CQC are at it now 🙄

[ChelseaCat]

I can see that they’ll be insisting on all healthcare organisations asking for staff/patient pronouns and removing the word women from their vocabulary next....

Ah - the CQC who gave the Tavistock a Good rating with Outstanding for 'Effectiveness' in 2018. That CQC?

I wonder if they're a Stonewall champion?

Oh look:
www.cqc.org.uk/news/stories/cqcs-commitment-equality-workplace-recognised-stonewall

When I was working for them a few years ago, we had training from Stonewall so I would imagine they are. I wish I had known then what I know now

Compelled pronouns is a ‘human right’, but they then have the brass neck to call us c**.

Irony is clearly lost on them

Apologise but don't over apologise

Is this an entry for the Edinburgh Fringe ?

I liaise with someone from the CGQ - pronouns are already in the email signatures

and oh look!

gender instead of sex in the protected characteristics

www.cqc.org.uk/about-us/our-strategy-plans/equality-human-rights

Oh for the love of sanity. So exhausted from this shit. In slightly good news, I work for the NHS and only a handful of colleagues so far have put pronouns in their email signature. I always want to ask them if they knew what the hell a pronoun was 6 months ago!

Fingers crossed it's just the latest load of woke shit and will blow over

Respecting people's chosen pronouns is a 'basic human right'?

Since when? It is a courtesy, surely, not a basic human right?

For instance, the right to a fair trial or the right not to be made stateless are 'basic human rights'.

Pronouns, not so much.

Should we contact them to point out they’ve left out a protected characteristic? Are they even legally allowed to do that?

Point it out.
Out of curiosity, what pronouns should I use to indicate that I am not to be referred to as cisgender in my absence? I also wish to use pronouns that are gender neutral but not generally used by trans people as I don't wish to colonise or diminish their validity? Any ideas?

@Redshoeblueshoe

Apologise but don't over apologise

Is this an entry for the Edinburgh Fringe ?

That's what stuck out to me as well

Tbh I think that whatever views you have (I'm on a thread discussing about not being sure) it's fairly common courtesy to use whatever pronoun and you don't have to believe that the person is a man or woman.

I also feel that CQC are basically a government department. So are going to go with what seems to be the common gov discourse on this ie that pronouns should be respected.

it's fairly common courtesy to use whatever pronoun and you don't have to believe that the person is a man or woman.

So this is one of those polite little white lies women are we're expected to make in order to fulfill the 11th Commandment "Thou shalt be Kind"?

While we are on the subject of Basic Human Rights:

Article 19: Everyone has the right to their own opinions, and to be able to express them freely. We should have the right to share our ideas with who we want, and in whichever way we choose.

and

Article 30: No government, group or individual should act in a way that would destroy the rights and freedoms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

@JellySlice

it's fairly common courtesy to use whatever pronoun and you don't have to believe that the person is a man or woman.

So this is one of those polite little white lies women are we're expected to make in order to fulfill the 11th Commandment "Thou shalt be Kind"?

Pretty much.

It's not just women though it's men who expected to use them too. I get why people care about pronouns. But I think a lot of people feel like it seems petty. So I'd rather focus on the things which have potential to have a negative impact on women in a bigger way.

How can dictating how people talk about you when you're not there be a 'basic human right'? Is this enshrined in the Human Rights Act?

It is a whopping white lie and misrepresentation of the Equality Act.
It's the Stonewall version of the Equality Act. How can so many organisations just take that at face value without looking up the correct legislation.

CQC are such wankers. They have a long record of rating maternity units as 'good' or 'outstanding' which then turn out to have massive failings involving the unnecessary deaths of mothers and babies. See Shrewsbury and Telford for a particularly egregious example.

They should set about sorting that out before they worry about pronouns.

I get why people care about pronouns. But I think a lot of people feel like it seems petty. So I'd rather focus on the things which have potential to have a negative impact on women in a bigger way.

Read this and see if you still think the same about pronouns being unimportant.

fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

Has anyone ever been inspected by the CQC, thats a joke as well. Lots of warning in advance, a pre assessment visit, people who dont know anything about the nuts and bolts of the job, main focus seems to be on having paperwork in order so they can tick a box

@EdgeOfACoin

Respecting people's chosen pronouns is a 'basic human right'?

Since when? It is a courtesy, surely, not a basic human right?

For instance, the right to a fair trial or the right not to be made stateless are 'basic human rights'.

Pronouns, not so much.

Is it preferred pronouns that are the basic human right or having your wishes respected as to how others should talk about you?

The former reflect one's status (or identity), whereas the latter reflect one's desires. For instance, it is generally seen as respectful to use a person's preferred title, because it is an outward sign of one's status in society (married, member of the armed forces, professor, member of the aristocracy etc). But having one's status acknowledged in social interactions is not a human right.

We do frequently wish others spoke about us in certain ways, or that they would not speak about us in others. But I cannot conceive of a situation outside of seeking legal redress for defamation where we can even attempt to force someone to comply with our wishes regarding their words. And this situation doesn't apply here.

So what logical explanation exists for this argument? And what is the human right referred to?

The European Convention on Human Rights, that all member states of the Council of Europe have to abide by, contains the following basic human rights

Article 2 the right to life
Article 3 prohibits torture and cruel and unusual punishment by the state or state actors
Article 4 prohibits slavery, forced labour and servitude
Article 5 the right to liberty and security
Article 6 the right to a fair trial
Article 7 the right not to be punished retroactively for something that wasn't a crime when you did it or for something that you didn't do because it wasn't required then
Article 8 the right to privacy
Article 9 the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Article 10 the right to freedom of expression
Article 11 the right to freedom of association and assembly
Article 12 the right to marry
Article 13 the right to remedy if your Article rights under the convention are breached
Article 14 the right not to be discriminated against in exercising your article rights because of your sex, race, religion and other status

(Article 1 obliges all state parties to the convention to respect these rights, Articles 15 to 18 are about exceptions, restrictions and foreign parties.)

So which one applies here?

Sounds similar to being inspected by OFSTED. Lots of paperwork ticked but no general interest in anything else. Usually whoever comes out hasn't worked in the sector but very concerned when they feel you should know all about the inspector's sector.

(Big end-of-week sigh). OFSTED, another Stonewall Champion.

So, in my understanding (from legal people on other threads - I don't work in law myself), the CQC are making themselves vulnerable to being sued by stating gender rather than sex. If someone makes a complaint about a unit which it is argued discriminates on the basis of sex, the could the CQC not be vulnerable to being sued on the basis of giving a "good" rating without having considered this?

So, yes - in my understanding, replacing sex with gender is both unethical and legally stupid.

Can anyone with more legal expertise comment?

So which one applies here?
Article 368533572 The right to claim language is both literal violence (when someone, usually a woman, says something you don't like), and not a big issue at all (when telling someone, usually a woman, that she should smile nicely and have the language surrounding her biological reality dictated to her).

So which one applies here?

These:

Article 9 the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Article 10 the right to freedom of expression