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....

@ChancesWhatChances

A woman is a biological female. A man is a biological male. This is all I have to say on the matter anymore, I no longer have the energy

Yes it tiresome now. I feel like not bothering to even discuss it anymore as that gives the impression it's up for discussion at all. Completely sick of being called a bigot over this.

@Okbussitout

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.

Surely pronouns encourage discrimination. There's a thread on this board describing (among other disadvantages of womanhood) how salesmen and others patronise women and assume that they know nothing about anything which isn't sewing and baking. Some insisting on talking to the male labourer rather than the female expert. Obviously these men should remove their head from their backsides but until that happens, isn't it better that they deal with "J. Smith" (who could be John or Jane) in their correspondence so that they make no assumptions about the person they are emailing?

In any case, the points being made on this thread are that pronouns are a courtesy, not a "basic human right"; that "sex" is a protected characteristic, not "gender".

The CQC is a government agency. I'd love to know why all of this madness is happening under a Conservative government.

@FindTheTruth

They're responsible for reviewing puberty blockers etc aren't they? how can they inspect what's going on if they don't recognise sex as a protected characteristic? Like a Baroness said yesterday, it's not for civil servants to change laws.

"Just sign here, Minister. No, you're far too busy to read it, just sign at the bottom..."

Yes, Minister wasn't a sitcom; it was a documentary.

The CQC is a government agency. I'd love to know why all of this madness is happening under a Conservative government.

Why wouldn't it? The Conservatives don't give a shit about women's rights, as a whole. Neither do Labour, unfortunately, so we're fucked either way.

The CQC aren't fit for purpose so sadly their pronouns claptrap is no surprise.. nevertheless I've sent them a message suggesting they familiarise themselves with the Equality Act and correct their list of protected characteristics accordingly, much good may it do...

Not RTFT not all of it.

1. many women have been and continue to be addressed by names that are not theirs. We have always been told this is trivial. And to STFU. Not words used when you're not there, his hers. But actual incorrect names titles. See all the threads on MN. Majority opinion is, get over it.

1. I have a work call with 15 people I have never met. They are in different offices, maybe overseas. What's the plan? Do I need to look on the intranet before every meeting to check pronouns? And then remember them? I am terrible with names and faces. As it is. This will be well a lot of work. And there will be long pauses while people look up the pronouns. In the real world. It just doesn't work.

Yes of course if I have a friend or colleague who is trans I will be respectful. Use their name and correct pronouns.

But when you're talking to loads of people you've never met and will never meet again. It's a big research and time sink to check all this out.

It's. Unrealistic in the real world. It just is.

'Okbussitout

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.'

Well if it's very important.

Then schools are the place to start.

Who regularly call Ms Jane Smith Mrs Jane Jones because they assume she's married.

And call the woman first even when she has been repeatedly said her male OH should be called first.

Women get. Suck it up. It's the way it is.

Yet at work at have to look up and remember and use pronouns like. Zir. How do you pronounce that. I have no idea. There are loads of them as well.

It's all been made up by people who only TYPE.

@NiceGerbil

'Okbussitout

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.'

Well if it's very important.

Then schools are the place to start.

Who regularly call Ms Jane Smith Mrs Jane Jones because they assume she's married.

And call the woman first even when she has been repeatedly said her male OH should be called first.

Women get. Suck it up. It's the way it is.

Yet at work at have to look up and remember and use pronouns like. Zir. How do you pronounce that. I have no idea. There are loads of them as well.

It's all been made up by people who only TYPE.

I think you're putting words on my mouth here. I never said anything about women sucking it up.

I don't really see the things you talked about as mutually exclusive. Of course these things should happen re the school. I assume you're talking about your experience? There are not only so many rights or so much respect in language to go round.

I think what you're talking about is we don't have the basics right for women yet are focusing on not offending trans people?

I am concerned about where rights directly conflict. People can agree on some points without being on agreement with everything you say or massively against your view. I do feel, as I said on another thread though that it's very adversarial and if I'm not agreeing with everything then I'm against you.

@Okbussitout

Sorry I have experience of the CQC and I feel its really unfair to say they don't give a shit. They are really invested in making health and social care good and safe.

My partner has worked 10 and 11 hour days for a year now ensuring that health and social care keeps operating well and safely as well as doing lots re vaccine delivery. So it's pretty offensive to say they don't care. The CQC also know theres an issue with maternity and are reviewing this at the moment. But remember they didn't make it shit.

CQC do just regulate they don't really have enforcement power if health and social care is shit its often related to the ccgs who create the services and the CQC have no remit regarding those.

What? That's totally wrong. One of the main functions of the CQC is enforcement, if providers are not complying with the fundamental standards of care. The CQC have enforcement powers under the Health and Social Care Act 2008. They can put providers in special measures and, ultimately, remove their registration, preventing them from operating in England.

They can't do anything about providers outside England, including GenderGP, but they absolutely can take enforcement action in England.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow

What they can do regarding enforcement legally and what they actually have capacity to do are very different things.

Ultimately its nice and ccgs who decide on treatment options and availability. Anyway this thread was about pronouns and my point was it's rediculous to say CQC don't give a shit. Which stills tands regardless of what you're saying about enforcement.

Have you seen the state of health care in countries that don't have regulation?
My comment regarding regulation is about who is responsible for treatment options available and quality. They don't inspect ccgs who commission services or have any enforcement power with them. Frequently the issues with the NHS is availability, speed of treatment and lack of treatment options all ccg related.

Interesting you haven't aknowledged any of my other points. Yet chose to pick at a specific about enforcement powers. When that wasn't what my post was really about.

I'm not anti healthcare regulation, @Okbussitout. But, it's hard to take your other points seriously when you make a statement about the CQC that is so fundamentally untrue. If you really understood how they worked, you would know that their statutory duty of enforcement underpins everything they do in registration and regulation.

Not understanding this is a bit like commenting on the police, saying that they don't have the power to arrest, and then complaining that no one is taking your opinion seriously. You totally undermined your own credibility.

With respect Okbussitout, knowing a bit about your partner's job does not necessarily equate to the knowledge / experience of posters who are experienced in CQC inspections.
CQC are enforcers - it's in their terms and conditions as MissLucyEyelesbarrow has pointed out. And they are not a government department - they're an "Independent Regulator" - meant to be independent of government or other pressure in order to effectively regulate health and social care.

What is so worrying is that they have been regulatory captured by Stonewall thus impacting on their independence and evidently following Stonewall's demands. As is currently being revealed via the courts, being a Stonewall Champion significantly undermines the independence of an organisation.

I'm unhappy with the statement about people's presentation may not match their gender, so that why we need to declare/ask people their pronouns. What is gender if not the way you present? Obviously it's not sex.

@Kit19

You are right OKbussitout that CQC dont decide if a treatment is clinically safe, that's NICE job however CQC should ensure that NICE guidelines on treatment are being followed

absolutely.

NICE have no guidelines for the use of puberty blockers in children (other than for the specific condition of precocious puberty) so any medic or organisation prescribing puberty blockers should have been pulled up by the CQC for not following the guidelines?

I used to work in health and social care so it is a bit more than my partner's job. People never like being regulated that's just a fact. People will always moan about regulation. True across sectors, people always think they know best, their circumstances are special, it's too much work... But then tell that to people who have been on the receiving end of shit education or health care or even poor building standards. Regulation is crucial for quality. The people who complain about it need to think about why they are actually complaing and most likely it's because they don't wnat to be told how to do things.

So if we're doing the with respect thing, I'll be honest and say this type of thing is what makes you all look mental. The rabbid attacking of things most people do not see as linked to the arguments about single sex spaces.

What the prevailing view seem to be is that if a company or organisation has pro trans or even just do preferred pronouns, that everything they do is shit. It's one thing to say I don't agree with gender and the threat to single sex spaces and want to campaign against it even. There are definitely some point there for me. But it often actually is a small part of what a company or organisation, its not their ideology. So then to start attacking everything they do just looks a bit mad. Just because CQC talk about preferred pronouns doesn't make their regulatory work shit.

Yes CQC aren't a government department , but they do comms and have policies in line with government departments. So this will very likely have come from gov directive.

Also I read the thing about pronouns being like rohypnol. I don't agree. I think we afford people loads of courtesy we don't actually believe all the time.

@Okbussitout

I used to work in health and social care so it is a bit more than my partner's job. People never like being regulated that's just a fact. People will always moan about regulation. True across sectors, people always think they know best, their circumstances are special, it's too much work... But then tell that to people who have been on the receiving end of shit education or health care or even poor building standards. Regulation is crucial for quality. The people who complain about it need to think about why they are actually complaing and most likely it's because they don't wnat to be told how to do things.

So if we're doing the with respect thing, I'll be honest and say this type of thing is what makes you all look mental. The rabbid attacking of things most people do not see as linked to the arguments about single sex spaces.

What the prevailing view seem to be is that if a company or organisation has pro trans or even just do preferred pronouns, that everything they do is shit. It's one thing to say I don't agree with gender and the threat to single sex spaces and want to campaign against it even. There are definitely some point there for me. But it often actually is a small part of what a company or organisation, its not their ideology. So then to start attacking everything they do just looks a bit mad. Just because CQC talk about preferred pronouns doesn't make their regulatory work shit.

Yes CQC aren't a government department , but they do comms and have policies in line with government departments. So this will very likely have come from gov directive.

