Is this legal? Barts Health NHS recruiting for a director of Operations who identifies as female

[apintortwo]

Could someone explain the legal aspects of this in relation to discrimination legislation?

uk.jooble.org/jdp/8593368761237886898/Director-of-Operations-%7C-Barts-Health-NHS-Trust-London?utm_campaign=google_jobs_apply&utm_source=google_jobs_apply&utm_medium=organic

Apologies for the DM article below

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11122945/Fury-sexist-NHS-job-ad-says-preferably-identifies-woman.html

I agree, it's (not very subtle) code for, if you're not into gender ideology, don't bother.
It's dodgy as fuck IMO. A healthcare provider as well. Quite frightening.

See, I think whoever wrote it is just blinkered with #bekind. They probably don't even realise there are people who object on principle to "identify as". They will have been told that this is the most modern and inclusive way to phrase it - it won't have been presented to them as a contentious and controversial ideological statement.

Frightening, yes, but for different reasons.

A healthcare provider as well. Quite frightening.

What would happen if a woman wishes to be seen by a female doctor? The role is an Operations Director in a public hospital

Not sure if I've understood your point (sorry if not), but what I meant was that I think a healthcare provider more than others should be using accurate language.

Not sure if I've understood your point (sorry if not), but what I meant was that I think a healthcare provider more than others should be using accurate language.

Yes, I agree with this.

I was wondering whether appointing someone who's non-GC in such a senior position at a public hospital would impair women's options to request to be seen only by a female doctor in certain circumnstances, have access to women-only wards, etc.

I see what you mean.

Well probably, yes. But if the whole trust is 'captured', which this ad suggests it is, it quite possibly wouldn't need there to be someone in this specific sort of position for those kinds of problems to exist.

Lol, very true!

Bart's has not yet signed up to the Rainbow Badge scheme but appears to be planning to do so, they stated they "have not yet submitted" in their reply to this FOI.

The Rainbow Badge scheme is the Stonewall workplace equality index by another name, sneaked in by using the LGBT Foundation as the front organisation.

This advertisement will be used as evidence for their submission.

The applicant will be expected to answer an inclusion based competency question at interview, although I'm sure answers relating to other protected characteristics such as race or disability will be welcome.

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/869788/response/2073953/attach/html/6/Phase%202%20info%20session%20to%20send.pptx.html

The assessment process document is here.

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/870748/response/2080857/attach/html/5/Induction%20pack.docx.html

Rainbow badge twitter here.

twitter.com/rainbownhsbadge/status/1550435996378054656?s=21&t=QbS6UHo-17YtB7LlnowFKQ

Indeed they are.

Well well well...excellent sleuthing Magnolia.

Bart's has not yet signed up to the Rainbow Badge scheme but appears to be planning to do so

How about hospitals just abide by the Equality Act, full stop. Why the need to 'sign up' to any 'scheme'?

Why the need to 'sign up' to any 'scheme'?

What would be the consequences for Barts if they didn't sign up to the Rainbow Badge?

How about hospitals just abide by the Equality Act, full stop. Why the need to 'sign up' to any 'scheme'?

Exactly apintortwo

Looking again at the requirements for Leadership to demonstrate LGBT friendly activities, supplying evidence with specific dates, names, job titles it's just mad that trusts are beholden to these organisations, having to do their homework and send it in for marking like this. The time and money involved is mind boggling. And I'm not sure names should be shared like this.

I'd like to think NHS trusts and their leaders had more important priorities.

Added screen shot of Barts' reply to the request.

The time and money involved is mind boggling

Time and money that should be spent on tangible resources and training doctors and staff. It's shocking.

it's just mad that trusts are beholden to these organisations

But who forces them to do this? What would happen if they didn't?

If that group is under-represented in their workforce it's entirely legal.

However the NHS has far bigger equality issues to deal with. For example at my local trust all the women are referred to as Jane Smith; all the men are referred to as Mr John Doe. The men are afforded the courtesy of a title but the women aren't. Don't get me on the equality issues of Dr's of either sex expecting patients to address then with a title when they do not afford patients that level of courtesy. Notwithstanding the fact that women's pain has been under estimated and under treated by HCPs for generations.

If only the NHS could focus a bit more on the basics and adhere to the Sex Discrimation Act 1975 I could take it's other equality issue agendas rather more seriously.

But who forces them to do this? What would happen if they didn't?

As far as I can tell no one is forcing them to do it and nothing will happen if they don't!

One trust replied to the FOI sent saying they were unaware of the scheme (they must be living in another planet).

I don't think anyone forces them to but it is regarded as a positive action in the context of accreditations: Stonewall, etc, and is probably also being increasingly demanded by funding bodies for research grants.

If only the NHS could focus a bit more on the basics and adhere to the Sex Discrimation Act 1975 I could take it's other equality issue agendas rather more seriously.

The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and other equality-related legislation was rolled into and superseded by the Equality Act 2010.

You can welcome applications from any group. So for example, you can welcome applications from members of the Asian community without it being discrimination, even though that does not include all other ethnic minorities and Asian descent is not specified in the Act.

That's true - but it's not the same. Race is a protected characteristic, so you can specify that you want applications from a particular racial or ethnic group.

Similarly, sex is a protected characteristic, so you can specify that you want applications from biological women - or indeed from biological men, if the role requires it (eg maybe it's a men's sexual health role).

Gender reassignment is also a protected characteristic, so you can specify that you want applications from people who have undergone, or are undergoing, gender reassignment.

What you can't do is say you want applications from some biological women, but not all (ie trans men), and some people with gender reassignment but not all (again, trans men).

Yes, I'm aware of that @BettyFilous. However the point I was making was that sex discrimination has been with us since 1975, nearly 50 years, yet the NHS still behaves less favourably to wen than it does to men. I think that needs addressing ahead of chest feeding and rainbow crossings personally.

is probably also being increasingly demanded by funding bodies for research grants

Grants given under the condition of political alignment and action by public bodies should stop

I hear you!

I nearly posted a similar thread the other day when I saw a campaign by the national autism society of all places.

If you saw this advert, who would respond... particularly if autistic? I would not respond as I don't identify as a woman, I am a woman. I don't use the identity as language for myself.