NHS rainbow badges

[YesIWorkForTheNHS]

As per (shiny new) user name, I work for the NHS. They're bringing in rainbow badges and lanyards at my trust (Google NHS rainbow badges if you want).

Anyone want to help me disentagle / articulate what I think about this?

On the one hand, I want to be inclusive (in the sense that I want everyone to have equal access to healthcare, and remove barriers - real or perceived - to people accessing what we offer). But biological sex matters, particularly in healthcare, and I think we should be held to high standards wrt equality of access for everyone (including women and girls) whether or not we are wearing stripy accessories.

I'm ignoring it for now. But I've had plenty of people tell me how great it is. I have friends at work who know what I believe wrt sex and gender, but I'm not sure I want to have an all-out discussion about my decision not to signal "my tribe" with a badge. The rainbow does not (any longer) represent my beliefs.

I honestly don’t understand why MN is so anti anything that’s supportive of gay and lesbian people?

Even if people agreed with you that it was just about that, it doesn't make it appropriate in a health care setting.

Here is my observation - these things seem to have appeared, along with a few others, at a time when it's actually become the socially normative and acceptable thing to be inclusive of gay and lesbian people.

I would imagine that the vast majority of health care workers in a place like the UK or Canada don't need to make any effort to be open and affirming to gays and lesbians. It fits right in with their normal views, what they do all the time.

But health care workers are also meant to be kind and open and helpful to everyone else. I don't see anyone wearing lanyards saying that they will give good health care and sympathy when the patient is a convicted murderer or rapist.

Or what about the elderly religious couple who need to discuss their end of life requirements, maybe they are a little more unusual and perhaps they feel a little alienated from the health care worker wearing the rainbow flag? Who is thinking about making them feel welcomed?

It's not inclusive at all, its just including different people.

Its also because the employer is pushing these divisive political symbols to be displayed that it makes it so inappropriate, a display of institutional capture.

I feel like a lot of people when offered will say yes to wearing these because they think they have to or their boss or colleagues will disapprove if they don’t, or because they think of course they are nice and non-judgemental people and they are not homophobic and don’t understand that the rainbow is no longer about homosexuality.

The rainbow is now represents an extremely concerning and authoritarian political land-grab driven by men’s sexual entitlement, which is actively undermining an LGB rights agenda.

How many lanyard wearers, Stonewall certificate-displayers, people who have work email signatures with their pronouns on and all that, actually understand and agree that the rainbow now means ‘my beliefs are such that i am happy to chuck under the TRA bus: lesbians, gay men, all women’s right to single sex spaces, plus binning normal safeguarding practice and supporting obliterating the right to an open future for any gender nonconforming child.’

If lanyard-wearers agree with the above then I want as little as possible to do with them particularly as Michelle posted above, if I have to be vulnerable in any way as part of the interaction with the lanyard wearer.

In my personal book this includes giving any of my personal information as well as situations where I would have to be physically vulnerable.

And if the lanyard wearers don’t agree with this agenda then, then what the fuck are they doing propping up this socially divisive politics? It goes to show we need to raise public awareness massively about this issue.

It goes without saying that patients are endangered when they are alienated from healthcare provision, and individual healthcare providers, and lose trust in them.

That makes the NHS or any healthcare setting or emergency service or other essential public services like the police or housing offices, the absolute last place that rainbow symbols should be worn.

To anyone working in the NHS in England, which has the NHS constitution, I would suggest that you remind your employer that it already states as its first principle (out of seven that:

1. ’The NHS provides a comprehensive service, available to all irrespective of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marital or civil partnership status.

The service is designed to improve, prevent, diagnose and treat both physical and mental health problems with equal regard. It has a duty to each and every individual that it serves and must respect their human rights. At the same time, it has a wider social duty to promote equality through the services it provides and to pay particular attention to groups or sections of society where improvements in health and life expectancy are not keeping pace with the rest of the population.’

Asking your employer to instead actively support and uphold the NHS Constitution principles, train staff to do so, is an actually meaningful way of being fair to patients, supportive of patients or giving care without prejudice or whatever the aim is that they want to convey by this rainbow lanyard.

