Telegraph: Patients may be guilty of discrimination if they refuse care of transgender medic, NHS bosses told

[ResisterRex]

A report by the NHS confederation is in today's Telegraph. A good example of how a hierarchy of EDI seems to have been cultivated, with disabled people right at the bottom. Anyone who's had a parent or grandparent with dementia will be upset to read that parts of the NHS want to be able to refuse to provide care to their loved one because their comfort comes last.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/09/nhs-patients-discrimination-transgender-staff/

"Patients may be found guilty of discrimination if they refuse the care of a transgender medicc_, according to new NHS guidance.
Health bosses have been warned that patients have no right to be told a healthcare worker’s assigned sex at birth.
However, transgender health workers can choose not to treat patients if they feel uncomfortable doing so, the report by NHS Confederation says.
The report, published earlier this month in partnership with the LGBT Foundation, says patients can only request care from a same-sex staff memberr_ in limited circumstances, such as if they are having an intimate examination.
It states that when a patient requests an employee administering care to be a woman or a man, “the comfort of the staff member should be prioritised”.
Patients with dementia ‘should be challenged’

The report goes on to say that “the patient has no right to be told that the person treating them is trans or non-binary,” adding: “It would likely be discriminatory for the patient to refuse to be treated or cared for by a trans person, unless clear and evidenced clinical harm may result to the patient.”
Patients with dementia “should still be challenged” if they express discriminatory views about transgender staff, the 97-page guide states, while their relatives “may be removed from the premises” if they do the same.
But a non-binary medic can refuse to treat a patient, with the advice stating they “should not be forced to deliver care if this would cause undue distress or invalidate their lived experience of gender”.
It comes as the NHS published its first equality, diversion and inclusion (EDI) plan, which outlines that organisations are to include “diversity training on gender reassignment and sexual orientation” within mandatory training for healthcare workers."

The 'comfort' of clinical staff should never take priority over that of patients.

The guidance isn't reflecting the law stating that a belief in sex is worthy of respect.

This reflects how someone feels about their own dignity. It's not discriminating against individual staff - it's stating they are uncomfortable with the opposite sex in certain situations.

We have a situation where belief in gender and belief in sex are both recognised as legitimate.

Nowhere here is the recognition of who is in the more vulnerable position though. A person who is sick and bed bound doesn't have the choice to remove themselves from the situation.

We have a situation where someone with a legally held view that sex matters, may be left to die. This disproportionately affects women. It is a sexist policy which is discriminatory to female patients and patients with certain religious beliefs.

If it went to court it could get interesting.

Unbelievably cruel. Have these people ever met anyone with dementia? They often don't recognise their own family. Yet they would somehow police trans workers' fantasies.

People with dementia should be challenged?!

Whoever wrote that part of the guidance has clearly never worked with people with dementia.

It's ironic that the thing that dementia patients apparently need to be challenged on, is being too perceptive.

And there was me thinking that good practice was to keep dementia patients calm, and if they because of a lack of context, were in a difficult reality, to only challenge it when necessary.

DM often thought I was her mother or her sister, getting cross if I failed to remember childhood incidents. If my focus was to get her to a doctor's appointment or something I went with the flow. She got very upset, indeed devastated, if she was told she was wrong and had no memory. Igmum is right. It is straight cruel. Given how hard it was to get my mother to go along with any medical examination you would not start with an argument. She may not have known who I was but she always knew who was male or female.

We have a situation where someone with a legally held view that sex matters, may be left to die. This disproportionately affects women. It is a sexist policy which is discriminatory to female patients and patients with certain religious beliefs.

Yep. It's basically saying it's ok to let women die if they offend the feelings of trans staff because of a protected belief (and their correct perception of material reality). How the hell can that be legal?

Agree also with the cruelty towards dementia patients. Anyone who puts their need for validation and their demand that others lie (most patients will correctly recognise sex) above the needs of vulnerable people they're working with isn't qualified to do that job, as the real world examples on this thread demonstrate.

Well, that's what happens when you let trans people draft guidance on trans issues in the spirit of "raising up trans voices" and "listening when trans people tell you who they are" and all those other wonderful gender ideology notions.

Obviously, many transwomen feel they're in the category of biological women so they aren't going to see it from the perspective of the women they regard as unreasonable bigots.

The Baroness is on the case 😍

Otherwise, we could be sued for not dating tw. Which, come to think of it, is what they'd like to be the case.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7588769/Transgender-woman-claims-discrimination-snubbed-porn-having-penis.html this was a while ago - a TW reported a man to the cops for declining to have sex with h— and h— penis. I’m honestly surprised there aren’t more instances, but I guess they probably don’t all go to the press about it.

That’s good news!

As a side note, are there any persisting MTF transitioners who aren't involved in porn? The number who are seems completely disproportionate to the population size. Further evidence of how MTF 'trans kids' are sexualised.

Have any of you bothered to read it? Intimate examinations are specifically excluded from the guidance. So are victims of assault and any other clinical reasons.

This refers specifically to situations where it doesn't matter. Do you really believe you have a right to know if your speech therapist or geneticist is transgender?

You're saying dementia patients don't matter then.

And we can tell.

Why do they have to disclose this information?

