Three NHS trusts to adopt guidelines written by a trans activist

[jadefinch]

3 NHS trusts have adopted a trans activist's manual that says sex is assigned, not observed, at birth, anatomy 'is not always a good guide' to determining a child’s sex and puberty blockers, currently under an NHS ethics review, can be used on children.

The activist who wrote the guidelines is a biological male who believes they can breastfeed and has called 'cis' women an 'infestation'.

This is in Bristol soo I'm not surprised. Medics will (secretly) laugh at the idea that anatomy is not a good guide to the sex of children. They will be well aware of differences in sexual development and also that dsd people and trans people are not the same.
The poor children who will suffer medical intervention as a result of this.

I haven't finished yet (reading the EIA's) , but this is really interesting. It is clear that the author if the toolkit comes from a radical 'everyone needs to be educated' viewpoint, but the legal eagles have said those references need to be removed, along with the statistics on suicide and that other statistics must be put into context. There is a lot going on (it is 64 pages) so have only looked at a few.

I am all for proper healthcare for trans community and I think the EIA does acknowledge the need for non-discriminatory care however, EIA does look carefully at so many areas and comments that some areas are awaiting either court cases, or Secretary of State or NHS input.

I am much more positive reading something like this (which I will finish later) than something from the twittersphere

Just caught up on the EIA stuff, feel much better now.

There are many positives, including a 2 week review period.

One thing that stood out to me was this:

PSED
“Young people who are referred to a GIDS may go through a rigorous process before any medical intervention takes place, but there is a small percentage (less than 1%) of people who de-transition mostly as a result of unsatisfactory surgical procedures or social difficulties.”

Risks/Mitigation
“The toolkit should make reference to the fact that some - albeit a very small percentage of people - de-transition; and highlight that there are risks to certain medical interventions.”

There is no mention of the % of children who desist if there is no intervention.

[quote Thelnebriati]Heres the link to the impact assessment, if you dont want to download it;

The assessment shows the toolkit has a positive impact for the group with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, and a negative impact on 4 other groups.
bnssgccg-media.ams3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/attachments/govbody_1Dec20_item6.1.pdf[/quote]
Which makes it a 'Glass 100% full" situation, for some.

It also states in the impact assessment
^The EHRC states “In UK law, ‘sex’ is understood as
binary, with a person’s legal sex being determined by
what is recorded on their birth certificate. A transgender
person can change their legal gender by obtaining a
GRC. A transgender person who does not have a GRC
retains the sex recorded and is protected under the
Equality Act as per their legal sex or under the protected
characteristic ‘Disabled’ in some circumstances (impaired
or limited ability to engage in certain tasks or actions, or
to participate in typical daily activities). ^
and recognises the recent no self id decision by gov. This seems a good sign.

It worries me though that if local women hadn't objected, it would have just been rubber-stamped, no EIA etc. No questions were raised internally.
Systems need to be more robust than that.

I find this encouraging, but yes, we can't afford to let our guard down for one second.

The thing I don't get is that a transman or a transwomans medical needs are different to biological men and women. If people were actually concerned about the health and wellbeing for these people, they would surely be fighting for more research into taking hormones, the psychological impact, pushing for advances in surgery, and most importantly, would be welcoming of further investment and access to mental health services before having any physical medical treatment. As it is, the woke dont actually give a fuck about these people, but are all about pushing an agenda which doesn't benefit anyone except for themselves.

Sorry I'm a bit thick really, does this mean they adopted it regardless of the fact that it only benefits one protected characteristic and has a negative affect on several others or is it still pending approval ?

They adopted it without doing an impact assessment and then some women challenged it. Original article in the Times below:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2d7d6724-4f57-11ea-b112-75acb94b3417?shareToken=6b9da2b4b5092ac54799a65540b7f545

I really hope bodies which have responsibilities to all of the population will think more carefully in future about rubber stamping guidance without doing an EIA. Women are waking up to the institutional capture and stuff like this is so easily challenged.

So when its very wrongly claimed there's no conflict/issues we can list links to this risk assessments and say otherwise ?

I mean we all knew this already, akd we also know its been pointed out to multiple people for years , yes seeing it in writing is great but it clearly makes no difference to anyone

It states that sex is “assigned” rather than observed at birth

You would think that medically trained people would know that sex is "assigned" at conception, the moment the genes from the sperm and egg combine.

I think that if a transwoman was in a female ward the other women would be better off asking to be moved to a male ward. I would rather be with men who know they are men and respect boundaries than with men who claim they are women and wish to impose themselves on women’s spaces.

