I need to write a letter

[Tissueboxcover]

Opened a professional medical journal this morning. I can't access it online unfortunately, otherwise I would post the link.
It contains the following paragraph:

"Being transgender is a protected characteristic under the equality act 2010 and outing someone is classed as direct discrimination with serious consequences(up to £5000 fine +/- 6 months prison service."
I thought gender reassignment plus GRC was the protected characteristic?
The whole piece is littered with "Gender assigned at birth".
There is a half page illustration of the Genderbread Person and a link to www.genderbread.org.

I thought progress was being made in debunking this particular theory?

I completely support the principle of safe care for everyone, raising awareness of people who present as the opposite sex to their birth sex. But the inclusion of the Genderbread Person? In a scientific journal?

I am now thinking:

"This advice could have been condensed to:
The number of people presenting as the opposite sex to their biological sex is increasing. It is possible that they have been able to obtain a new NHS number and thereby render their past medical history inaccessible. Health care institutions should therefore consider this and review their policies and procedures to take account of this when providing patient care and treatment, analysing test results etc.
Studying the relevant legislation should be part of this process."

Include links to the equality act 2010.

Gender reassignment is the protected characteristic and it includes anyone who has undergone, is undergoing or proposes to undergo 'gender reassignment' so in effect it sort of does include self ID but in prefer to get a GRC you need two medical reports (one from a specialist, one from your GP) and to get your application approved by the panel after living as the 'opposite gender' for two years.

Sadly that's not what this medical journal refers to, as they say 'transgender' which is not what the EA2010 says.

Do pull them up on it and ask them where they got that fine and prison sentence info from. I'm really so very tired of this fake news.

In my view, and I appreciate that others may disagree, it is the whole gender identity cult that is putting people's lives and health at risk.
Anyone should be able to wear what they like, style their hair, wear makeup, whatever, but should also be comfortable to tell a HCP their biological sex.
That way everyone gets the right treatment.

The fine and prison sentence comes from one of the privacy clauses in the GRA.

This article references it, and links to an article I have read in the Pulse (magazine for GPS) which it looks like has been taken down.

www.essexlmc.org.uk/recording-gender-medical-records/

I'm having a mardy day today where the milk of human kindness has definitely curdled in my veins and clotted in my arteries.

Here's what I propose.

There are all sorts of statistical techniques for dealing with corrupted datasets where you know or suspect some of the data has been recorded in the wrong category.

So when it comes to things like big epidemiological studies, although it's a pain in the arse knowing your data is corrupted when, if you'd been allowed to ask the right bloody questions in the first place, you could have got more accurate data. But it's not an intractable problem.

On the individual level - you want not to disclose your trans status. Crack on. Reach end-stage, intractable kidney disease because you never told your doctor they should be comparing your blood levels against the female chart rather than the male chart. Let your prostate cancer spread to other organs because you never thought to point out that your underlying biology was male when you went to the GP complaining that you had to pee really frequently these days, and they tested you for diabetes but not prostate antigens.

Congratulations. You just got yourself a Darwin award. But remember - you, YOU, chose to enter yourself for this in the first place. This is what you wanted. No dead naming. No reference to actual biology. Nothing which might be remotely triggering. We warned you what might happen, but you went ahead anyway. You asked for it, you got it, now live (or die) with the consequences.

@Tissueboxcover

In my view, and I appreciate that others may disagree, it is the whole gender identity cult that is putting people's lives and health at risk. Anyone should be able to wear what they like, style their hair, wear makeup, whatever, but should also be comfortable to tell a HCP their biological sex. That way everyone gets the right treatment.

It's really dangerous for some.

Someone posted an article here maybe a couple of months ago about a transman who did nearly die because the doctors didn't know they were dealing with a biological female. The transman used the term 'cute' or something along those lines, to describe how it felt not being recognised as a female. That's a dangerous mindset, I think it's important that trans people are fully informed o the importance of disclosing this with their HCP. They're not there to judge at all, and it's the difference between life and death.

Buck Angel, a transman too, has been very open about nearly dying because vaginal atrophy (from testosterone use, I believe) caused sepsis, and he speaks of the importance of being honest when it comes to your health.

If doctors believe they're dealing with a man, they're going to waste time on tests that are irrelevant for female bodies, and lose a lot of precious time pinpointing the problem.

Buck Angel, a transman too, has been very open about nearly dying because vaginal atrophy (from testosterone use, I believe) caused sepsis, and he speaks of the importance of being honest when it comes to your health.

I like Buck Angel - always comes across as a good egg and eminently sane.

The article is specifically in relation to blood transfusions, which clearly would be a potential risk to the fetus if the wrong blood were to be given to a transman who was pregnant.
RH factor is not considered when transfusing males, but has to be taken into account when transfusing females of child bearing age. so not just the transperson at risk here.
Otherwise, I probably wouldn't care either, except for the poor HCP being the subject of a complaint or court case if things went wrong.
I also think HCPs have got enough to be worrying about without having to read this genderbread person stuff.

I have worded that badly. Rh factor is considered and checked, but is very dangerous if the wrong blood is given to females of child bearing age.