Open letter to Lizzie Streeter, NHS England National LGBT Programme Manager, requesting £100K Maternity Gender Inclusion Programme is paused.

[TiddlesTheTiger]

This is an open letter to Lizzie Streeter, NHS England National LGBT Programme Manager, requesting that the Maternity Gender Inclusion Programme is paused for the reasons outlined.

You can read the letter here and can add your signature, if you would like to.

with-woman.org/2023/01/04/open-letter-pause-midwifery-training-based-on-flawed-research/

Further info on with-woman.org
with-woman.org/

"We are birth workers and activists, focused on the pregnancy, birth, and breastfeeding concerns of women. Sex-based language is important due to sex-based oppression."

thanks, OP

Thanks - signed. Quite and impressive list of signatories already.

Thanks, signed

Thank you for sharing this. Heartening to see so many medical professionals signing this - along with hundreds of others. And shocking to see (yet again) the predictable standards of shoddy research, biased outcomes and yet again a wish to remove the language of women from maternity services.
Hatred of women runs so deep in this ideology.

So they've offered £100k to deliver training, basically immediately on awarding the contract? So no time to plan or prep or have any discussion around the materials that are going to be used?

And would HCP at these 40 trusts (which 40 trusts?) Have to sit through this training and display the requested posters with no right to discuss or reply? Starting this month?

Speaking as a woman who has been waiting for months for gynaecological care, and been told I still have months to wait, the thought of this much money going on such a tiny number of people while in the main O&G care is woeful for all women, I am outraged!

Imagine what £100k boost to breastfeeding support training could do?

Maybe they could redirect the 100k to one of the Trusts where maternity services require improvement because they keep harming (even killing) women and babies. Until women and babies get safe maternity care this is sheer indulgence - no hcps should be redirected until that one aim is secured.

Given what we know about adverse outcomes for women and babies from particular minority groups - stark, horrifying statistics - on what grounds is this the best use of £100k?

Really well-written letter, thanks OP. Shocking that pockets of the NHS are STILL letting ideology come before evidence on this issue. Hopefully this will give them pause for thought.

"A scandal similar to Tavistock could be repeated in NHS maternity services due to poor research and the influence of advocacy organisations."

Did the Census report give any idea of how many trans and non-binary people are needing inclusion services in Maternity Services?

What do they actually need to spend 100K on that isn't already provided?

It is shocking how little research has been done - I thought it was all tight budgets and stuff.

I don't think the midwives are objecting to training about supporting mothers-to-be with a trans history, as such. I'd wager some solid, evidence-based resources on how to deal with mothers with a history of taking testosterone / have had mastectomies etc - and their babies - etc could be welcome.

They're objecting because this training is bollocks - it's more ideological nonsense from lobby groups - showing they haven't learned this isn't a good idea after GIDS.

The training is based on a shonky piece of "research" (not peer-reviewed and absolutely pulled apart in that letter).

It recommends exactly the kind of thing you'd expect the ideologues to say - e.g. to "introduce gender inclusive (de-sexed) language for all maternity service users" and has nothing useful to say about actually caring for pregnant women with a trans history.

It's bollocks. It's about pushing an ideology - and ironically, that ideology doesn't even help those it claims to!

Did the Census report give any idea of how many trans and non-binary people are needing inclusion services in Maternity Services?

Interesting question - I wonder if the NHS keeps stats (or if they've been encouraged not to by ideologues).

Absolutely, and I think the letter is quite careful to say, more than once, that they welcome any improvements in care for these specific groups, but that they want them to be evidence based.

It is just so dangerous and wasteful to suggest you can roll out training in a rush when you have not spelled out why, what, when, by whom, how etc. It clearly says posters should be provided. Why would you not want to vet those?!

Excellent letter - clear, concise and eminently sensible.

So they've offered £100k to deliver training, basically immediately on awarding the contract? So no time to plan or prep or have any discussion around the materials that are going to be used?

That sounds suspicious as fuck! Is it just me or does it sound like they probably already know who they want to win this "invitation to quote"?!

Why else wouldn't someone want to review the materials or plan other than they already know what they are going to be?

Am I overthinking here or does anyone else smell a rat?!

What a good letter! I've just had a look at their website and this blog is an amazing read. Lays it all out really clearly what is actually going on.

with-woman.org/2023/01/05/ideological-capture-at-the-heart-of-the-nhs/

Thanks for that. Even after all this time following this topic, my mind still boggles that so many people can let this ideology convince them to go against their professional values.

The NHS is meant to base its practice on solid evidence. It's been very clear that evidence based practice wasn't happening at GIDS and the whole thing has had to be dismantled as a result, yet the same mistake is still happening here, with professionals who much know better, really, allowing ideology to drive them rather than evidence.

I've never seen a further update than this. Two. Two whole people.

Dates: 2017 in the article.
Article date: 13 Feb 2021

Breastfeeding is now chestfeeding: Why are the language police trying to wipe out women?

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d1157740-6d57-11eb-ba86-e516f9df6e0a?shareToken=9e603adb6cd8d29ce729cb390af421f8

"The overwhelming majority of the people who use BSUH’s maternity services: women. This strained, clumsy, impractical lexicon is meant to cater instead to the tiny number of natal females who transition to male socially but not medically and give birth. As of 2017, the UK had two such people. To coin a phrase, the policy is not for the many, but the few. Women don’t matter; people who have renounced being women do."

I agree with what has been said. But why is it being written to the programme manager? Her role is to enable the work that higher up people will have decided. There is in all liklihood a programme lead, at least one clinical lead, a director etc etc. It needs to go to the decision makers.

Thanks for pointing this out Motnight. This needs to get to the press. It can't be emphasised enough that with the parlous state of maternity care in this country with the safety of mothers and babies repeatedly at risk, anything that diverts hcps from addressing that is a distraction, irrelevant and downright dangerous.

That’s an excellent letter thanks for the thread OP.

Excellent letter - it’s outrageous that no real studies are done on the impact of all this on staff, on the wider maternity population, too. Of course mothers who don’t want to be acknowledged as female may need sensitive, individualised care, just as we all need sensitive, individualised care….but it’s far better to support and enable midwives & HCPs to give this care to everyone rather than pretending that being pregnant and giving birth and feeding can ever be sex-neutral phenomena.

This sparked a thought:

Of course mothers who don’t want to be acknowledged as female may need sensitive, individualised care, just as we all need sensitive, individualised care

So in prisons, the argument is "case by case". Outside and in maternity services, the argument is blanket policies that erase women.

Have I got that right?

Honestly, why the hell is "non-binary" attached to "Trans" as a group that needs specific provision of maternity or any other care?

Pronouns.