Telegraph covers NHS staff threatening to bin EHRC guidance

[ChristinaXYZ]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/05/nhs-equality-chief-leads-mutiny-against-transphobic-watchdog/ for the full piece. some key elements below. I think the two journalists have done a really good job - covered all the bases.

"....Tara Hewitt, the group head of equality, diversity and inclusion at Northern Care Alliance NHS Group, described the guidance as “transphobic” and said that NHS bosses should put it in the “bin”.

Her calls for NHS leaders to be told to “ignore” the legal opinion of the UK’s human rights body was backed by Kathryn Thomson, the chief executive of Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, and Aaron Cummins, the chief executive at University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust....

"Legal experts warned on Tuesday that NHS trusts not following the watchdog's advice on the law “could well come unstuck”.

Amanda Jones, a barrister specialising in gender law at Great James Street chambers, added that it was “unwise publicly to publish your refusal to engage with the EHRC’s guidance”.

....After its long-awaited clarification was published, the Trans NHS Staff Network put out a message on social media urging “all NHS Equality Teams to ignore this transphobic and hostile guidance from EHRC that is likely to be found unlawful at judicial review and continue to write and follow trans inclusive policies and guidance”...

...All NHS trusts have a duty to comply with the Equality Act. The EHRC's guidance, published on Monday, stated that service providers can “limit access to their service for trans people” if it “is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. This “could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety”.

Ms Jones added that “if you don’t follow the guidance and you come before a court, the court is going to want some serious explanation of why you’re not following it”, she said.

Estelle Carmichael, the deputy chief of people for Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust which employs Ms Hewitt, said: “As a responsible health care provider and employer, our approach is to focus on treating all of our colleagues and patients according to their individual needs.

“We will continue to advise our staff to follow the principles and responsibilities of the Equality Act 2010, as set out in our local equality, diversity and inclusion policies and procedures. The manager who made these comments is a well-known equality advocate and has expressed a personal opinion on this matter.”

Morecambe Bay declined to comment whilst Liverpool Women's NHS Trust did not respond when approached by this newspaper."

"Tara was on the Conservative Party candidate list in the last election and came under fire when a Sun report ‘revealed’ her sexual fetishes.

Hewitt reportedly described herself as an “advocate of the BDSM (bondage, discipline and sadomasochism) community”, and into “swinging” and “pet play”, which is dressing up as an animal for sex."

Toys are being thrown out of the collective pram. TRA’s aren’t used to be told no. I have zero sympathy.

@Kendodd

As a woman if I received intimate medical treatment from a trans woman who had not disclosed they were trans I might well feel assaulted. My consent would have been given on the understanding that they were biologically female.

I think it highly unlikely you wouldn't know they were trans anyway. So few trans women pass, so unless you were blind and deaf (as some women are) you would know. And I have known A LOT of trans women in my time.

I actually work with a trans woman who I didn’t know was biologically male until another colleague told me. We’re all health care professionals.

We should thank both the Telegraph for writing the piece so thoughtfully and eloquently fAND and placing it so prominently so that we are all now aware (for those that were not before) the ruling of the EHRC and Tara and her band of idiots for outlining their refusal in WRITING! Therefore Tara et al should be followed up and investigated as a breach of duty and contract as a minimum. Highlighting their prejudice in a role that should be neutral and inclusive.

The paper have helpfully included a list of rebels and the hospital trusts, so do feel free to get in touch directly if they are supposed to be representing you.

Three claps for the dunces.

And also what do you do if you suspect the hcp is male? Ask them and upset them? Really upset them if they are actually female with a deep voice?

This is the issue. We’re all conditioned to be kind would women speak up? The onus should be on the trans person to be open and honest without being asked but I can’t imagine that happens.

It doesn't matter to a traumatised woman or, indeed a Muslim woman, how well someone "passes". It really fucking doesn't. That's just grotesque version of "mean girl" shit about how pretty someone is.

There is also a suggestion we should be emailing our MPs in the areas where we are seeing refusal, we need some support and reassurance that this policy will be in place, and those that are wilfully blocking measures being made to protect women and girls should face dismissal and or prosecution.

Liverpool Women and children's hospital should truly hang its head in shame this morning.

A traumatised woman shouldn't have to explain why she needs a single sex space.

And that dreadful rape on a single sex ward in hospital case should be enough proof of how unfit these so called NHS Equality Managers are.

Are women being violated by men already in hospital settings without the patient's consent? Are there ANY checks in terms of intimate examinations etc being made to ensure the safety of the staff carrying them out?

To have NHS managers and CEOs PREVENTING safety measures to protect vulnerable patients and children is utterly utterly outrageous.
These people are paid to supposedly keep us safe!!

Every one of them should be identified and sacked immediately.

They are not fit for the job if they can only prepared to protect half of their patients that so happen to be male, but they are totally unwilling to protect the other half - women and girls, and worse still seem hellbent on building a campaign against them!!

The narcissistic rage that our interpretation of the Equalities act is correct is a wonder to behold. It rather gives a lie to the statement that self Id and a GRC has no impact on women's rights. They obviously believed they could use it as a trump card to gain access to womens spaces. Imagine being told no!

I would suggest that public statements of intent to fail to adhere to legislation which could potentially cost a taxpayer funded service money should result in personal liability and cancellation of cover for officers liability insurance. Putting their personal pennies in the pot for any Court case would sharpen a lot of policy makers thinking.

I dont care if they personally think that a man is a woman, they need to work within the legal framework or leave their position of authority.
SolasAnla

Sad to say money sharpens the mind - which might not be a bad thing here. Insurers / underwriters get a bit funny about paying out.

More letters to CEOs of Trusts cc’ing in the Local MPs. I’d want to know their (my tax £) liabilities for will fully putting at risk hospital money. & no, I’m not interested on how much they set aside in their accounts each period for ‘legal’ work. Accidents happen. This is something quite different.

RobinMoiraWhite
You think there is a substantive difference between 2010 & 2022? How?

rage that our interpretation of the Equalities act is correct is a wonder to behold
Quite. This guidance is a considered application of the existing law. Not something new.
Trusts need to be sensitive about how and where their trans employees are placed so that their working environment is safe. But people accessing services need that too. Women shouldn't have to disclose any reasons at all for wanting and expecting same sex wards and staff in certain circumstances.

And also what do you do if you suspect the hcp is male? Ask them and upset them? Really upset them if they are actually female with a deep voice?

It doesn't really matter if they're male or not. If the patient perceives them as male, that's sufficient. For the person setting their boundaries, their view is what matters. To override their view is violating their boundaries.

If they perceive someone as male whether they're (a) not male or (b) actually male but want to not be perceived as male, the result should be the same.

In practice it appears males who don't want to be perceived as male get far more upset about being perceived as male than women do.

What this has exposed is a vast underbelly of activism in the heart of the NHS which explains a great deal why we are in this position in the first place. I hope every paper in the land now starts investigating every public service to see how wide this runs and how deep.
How can someone like Tara so obviously biased keep his job now?

I ask you, how is his position even tenable after this?

Seriously, would a trans woman even need treatment there? Breast cancer maybe?

Tara takes a view that breast cancer is worse for MTF trans people than women because they feel the loss of their breast through mastectomy more, see the video.

@Apollo441

The narcissistic rage that our interpretation of the Equalities act is correct is a wonder to behold. It rather gives a lie to the statement that self Id and a GRC has no impact on women's rights. They obviously believed they could use it as a trump card to gain access to womens spaces. Imagine being told no!

Totally agree. The posters on here seem to have a much better handle of the Equality Act 2010, it's exemptions and application than many large organisations (some of whom, to be fair, have been deliberately misadvised). Look at the recent furore with the Times Senior Sports Correspondant - on Twitter, he made a snide and frankly silly comment about just popping off to get a degree in human rights while posters were giving him links to guidance and legislation. He eventually realised that women have armed themselves with knowledge and actually know what they're talking about.

The guidance by EHRC is simply reiterating what we already knew but the rage from those who are demanding the right to see women naked, or to examine women, or to use spaces they are not entitled to use is quite something.

‘What this has exposed is a vast underbelly of activism in the heart of the NHS which explains a great deal why we are in this position in the first place.’

This. Networks of staff with particular beliefs (whether that’s support for a party, or support for certain interpretations of law) being supported to promote political ideologies inside a public service was always a terrible idea.

@Swayingpalmtrees

Are women being violated by men already in hospital settings without the patient's consent? Are there ANY checks in terms of intimate examinations etc being made to ensure the safety of the staff carrying them out?

To have NHS managers and CEOs PREVENTING safety measures to protect vulnerable patients and children is utterly utterly outrageous.
These people are paid to supposedly keep us safe!!

Every one of them should be identified and sacked immediately.

They are not fit for the job if they can only prepared to protect half of their patients that so happen to be male, but they are totally unwilling to protect the other half - women and girls, and worse still seem hellbent on building a campaign against them!!

I take it you didn't hear of a women on a female ward, raped by a male, which was on CCTV, and it took her a year to get the evidence and the whole time, the hospital insisted the rape could not have happened as there was no male on the ward. To the victim and to the police.

A year.

Betting those ward staff are still in post though.

The NHS is in so deep, not sure how they could ever get out without mass dismissals at a high level and a clean sweep.

‘What this has exposed is a vast underbelly of activism in the heart of the NHS which explains a great deal why we are in this position in the first place.’

I agree. Equality roles in particular should be vetted. Absolutely no political activism should be allowed and that should be in contracts and checked.

Other roles like data protection have to do only what the law says. Why is this different and why has it been allowed to happen?

Thank god for the EHRC guidance!

100% @tabbycatstripy they should be sacked!

@QuebecBagnet

And also what do you do if you suspect the hcp is male? Ask them and upset them? Really upset them if they are actually female with a deep voice?

This is the issue. We’re all conditioned to be kind would women speak up? The onus should be on the trans person to be open and honest without being asked but I can’t imagine that happens.

Kamilla Kamaruddin, a GP in London, doesn't always tell patients.

Patients who knew me from before were very happy for me. I didn’t receive any hostility. We live in a multi-ethnic society; a lot of our female patients wear long, very modest clothes. After I transitioned they allowed me to examine them. For me that was such a big acceptance. For new patients, either they didn’t know or they didn’t care.

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/sep/11/meet-the-trans-key-workers-treating-teaching-and-serving-the-uk

Could this doctor be prosecuted for sexual assault of the patients who "didn't know"?

Equality roles in particular should be vetted

You would think this would happen as a matter of course. In the same way doctors are cross checked or any profession that is responsible for policy, safety, patient care, all should be seriously vetted.

Who on earth gave Tara the job in the first place promoting equality of all things?

@Swayingpalmtrees

Equality roles in particular should be vetted

You would think this would happen as a matter of course. In the same way doctors are cross checked or any profession that is responsible for policy, safety, patient care, all should be seriously vetted.

Who on earth gave Tara the job in the first place promoting equality of all things?

Someone wanting to cross reference to a Stonewall index?

One might want to check the legal effect of not following the 2010 Statutory Code as opposed to not following the latest ‘guidance’ which is both non-statutory and inconsistent with the statutory code. Declaring that you intend to follow the latest ‘guidance’ where it is inconsistent in fact bears the legal risk. Do check it out.

Yes, YOU might want to, yet again!

The Code and Guidance are in agreement. It is perfectly legal to maintain siungle sex spaces, exlcusing men, including transwomen with or without a GRC, if that is deemed, by the provider, to be a proportional response to meeting their own aims.

Futhermore, NOT on an individual by individual basis. But as a specific policy. Which is why one charity I work for excludes all males, including transwomen with or without a GRC, as a matter of policy. We are a refuge for women, females only. And I shall be taking these newly emphasised gudiance notes to every single funding stream that defunded us after following shonky advice, similar to that you insist on providing!

Your bias and incorrect interpretation of what is, after all, a very simple bit of legislation (only complicated by the cries of TWAW), has real effects on some of the most vulnerable women! Why do you persist?