But then doing more than pooping on a cute lanyard would require time, money and thought, because it is more than vacuous virtue signalling or wearing a political badge, so that might not be so attractive to an NHS employer.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-nhs-constitution-for-england#history

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/770675/The_Handbook_to_the_NHS_Constitution_-_2019.pdf

I work in a community role and wear the rainbow lanyard. By wearing it, two teens approached me with concerns that meant my care of them was more person centred and orientated to their specific needs rather than catering to the masses

Why wouldnt your care be tailored to the person in the first place?

If the system is wrong then it needs changing, not just making it better for 'special' people. How fucked up is that?

Why doesn’t the first principal of the NHS in England constitution mention sex in its list?

Why doesn’t the first principal of the NHS in England constitution mention sex in its list?

Regulatory capture.

Two things:

What other protected characteristics under the Equality Act are treated with so much fanfare as LGBT issues? Do we have Islam inclusive lanyards? How about disability friendly lanyards? Oh look, we don’t

A rainbow lanyard automatically signals to many religious people that their beliefs are directly at odds with those of the wearer. Whilst I in no way support any homophobic views, everyone has a right to fair treatment in the NHS. And 80 year old women from religious backgrounds are as entitied as confused teens to feel safe, secure and unjudged by their caregiver. So I don’t find rainbow anything very inclusive; quite the opposite.

And a third thing - we used to have lanyards that said “Consultant”, “staff nurse” or what have you, to help identify the wearer for safeguarding. I note that this safeguarding measure has taken a back seat to wokeness.

I’d rather see lanyards in a medical setting that announced the person could use BSL or was a trained grief councillor. Not that they potentially believe that humans can change sex (and may get arsey if you disagree).

Tentacle that was my first thought too. All care should be sensitive and person-centred, the reason it is not is usually that the system is under-resourced and NHS staff rushed off their feet, and there are gaps in quality. That needs fixing across the board, not just for a chosen few (but that would take more money than a lanyard). But it sounds like the teens weren't looking for support on LGBT specific issues (is that correct), they just took the rainbow to mean "youth worker" or "culturally same as me," which is interesting. I have started to think that the rainbows I see the DC's schoolmates wearing have very little to do with LGBT and are more a statement of a worldview - which is quite caring on the surface but highly individualistic.

I haven't experienced all this rainbow tosh in primary care but we don't wear lanyards. We are supposed to treat all our patients with dignity. People have made their appointment with me before they see what I'm wearing anyway. Also we have some Brethren and Jehovah's Witness patients who may feel I would adversely judge them if I wore LGBT lanyards and coated myself in rainbow paraphernalia

The only people who would be keen to see such a thing - is when it would have a direct impact on them - would be someone who believed themselves to be a ‘they’ etc and wish to be addressed that way, or someone who believes themselves to opposite to their bio sex and treated accordingly.

Either way - healthcare staff don’t have time for this. It’s not what they are there for.

Wear plain white. Wear one with your dept name on it. Wear one that has ‘if lost please return to’.

We are supposed to treat all our patients with dignity.

Exactly. The use of a badge like this really alarms me because of the clear implication that people who aren't wearing the badge won't treat LGBT people kindly. The whole thing is utterly bizarre. The point of the NHS is that it doesn't matter who you are: young, old, black, white, Muslim, scientologist, straight, gay, male, female. You will all be treated with the same degree of respect and professionalism. That's why even if you're terrorist who's been badly injured by your own bomb, the NHS will still try to save your life.

The whole thing sends a very dodgy message.

So a black doctor could look at an injured person who has a swastika tattoo in their face and wave their non ‘bow lanyard ‘nah mate, no painkillers for you you bastard...’.

Just ditch the rainbow. It’s not about ‘inclusive’ anything these days.

This is such an interesting thread - thank you everyone. It's put the issues really succinctly and I will be pinching some of the phrasing I've found here.

It also reminded me that a lot of the early objections to taking oaths (eg from the Quakers and other religious nonconformists) was because their faiths already had an injunction to tell the truth (I think derived from the bible, but I'm not very good on the bible so take that with a pinch of salt). Taking an oath promising to tell the truth implied that at other times you didn't tell the truth, so it was forbidden. Ironically, of course, those not taking oaths because they had signed up to be truthful in everyday life were punished by not being able to take up professions, etc, that needed oaths.

