned about are the rights of all women to bodily autonomy and the rights of babies. Babies have the right to stay with their mother (whenever possible).

^ This

The watchdog had argued that those seeking treatment for gender dysphoria should be treated in the same way as those with other conditions - such as cancer - which threaten fertilit

Why would they be treated as though they had cancer which is a life threatening illness? Dh had a vasectomy. It was made very clear that if the doctor was going to make him voluntarily infertile that the NHS would not be reversing it if he changed his mind later. He had healthy normally functioning reproductive capabilities that he chose to alter. That's who trans people need to be compared to, not cancer patients. How offensive.

Did they ever explain where all these cis wombs were going to come from after ftms voluntarily had theirs removed and mtfs never had one to start with...

Did they ever explain where all these cis wombs were going to come from after ftms voluntarily had theirs removed and mtfs never had one to start with

My tin foil hat theory is that FtMs are deliberately being encouraged to have theirs removed so that MtFs have ready supply to experiment with/on.....

IUsed2BanOptimist I read your username the wrong way at first!

Yes. Again, one of the issues to keep on top of is language. The definition of "surrogate" is "substitute", and a woman gestating a fetus is not a substitute. She is the real thing. It is her blood and bones that are building that baby. (Calcium depletion is the reason the NHS gives free dentistry during pregnancy.) She is the one risking short-term acute problems (gestational diabetes) and life-long chronic ones (prolapse).

No one has a right to a baby, because no one has a right to another human being. You have the right to try to have a baby, which requires, at a minimum, another adult human being of the opposite sex, and in addition a good dose of luck.

It's a minefield and I doubt many people have thought through to logical conclusions and outcomes.

For instance fertility services and IVF was initially offered to heterosexual married couples only. Gradually this was extended to same unmarried couples, sex couples and then single women.

So it's only a matter of time before a MtF demands/obtains a baby and expects to be called Mummy and have "Mother" on the birth certificate.

And this is happening at just that time in history when knowing one's parents' and grandparents' medical history is becoming of ever more practical use.

The EHRC are looking to the NHS to prioritise transgender people.

A reminder here that the current chair of the EHRC, David Isaac, was formerly chair of Stonewall.

At the time of his appointment, some religious groups voiced concern that this might mean he would view sexual orientation as a more important protected characteristic than religion. Given Stonewall's current direction, there is also a strong probability that he views transgender rights as more important than women's rights.

I have a horrible feeling that, given NHS cuts, Brexit etc, and given the fact that fertility treatment on the NHS is already a huge postcode lottery (for actual women), the end result of this ridiculous type of entitled demand will be no fertility treatment at all on the NHS for anyone.

Haha MsTiggywinkle yes the "BanOptimist" bit doesn't look quite right. I keep meaning to change it.
"TransPessimist" ?

same unmarried couples, sex couples meant to be

unmarried couples, same sex couples

I'm wary of posting too much detail online, but this isn't necessarily about what people may fear.

The NHS can only fund fertility treatment for people who are infertile.

This means that while the NHS must comply with the equality act, people with protected characteristics are still only eligible if either partner has medical evidence of infertility.

IMO this case was always going to fail. The NHS isn't discriminating because of people's sexuality or gender reassignment.

And presumably if they or their partner has already had children they won't be entitled to IVF either, as many women find.

But is there any meaningful difference for the NHS between deliberately self inflicted infertility in the case of trans people and infertility for biological reasons?

RepealTheGRA

"I’m also very uncomfortable with the push towards commercial surrogacy with the ‘right’ to a baby and the ‘right’ to use a surrogate."

Indeed.

There are no such rights in either the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or Women's Rights:

www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

and

www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm