BMA votes for gender recognition via witness statement, to receive healthcare in services aligned to their identity and under 18s to access healthcare based on consent

[stumbledin]

on Tuesday doctors supported a motion at the BMA’s annual general meeting which called on the Government to allow transgender and non-binary individuals to gain legal recognition of their gender by a witnessed sworn statement. ...

The BMA motion also affirmed the www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/17/action-aid-embroiled-trans-row-declaring-no-thing-biological/ right of transgender and non-binary individuals to access healthcare and “live their lives with dignity” including having their identity respected.
Two clauses of the motion - which called on the Government to support the witnessed sworn statement model and to ensure under-18s are able to access healthcare in “line with existing principles of consent” - were both passed by narrow margins.

The motion also called for trans people to be able to receive healthcare in settings appropriate to their gender identity and ensure trans healthcare workers were able to access facilities appropriate to the gender they identify as.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/15/trans-people-should-free-change-gender-without-medical-diagnosis/

Fuck.

This is just a recommendation though, an appeal to the govt.

What can we do? More letters to MPs?

But what facilities or health treatment is based on my gender identity ?

It doesn't help with those of us campaigning for the need for single sex services if the BMA has taken this view point.

It will be seized on by trans activists that their position is correct.

But on the other hand, despite it being 2020, there is ample evidence that the NHS, like the rest of society does not have equal representation for women, let alone treatment appropriate for women.

So I suppose we are back to the position of the provided isn't necessarily the best person to make recommendations. It is the users of the service, ie women, who should be listened to.

Most GPs aren't BMA members and only about 250 docs get to vote at the ARM and they are largely professional committee goers because getting a place to vote is usually hard. There are lots of med students and junior docs. A motion supporting the organisation Black Lives Matter got passed. This year's theme was diversity

I listened to it live and it was astonishing to hear the proponents of the motion actually setting out misleading statements as truths and citing discredited studies, as well as every other line we have seen on here. The Opponents of the motion (who because of the structure of the debate and technological issues had less time to speak than the proponents) did a good job Of setting out the medical reasons why this was a bad idea, but did not address those misleading (or simply untrue) points, or the outrageous clams that women would be unaffected by this.

OMG. Not good news

I say I despair too many times. But... I despair

Countering points is difficult when you just have 2 minutes to speak and don't have time when someone has spoken to think of and do adhoc stuff. If you are the motion proposer you have longer to speak and longer to listen to points and reply to them at the end

As a doctor and BMA member I’m not happy with this. Partly because of all the concerns I have about the motion and my views on the difference between sex and gender. And my concerns for women patients and staff. But also because I don’t think it’s the job of my trade union. They should be advocating for better T&Cs for their members.
The ARM is the decision making body of the BMA and as such is attended by representatives elected from various meetings. Most doctors, even BMA members aren’t involved in these meetings so this does not necessarily represent the views of all members

I suspect most are trying to be woke and right on and don’t realise was it might actually mean for our staff and patients. I’ve seen lots of stuff voted through with very little debate. Much of it not actually to do with doctors work

Can I be called a TERF if I’m a man?

So great to know you can't object to being in a mixed sex hospital ward, that doctors see no problem with transitioning children. When was the BMA captured?

Or use whichever changing room you identify with at work...

[the motion] called on the Government to allow transgender and non-binary individuals to gain legal recognition of their gender by a witnessed sworn statement

I'm not actually against legal recognition of gender in principle but am very much anti most of the rights that activists wish to go with that recognition.

This is the part that worries me. The motion also called for trans people to be able to receive healthcare in settings appropriate to their gender identity and ensure trans healthcare workers were able to access facilities appropriate to the gender they identify as From Doctors. Who should know what a bloody woman is.

Gender before sex once again.

There's a very powerful TW in a senior position in the BMA, which I think would make it difficult for her colleagues to vote against this. Voting is not anonymous.

I also despair. I am absolutely despairing today. Damn it.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow

There's a very powerful TW in a senior position in the BMA, which I think would make it difficult for her colleagues to vote against this. Voting is not anonymous.

Ah.

Excellent use name BTW!

“live their lives with dignity” including having their identity respected.

Lovely.

Now can biological female people have the same please?

And if not, why the double standards?

Excellent use name BTW!

Thank you

Everyone should feel free to complain to the BMA. The BMA has a weird hybrid position. It is both the equivalent of a trade union for members, and the official negotiator for all doctors, even those who are not members. In the latter capacity, it is influential on public policy and should take into account the impact of its policies on the public.