I am seeing some parallels here. Sign up to this thing! Wear a rainbow! It won't mean a damn thing and comes at no risk to you, but it's some fine, meaningless virtue signalling.

Actually gay. and refuses to wear a rainbow? Boooooo! Bad, bad person!

Yes sorry, posting too early in the morning, should have added regulatory capture warning there. The NHS is so thoroughly captured it now has Stockholm Syndrome.

Also ‘pooping on a lanyard’

But it prompts me to write to Health Education England, the body who engage with staff about NHS values- because as far as I can see, they have only left out sex here, among the EQA protected characteristics list, so I would like to understand the relationship between the NHS Constitution (not legally binding in itself) when it is aiming for equality, and the Equality Act- which obviously covers people using healthcare in a binding way and does include sex?

This page is here to collect best practice and resources to help healthcare staff and organisations better understand the NHS Constitution. If you have something to add, email [email protected].

www.hee.nhs.uk/about/our-values/nhs-constitutional-values-hub-0

EQA info here:
www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010

Everyone in Britain is protected. This is because the Equality Act protects people against discrimination because of the protected characteristics that we all have. Under the Equality Act, there are nine protected characteristics:

age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage and civil partnership
pregnancy and maternity
race
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation

Thank you Annie that’s a really interesting historical parallel.

And just why the fuck would any HCP not be approachable to discuss concerns about sexuality?

Meanwhile in the real world people will continue to confide in people they have a connection with. Regardless of what their staff badge signals.

to pay particular attention to groups or sections of society where improvements in health and life expectancy are not keeping pace with the rest of the population

Let's identify those groups shall we?

And then look at how removing single sex provisions, access to same sex hcps and believing in the crime of heresy achieves those aims? Or do they actively exclude and discourage those groups and sections of society much further from using services?

When I think of the effort that has been gone to in my area for chaperones and available translators and same sex practitioners to try and encourage BAME women to feel safe to access health care.... undone in a stroke by a group that is in majority straight, white, male, affluent, educated and able bodied, very very well able to articulate their needs, with well sharpened elbows and no difficulty at all in accessing care.

Well said Michelle

'And just why the fuck would any HCP not be approachable to discuss concerns about sexuality?'

There are issues and biases though.
Eg some docs won't prescribe contraception, or get involved with terminations, which kind of indicates they might not be great to talk to about that stuff (I've experienced the contraception one and felt very uncomfortable).

"I do not like to wear my [political/religious/fill-in-the-blank] convictions on my sleeve. They are none of anyone else's business."

I haven't read the thread yet, but I'm a lesbian and when I see NHS staff wearing Rainbow badges, it feels like a hostile signal.

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread. I've nodded along and tucked away ideas to articulate and phrases with which to do so.

I do actually already wear a non-standard lanyard already. It's green, and I get it for being the rep from my department in the trust's "green" (ie environmental sustainability) group. I've been mulling why that's different - it absolutely is part of my political views that we need to do something about climate emergency, so why is it OK to wear my green lanyard? I think it's because more than an indicator of my personal political views, it's an indicator that I am a person to talk to if you have ideas / concerns related to green stuff, and that I'm plugged into a trust-wide network of people who might be able to do something about it. So it's part of my role in the workplace (which just happens to align with my politics, hence the failure to avert my eyes when volunteers were sought!). If it were part of my role to help people with issues around sexuality and/or gender identity, then maybe a rainbow lanyard/badge would be appropriate, which takes us back to the origins in paeds.

I wear one - but I get them free at trade shows and hand them out in the office, so they are whatever they happen to be handing out. It’s black with some type of camera brand on it at the moment.

My Trust offers these badges. In order to be get one you have to sign up to an agreement that you will be willing to support anyone with a protected characteristic. The idea is to signal that you will help and sign post to helpful services.

I wear one because I want members of my team to know they can come to me about anything and I won't judge and will try to help. I am not anti lesbian at all and think it's a shame that you've been made to feel that this symbol no longer represents you, that's very wrong.

Unfortunately for me the rainbow symbol has morphed into something I associate with bigotry and commercialism.