The hospital might refuse but the solution is simple: tell them you are trans and demand to be on the ward of your ‘gender’. You should then, of course, be given priority.

@NeutralJanet

It states that sex is “assigned” rather than observed at birth

You would think that medically trained people would know that sex is "assigned" at conception, the moment the genes from the sperm and egg combine.

Yes, I think it's fucking bizarre that people who absolutely know better are pretending that they don't. They're basically playing along with make believe fairytales, which is alarming.

I find it horrifying to read that the NHS would publish a myth like sex is assigned at birth. Followed up the links to the author and found this: a thank you to the Good Law Project. I had thought that (at least some£ organisations supporting trans issues were actually very well funded?

www.cheryl-morgan.com/?p=28404

Noting that this thread started in February 2020 -- thanks for alerting us, Jadefinch (and the Sunday Times), and thanks for the update, AnotherFOIrequester.

These health authorities have finally done an impact assessment, 10 months after formally endorsing a list of trans-lobby demands without presumably a moment's care about the effects.

The assessment of impact on people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act highlights potential negative impacts on the basis of sex, age, disability and faith/religion. So, four large groups of people potentially disadvantaged by the trans toolkit.

The potential impact on all other characteristics was identified as ‘neutral’, apart from gender reassignment where a positive impact was noted. No shit, Sherlock.

The edits, listed by Clymene above, show how flawed the original, endorsed document was. And that is the kind of thing that's been quietly slipped into policy documents throughout the public, private and charity sectors.

It's illegal. Women (and men) have a right to same-sex accommodation in hospitals. Anyone who says otherwise is just plain wrong.

So don't worry about it too much. Just call it out if you ever find yourself on a ward with a male and don't be fobbed off with gender bullshit.

Theres a mistake in it, under Pregnancy or Maternity they say neutral but the reasoning given is just a copy/paste of the one below it for civil partnership/marriage

bnssgccg-media.ams3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/attachments/govbody_5Nov19_item6.4.pdf

Scroll to the last page.

Interesting list of partnerships?
SARI + ...

Is this the shielding / capture effect?

But then what about internal ‘pulls’ within SARI itself? A group set up to help BME groups (which would include a religious element) & ‘protected characteristics’.

Or, am I just reading too much into it?

Does anyone know about SARI?

How much time, money and effort is being wasted by agencies leaping wholeheartedly into this bandwagon without engaging brains?

What gives me some real strength here is that women highlighting issues are making a real difference. I know we shouldn't have to be doing this but nevertheless, we are making an impact.

On a negative note, when will our publicly funded services start doing their jobs. Is it the fact that there are so many outside agencies relied on to do the job they should be doing and they will be paying a fortune for all these outside agencies - they are paying people with my taxes to undermine an Act of Parliament that directly affects me. Haarumph

Interesting reading.

The buck keeps being passed back to single sex is important and should definitely be provided for women but at the same time male born people should be treated in the sexed group of their choice. And while this now refers several times to 'competing legal needs' so at least this is being acknowledged, it keeps going back to 'government guidance is due' (which will be the conflicting dichotomy above), and mention of 'case by case basis'. Which does nothing to solve the problem.

We know guidance such as this when written by activists states to perceive a distressed woman as ignorant and in need of education/ordering to stop mentioning her own needs - at least the section about 'educating' women out of their distress has been removed. But a 'case by case basis' still means in effect situations where women will be faced with being in a highly vulnerable and undignified situation with the fear and uncertainty of a male person who may or may not choose to respect the situation and those around them. Such as, referring to cases mentioned here on other threads, flashing, sexually threatening staff and sexually harassing female patients. On a basis of, assume things will work out until the male born person's behaviour has harmed enough women patients to have grounds to remove him.

Case by case in effect means nothing other than to dump the buck on medical staff placed in a very difficult position, with no easy answers. Women will discharge themselves under these circumstances, rather than deal with the loss of privacy, the additional stress and embarrassment, and I will be one of them.

*On a basis of, assume things will work out until the male born person's behaviour has harmed enough women patients to have grounds to remove THEM. My apologies. Obviously the male born person may choose to identify their pronouns in a range of ways.

Just reflecting - does anyone work in any situation where the risk assessment goes 'do x and hope it works until someone gets harmed, then rethink x and find alternative'?

For example:

Helmets will not be worn until a head injury occurs, then we'll renegotiate helmets for that specific group and situation on a case by case basis.

DBSs will not be necessary until it's evidenced that a serious safeguarding breach has occurred; in this case we may do some DBS type work with the specific people involved on a case by case basis.