Also I read the thing about pronouns being like rohypnol. I don't agree. I think we afford people loads of courtesy we don't actually believe all the time.

Have you actually read this thread? As I'm not sure where you've got the impression that anyone is anti regulation? Posters are criticising the CQC for a range of issues including not knowing what the protected characteristics are in the Equality Act (they made some up). As they deal with regulating health & social care law that's pretty serious. This and the fact that they spend time writing about pronouns represents the fact that they've signed up to Stonewall, a political lobby group currently campaigning to remove women's sex based rights (single sex hospital wards, showers, prisons, women's sport, toilets in schools etc) - hence the comms and policies representing Stonewall's wishes. How will the CQC protect women in mental health wards, women who've been raped receiving medical treatment, women placed into mixed sex hospital wards with sex offenders (as has already happened) if they're under instructions from Stonewall to sanction the removal of sex based rights? They're compromised and that's the issue here.

Yep CQC are full stonewall - possibly why they seemed to have no issue with GIDS at Tavistock until the court case happened

twitter.com/carequalitycomm/status/1365313914632892418?s=21

Pushback is heartening! #Mynameis was started by Dr Kate Grainger who was diagnosed with cancer & found that doctors would just turn up and start poking around or throw questions at her without even bothering to introduce themselves. It was simply to get medical staff to remember to introduce themselves but of course Stonewall coukdbt let it rest there....

Why do these supposedly serious organisations with important & onerous responsibilities do this?

twitter.com/carequalitycomm/status/1365271228769042434?s=21

Cats do not have gender identities ffs!

Er...not only telling people to apologise, but also how?

Fuck that.

How is this not totalitarianism?

What the hell did I just read?

A young man living in Britain has given a male cat a name with an -a, and a female cat a name with an -o, and he's trying to make a serious point about the significance of people's presumptions?

Yes. The UK has social norms about what constitutes a female name and what constitutes a male name. Well done for finally noticing after you'd named your cats.

Neopronouns, that a new one. They should just fuck off basically.

I think there are two separate issues:

1. being accepting or non accepting of gender.

2. eroding single sex provision and protections.

Regarding 1), I propose being accepting of all varieties of gender. So accepting, that a multitude of genders becomes completely normalised for either sex. Protection for people's freedom to choose whoever gender they wish should be upheld in law. And single sex spaces should be made safe for people of any gender (belonging to the appropriate sex for the space)

Regarding 2) I propose single sex provision and protections should be upheld. But within that a multitude of genders should be catered for and their safety upheld.

So choosing your own pronouns, fine. Declaring your gender, fine. (Gender is indeed rendered meaningless once a multitude of genders becomes normalised for either sex) But eroding the protection provided in law for biologically female women, not fine.

I believe it it easier to uphold 2) if 1) is universally made acceptable. This is because the vast swathes of moderate people do not want to be discriminatory against any minority. Making a multitude of genders more acceptable and normative removes the controversy of gender - no one will feel silenced but the conversation will run its course as variety in gender becomes more common place and provision is made for this. Ultimately differences in gender will cease to matter.

Which leaves space for having a continued discussion about the safety and equality for biologically female women and upholding/making provision for this.

The responses to those twitter threads are superb.

It was the bit about using the word 'gender' in the equality act which was concerning. Here

"thanks Uppity how interesting

Written Question
Care Quality Commission
6 Jan 2021, midnight
Questioner: Lord Lucas

Question

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Care Quality Commission’s justification for the use of the word gender in the equality and human rights statement on its website reflects Government policy.

Answer (Lord Bethell)

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has used the word ‘gender’ instead of ‘sex’ in their Equality, Diversity and Human Rights Policy and Principles of Workforce Equality Monitoring since these documents were introduced in 2011.

These documents were reviewed by the CQC’s Staff Equality Networks and approved by the CQC’s Joint Negotiating and Consultation Committee, which includes trade union representatives and senior managers, alongside external, national union officers and were signed-off by the CQC’s board at that time.

The use of the word ‘gender’ did not arise as an issue of concern whilst completing Equality Impact Assessments for new human resources policies. It was neither subject to a specific assessment nor to legal advice at the time, but Government Legal Services have now reviewed the CQC’s use of the word gender in these documents and confirmed that this meets the requirements of the Equality Act 2010.

<a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.parallelparliament.co.uk/writtenanswers/search?document_type=writtenanswers&mp_type=1879" target="_blank">https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/writtenanswers/search?document<a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.parallelparliament.co.uk/writtenanswers/search?document_type=writtenanswers&mp_type=1879" target="blank">type=writtenanswers&mpp<a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.parallelparliament.co.uk/writtenanswers/search?document_type=writtenanswers&mp_type=1879" target="_blank">type=1879"

Friday 18:04 post.

Sorry, didn't mean to quote that here.

It was for another thread on the feminist board.