Given the rate of offending in this area - including unreported stuff - it's not unreasonable to have a default position that ALL women have been victims in the past. (you know the principle of safeguarding vulnerable patients over feelings of staff)

Dignity doesn't just include intimate examinations.

It includes not having to disclose irrelevant personal information to someone you don't feel comfortable around.

I have massive trust issues with HCP because I feel there is a power imbalance. Someone lying to me about their sex isn't going to help me with that. It's going to make me feel gaslit, not respected and not cared about. I can't trust that person if they expect me to lie to them.

If saying a belief in sex not gender is legally protected, it's not discriminating in a situation where the balance of power is tilted firmly in one direction - HCP over patient.

That's different to having a belief in racism which isn't legally protected.

The issue is way broader than intimate examinations. Many victims of childhood abuse are triggered by eye examinations, for example, because they involve the clinician turning the light out, and getting very close to the patient, in order to use an ophthalmoscope.

Most victims of assault aren't willing (and often aren't able) to discuss their past trauma with random strangers in order to receive medical care that won't trigger a further trauma response.

"Patients may be found guilty of discrimination". What? That is madness. Fair enough if a patient assaults or threatens a staff member, but merely asking for a same sex HCP? That is awful.
Who is going to try and judge the patient?
Where will the trial take place?

Reading the introduction it seems that they consulted with some trans and non-binary NHS staff and published their wishlist as a guidance document.

Annex B on the guidance for single-sex wards reads much the same way.

Kangaroo court witch trail.

Say no to a male who uses the magic words being allowed to insist you let him handle your bits against your consent - what kind of sick arsehole would insist on that ffs?! - and be 'found guilty' - what is this, the fucking witch trials? On what authority?

This is coercive sexual assault with menaces.

As for TM may feel unsafe in the male showers - look, either sex is a thing, in which case yes, TM might, you have a point AND so do women who don't want males in their showers, and we find third ways for all.

OR the TM is a man, and get to fuck with special arrangements because women aren't permitted them.

It's just heads Trans wins and tails everybody else loses. Get to fuck with that.

This is going to take government action from the top, the time for woofling about and court case by court case is over. Women will actually die due to this, which makes you have to ask: what the fuck are people this uncaring about health care for patients actually doing in bloody health care? Tills at Tescos, ffs, and employ someone to deliver health care who hasn't got their head up their bum and can do the bloody job.

My lovely mum had dementia and was polite and gentle at all times. She was very fond of the male manager of her care home, but she would have been very upset and disorientated to be confronted by a male person in a dress coming to shower her for example. She would absolutely have known there was deception going on and that would have frightened her.

https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-killer-king-how-many-people-did-henry-viii-execute

This is how many were killed the last time a new state religion was forced on the nation.

Exactly. It is as unacceptable to require a woman to disclose highly sensitive information and be judged on whether or not her access needs will be required as it is to demand a trans person shares their transition information with you.

If you disagree with that you can explain why your sensitivity is prejudiced against equality for women.

In practical terms: who is qualified to ask for this information? Where will this incredibly sensitive information be recorded? Will the asker have the qualifications to put back together a person they've just taken apart potentially seriously by this invasive, traumatic requirement to disclose to be permitted access to services? The time and space to do this? It's a practical impossibility not to mention highly discriminatory in the actual sense under the actual equality act as opposed to the fictional one.

How on earth can anyone witter about sensitivity of language for some special groups of the population while treating the others in ways not seen in this country for bloody decades and usually associated with a caste system where some are intentionally dehumanised and seen as not entitled to equality or access or anyone caring if they have medical care.

And who/how will it be recorded which women are denied care and suffer/die as a result of male feelings not being insulted by not being allowed to intimately handling a non consenting, distressed woman?

Whose job will it be and how will it be recorded as to which women just now go fuck that, and do not even risk presenting for health care? And who suffers and who dies rather than risk having to decide between letting someone they know is a male coercively assault them or getting 'found guilty' and presumably burned at the entrance to A&E?

And ooh look, isn't it funny, all those women who will avoid health care all seem to come from these vulnerable groups. Aren't they protected under the Equality Act?

You know, the actual act?

I still don't think any of you have bothered to read it! In response to the points above.

1. @MissLucyEyelesbarrow Yes eye exams can be considered intimate examinations - anything close or with physical contact can - see gmc guidance - you can request same sex forthese.

2.@LonginesPrime yes good point -its covered by the guidance though! See p60 "a patient can request a staff member with or without a protected characteristics to mitigate potential psychological impact.

The guidance also comments "in reality and specifically in health there are likely to ve extremely few circumstances in which... refusing bit to be treated by a trans person would be upheld"

1. @ResisterRex there is only one comment about dementia in the 97 page document which is"if discrimination or harassment displayed by a patient is due to an underlying condition such as dementia they should still be challenged on their views where possible"

This is specifically referring to harassment not whether an examination was declined - and should only be challenged where possible - clearly not to someone with severe impairment.

Ido appreciate lots of posters have valid fears but that shouldn't spill over into anger as it has in this thread. The daily mail loves to feed off these fears - don't give them the satisfaction (and cash - they are monetising your emotions through clicks and shares!)

Finally if you make some of the comments that have been made in this thread without bothering to read the document you claim you are quoting you really are whipping up prejudice and discrimination regardless of the rights and wrongs of any underlying issues!