I have completed the survey and also emailed to the Bristol address given at the very bottom of the Toolkit.
Main points for me:
The mitigation for the impact on women with the protected characteristic of Religious Beliefs directs people to the 'Delivering Same-Sex Accommodation Guide' which specifies that anyone, whether part time trans or full time can choose to be accommodated onto a female ward. Not sure on which planet they think that mitigates the risk!!
Same for the impact on women (pc Sex) that may have suffered trauma and therefore cannot possibly be on a ward with a man - the recommended mitigation is to refer them to the Guide that says that any male can identify onto the ward. Not remotely acceptable.
There is also the point that you don't need to have suffered rape or trauma (and disclose that) to be given the right to a single sex ward. We have that right in law already.
They have used a disingenous interpretation of the EA 2010, emphasising that access will be considered on a case by case basis, implying at an individual level. The link below shows the actual law that states that case by case refers to a type of service or space ie. all rape shelters etc and specifically mentions same sex hospital wards as an example. How any numpty has misunderstood that I don't know - the more I got into this the crosser I got at how useless this EIA is and this is an improvement on the last version!!
It is also grossly unacceptable to push this potentially very difficult negotiation onto the frontline nursing staff to sort out - you've got a male-bodied person who wants to be placed on the female ward and you've got a load of women who might be unhappy but may not be well enough to advocate for themselves but you can't really talk about it because of your obligation of privacy to the transgender patient and if he makes a complaint of transphobia you might lose your job.
They also state that detransitioning rates are 'a very small percentage' - I have pointed out that seeing as the Tavistock couldn't be bothered to gather any useful data on patients and outcomes, they have no way of knowing whether it is a small percentage or not. Also the relative timescale of 5 yrs (affirmation only mainly started in 2015) is not long enough.
They also mentioned something about transwomen not being known to be a risk to women obviously not true - there are many good stats to refute that one.
Hope that is helpful if anyone is looking to complete the survey.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7 it is there in black and white!!