I would suggest writing, asking what impact assessment has been done/will be done of the effect of this policy on women, especially from conservative religions, and of the safeguarding implications. Contact details here

@2Rebecca

Countering points is difficult when you just have 2 minutes to speak and don't have time when someone has spoken to think of and do adhoc stuff. If you are the motion proposer you have longer to speak and longer to listen to points and reply to them at the end

Yes you right - sorry if I wasn’t clear. The opponents couldn’t have known which misleading point ts and ideological positions they would have to counter, and besides this is a medical organisation so - unsurprisingly - they came at it from a medical Perspective (concerns about sidelining gender dysphonie, detransitioners, the cases going through court concerning the Tavistock etc) not an ideological perspective, though they did mention the conflict with Women’s rights.

@Al1Langdownthecleghole

[the motion] called on the Government to allow transgender and non-binary individuals to gain legal recognition of their gender by a witnessed sworn statement I'm not actually against legal recognition of gender in principle but am very much anti most of the rights that activists wish to go with that recognition.

This is the part that worries me. The motion also called for trans people to be able to receive healthcare in settings appropriate to their gender identity and ensure trans healthcare workers were able to access facilities appropriate to the gender they identify as From Doctors. Who should know what a bloody woman is.

Gender before sex once again.

There is no mention of sex at all. The whole thing would be irrelevant - silly and possibly a waste of resources, but not impactful on women - if they actually meant what they said, ie allowing genders to come together be validated in whatever way they want, but what they actually mean is replacing sex and allowing people to take on sex based rights and spaces intended for the opposite sex without being of the sex for which they are intended. It is the usual total misunderstanding (whether deliberate or not) or the difference between sex and gender.

I don’t think it’s the job of my trade union.. . ... Most doctors, even BMA members aren’t involved in these meetings so this does not necessarily represent the views of all members ..I suspect most are trying to be woke and right on and don’t realise what it might actually mean for our staff and patients.

You’re definitely a terf then, StonedRoses I just hope the woke policies can’t be enforced.

Everything people have said on here is correct except that the BMA isn’t a weird hybrid, or shouldn’t be. It is the doctors trade union. So it’s no1 job, just like any other trade union should be the T&Cs of its members. Myself and many other members, roll our eyes when it gets involved in areas such as banning boxing because that’s time and energy taken away from what I pay my membership for. Even things like the free sanitary products in school, which I wholeheartedly agree with, really shouldn’t be in their remit.

There are lots of medical students and junior doctors proposing eye catching motions or campaigns to make names for themselves and get themselves noticed.

Not happy

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

I don’t think it’s the job of my trade union.. . ... Most doctors, even BMA members aren’t involved in these meetings so this does not necessarily represent the views of all members ..I suspect most are trying to be woke and right on and don’t realise what it might actually mean for our staff and patients.

You’re definitely a terf then, StonedRoses I just hope the woke policies can’t be enforced.

I’ll take that as a badge in honour on here Remember this is not a policy setting body. This does not mean that this becomes hospital policy. Just that the BMA wish it to. Technically they are supposed to campaign for the motions passed but of course some do take priority over others. I’d hope that with Covid, new contracts and all the other issues in the NHS then perhaps this will slip down the agenda

Everything people have said on here is correct except that the BMA isn’t a weird hybrid, or shouldn’t be. It is the doctors trade union

I don't think we are really disagreeing on the core point, but the BMA isn't a trade union, and it does have a role as the national negotiator for both members and non-members, unlike any actual TU (AFAIK).

I agree with you that it should stick to matters directly affecting doctors, but it has never done so, as I'm sure you know. It has far too many grand-standing media whores in senior positions, who are more interested in power and attention than serving members - to the frustration of those BMA officers who are actually in it to help members (there are some great, dedicated individuals)

My point is that it has influence on public policy that is wider than its remit representing members and that, as a result, the public should make it clear when they are unhappy with its direction of travel.

BMA recommends that vulnerable, ill women, partially dressed, frightened, in pain, and often unconscious, be required to share wards with males, at the males’ request.
Males who are themselves partially dressed and may - depending on their medical condition and medication - be disinhibited and sexually aggressive.
It’s a rapists’ charter and any doctor who doesn’t complain to the BMA is complicit - sorry to be so blunt if you’re a doctor, but that’s the truth. It’s a disgrace and if you don’t want this being done to women in your name you need to stand up & object.