Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Guidance for NHS completely misrepresents the law. Again.

45 replies

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · 08/06/2023 15:52

It's the NHS Confederation, this time - playing fast and loose with the Equality Act: https://twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1666199916153036816?

https://twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1666199916153036816

OP posts:
Fenlandia · 09/06/2023 12:28

As quoted by OldCrone above:

"From the document (p60):
For employment purposes, guidance from the British Medical Association supports the view that a trans person’s assigned sex at birth is irrelevant to their
working life. For this reason, they conclude that a patient has no right to be told a healthcare worker’s assigned sex at birth."

There it is again, trans people getting institutional protection akin to witness protection - as if it won't be glaringly obvious in the vast majority of cases what sex someone is. Ofc sex is relevant to your working life where you might be performing intimate care on another person!!

Reminds me of this story from 2018:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5224421/NHS-apologises-woman-allocated-transsexual-nurse.html

NHS apologises after woman is allocated transsexual nurse

North West London NHS Foundation trust has apologised to the smear test patient who had asked to be seen by a female nurse but was instead greeted by transgender worker.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5224421/NHS-apologises-woman-allocated-transsexual-nurse.html

LonginesPrime · 09/06/2023 13:27

SinnerBoy · 09/06/2023 10:30

LonginesPrime · Today 08:12

It's laughable (and scary) that the NHS doc actually quotes the judgment but inserts the crucial additional word "cannot" where it actually said "can" because it was clarifying what the judgment didn't cover.

Does anyone know if it's actually legal for them to produce a guidance document like this, with a deliberate mis-quote of a legal judgement, to pretend that it said something different? It must surely be a disciplinary matter, at the very least.

It's unlikely to be illegal as it's just a training manual - usually the way these things play out is that a manager will rely on the guidance, it gets taken to an employment tribunal and then the guidance will be quietly amended once the lawyers get involved and it becomes clear that it was incorrect advice in the first place. Hopefully I won't get to that stage if we make enough noise about it now, though.

Obviously if the NHS commissioned a third party to write the guidance and the third party did this, the NHS could take it up with them under the commissioning contract. However, here it appears to be presented very much as a collaborative piece between the NHS and the LGBT foundation, so no-one's going to take responsibility for any lies or misinformation.

It's similar to what happened in Sweden where the collaborative medical guidance on transitioning children quoted a high figure for trans kid suicides, but when the documentary makers of The Trans Train investigated the source of the suicide statistics in the report (that doctors were using as their main rationale for medically transitioning children), none of the doctors took responsibility for the inclusion of the stats and one doctor eventually admitted "oh, that's an unfortunate mistake, it was just supposed to refer to mental health issues more generally" (or words to that effect).

That's the trouble with all these collaborative guidance reports being relied on by medical and other professionals in the absence of actual peer-reviewed science and authored reports from actual experts (legal, medical or otherwise) All kinds of batshit hyperbolic claims creep in and no-one checks them as they assume someone else will, and none of the individual authors are worried about their professional reputation or credibility because it's a collaborative piece between several organisations and their individual names aren't anywhere near it.

Also, because the big idea with gender ideology is to listen to trans people and treat them as the experts on themselves, the people putting together this kind of guidance often forget that while the trans person obviously is an expert on how they feel, they might not actually be an expert on the law and might be misquoting a case as that's not the thing they're an expert in. Similar things seem to occur in psychology, etc, where despite psychologists knowing how psychology works, they throw all their training out the window when a trans person says "oh, but that doesn't apply to me as I know how I feel".

Slothtoes · 09/06/2023 13:49

What do the Patients’ Association think about this?
if individual ICS or NHS Trusts build it in as their policy wouldn’t they become the objects of legal cases by patients?

KiteofUncertainty · 09/06/2023 20:51

This is Baroness Nicholson's letter to Steve Barclay. She is very well informed as always.

https://twitter.com/Baroness_Nichol/status/1667207590785286144/photo/1

https://twitter.com/Baroness_Nichol/status/1667207590785286144/photo/1

tillyandmilly · 09/06/2023 20:59

👏

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · 09/06/2023 21:42

There's a surprise - a Mermaids link. twitter.com/Rebeccasaysno/status/1666493532763217933?s=20

OP posts:
TheBiologyStupid · 10/06/2023 11:47

KiteofUncertainty · 09/06/2023 20:51

This is Baroness Nicholson's letter to Steve Barclay. She is very well informed as always.

https://twitter.com/Baroness_Nichol/status/1667207590785286144/photo/1

An excellent letter from the baroness!

This is a partial and prejudicial report. I have no doubt a survey of dog lovers would recommend everyone must take their pets to work, but this is hardly a sound basis for workplace practice.

😂

KiteofUncertainty · 10/06/2023 11:54

@tillyandmilly @TheBiologyStupid
I think selections from the Baroness's collected letters should be studied as part of a social responsibility or politics module in the school curriculum for kids in the last two years. They are perfect.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 11/06/2023 09:43

They've completely misrepresented the Forstater case on p65 too, in the tiny section on gender critical beliefs.

It's not a bug, it's a feature. It seems completely deliberate to me, as with many such "explanations".

Ereshkigalangcleg · 11/06/2023 09:46

Wasn't it an aim of one lgbt organisation to attempt to remove the sex by deception clause?

Yes, Stonewall. See the work of Professor Alex Sharpe.

TheBiologyStupid · 13/06/2023 16:01

An excellent article by Naomi Cunningham: https://archive.ph/la2R7

It is difficult to imagine a sense of grievance more unjustified than any affront felt by a man whose employer refuses to let him undertake intimate care of a woman who does not consent to receive it from a man. It makes no difference if the man in question says he is a woman, dresses as a woman, believes himself to be a woman, or even holds a government certificate declaring him to be a woman. The question of consent is for the female patient in this scenario alone. Any man who positively wishes to provide such care despite the absence of consent is unfit for any work with vulnerable patients.

Absolutely!

Welcome to nginx

https://archive.ph/la2R7

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · 13/06/2023 17:39

I was pleased to see this got a mention in yesterday's petition debate.

OP posts:
BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · 13/06/2023 17:40

Annex B, as well.

OP posts:
cheshirecatssmile · 14/06/2023 09:16

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · 13/06/2023 17:40

Annex B, as well.

Dm me your thoughts on annex b and I will let nhs England know anonymously your opinion regarding lack of safeguarding

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · 14/06/2023 09:30

I'll try to get my thoughts into printable form ...

OP posts:
cheshirecatssmile · 14/06/2023 09:51

I can edit 😂

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · 14/06/2023 10:47

Yes, but you'll need some words to work with rather than just static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/asterixlegionnaire_jurons.jpg

OP posts:
Kucinghitam · 14/06/2023 11:08

SinnerBoy · 09/06/2023 10:30

LonginesPrime · Today 08:12

It's laughable (and scary) that the NHS doc actually quotes the judgment but inserts the crucial additional word "cannot" where it actually said "can" because it was clarifying what the judgment didn't cover.

Does anyone know if it's actually legal for them to produce a guidance document like this, with a deliberate mis-quote of a legal judgement, to pretend that it said something different? It must surely be a disciplinary matter, at the very least.

@LonginesPrime @Ereshkigalangcleg @SinnerBoy Another example of people who self-identify as Good Folx being able to justify any amount of mendaciousness because it's for the Right Reasons, aka Pious Fraud.

bbypinkluffie · 17/06/2023 04:34

This is awful, I suffered sexual abuse in childhood and am going through my first pregnancy. I've already been sent a birth plan to begin filling out. Do I even bother?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page