NHS Policy Audit - working party

[KnottyAuty]

Following on from Thread #23 of the Peggie v NHS Employment Tribunal. Anyone who wants to help with survey/audit of paperwork against the Equality Act protected characteristics please join here 😊

I found some legal argument :
Legalfeminist (NC): https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2022/02/16/admission-to-women-only-spaces-and-case-by-case-assessment/ case-by-case for individuals is not practical, & a solution presented

@KnottyAuty I have found some generic email addresses for the Times on their website. Maybe worth a try?

• Editorial inquiries: [email protected]

That’s so good. Perfect way to explain why the ‘case by case’ approach is unworkable.

Ultimately it puts control in to the hands of any Tom, Dick or Harry who wants to try their luck at getting it to women’s single sex spaces.

Nice explanation of why care by case for individuals doesn’t work by NC (woot woot!).

I notice two things though - it was written in 2022, and NC at that time proposes third spaces for anyone who is uncomfortable using the space for their natal sex. As we all know (and I think NC now knows), that’s not the issue for trans identifying men - the opposite in fact. They want the affirmation of using the women’s spaces, and specifically of being seen using those spaces - the immersive role play, as NC brilliantly said.

And we still have the sticky situation of trans identifying men saying that because they are not robots, and they are “women”, they are biological women and should therefore be allowed in women’s same sex spaces…

On third spaces I'd add that they wont have lockers in them. The fife staff were using the locker room because it wasnt the changing room three floors down, & because it has lockers. Its quicker & far more convenient to change by your locker, & much easier to marshall your possessions.

You’ll find Janice Turner very responsive on X. Andrew Gilligan too.

I think that’s true, but I also think that even if all “third spaces” - ie gender neutral loos, CRs, whatever - were absolutely identical to the sex-specific ones, they would still be rejected by the trans-identifying. Because they don’t want a third space. They want our space.

In fact didn’t one of the policy documents quoted above say something like it would never be acceptable to ask a trans person to use the disabled facilities? And that was not because it would inconvenience the disabled people, but because it would “other” the trans person.

Hi. I have pulled together comments as best I can based on the understanding of "an average person" so I didn't get into the case by case stuff. I've put it into a jotform survey so you can see my text send me comments there.

https://form.jotform.com/250782845051054

There is bold in the original to highlight key statements/phrases but I don't have time to copy formatting across as I have to get some actual work done?!

Comments please xx

And Nick Wallis?

Good call

Also SEEN in publishing

Brilliant work. Can you list links to sources and/or a list of trusts? Well done all!

Is this sort of a cover/summary to go with the searches? It looks good! If everything else is being provided with the summary, then I think it’s fine as-is.

Oops yes - will link to the Jotform results so they have copies of it all

Hiya! I think I've sent a comment but not sure so I copied it to here:

Excellent work!!! So impressive 😍

Could you use a) b) i. ii. etc on the summary points so they're easier to reference?

Also does this need a 'not' adding in it?

'Where Single Sex accommodation was mentioned on a website, it did not clearly state that self ID transgender people would NOT be accommodated there too – thus making it Mixed Sex.

Just to add, I've only just caught up on this thread today. Absolutely amazing work from everyone involved. 💪👏Thank you for doing this. I have to say, my jaw dropped on more than several occasions. It is horrifying.

I can help as and when work on the England trusts start.

Amazing work @KnottyAuty

And yes. Thank you for your incredible work here @KnottyAuty and others who are researching

Fantastic work Knotty

Chiming in to say I'm happy to help with England's Trusts. I've been snowed under with work & sickness this past week. I'm impressed at what this group has done. It will be interesting to see if the papers pick up on it.

Definitely up for more too.

Thanks all - now back at my desk and have reviewed the comments. Checked the Forth EqIA and it seems to be for "Respect Anticipatory Care" rather than any single sex/trans issue - shout if there is another document I have missed!
I've made a few edits and will send off shortly... let's see if anyone is interested

Thanks for all your hard work - it has been very enlightening - and more than a bit depressing!

So from our audit, it seemed that much of the transgender policy had come from a single source - similar wording and text structure. And lots of the documents credited Scottish Trans (Vic Valentine appeared as a witness for NHS Fife in the Peggie Tribunal Part 1). https://www.scottishtrans.org/about/

Scottish Trans seems to be a trading name or project of the Registered Charity called Equality Network Ltd - OSCR info here

The annual accounts on Companies House to end March 2024 are here
Well worth a read - although at 48 pages for a set of micro accounts it's a bit verbose.

Annual income is in the range £520k-650k - of which an amazing £494k comes directly from the Scottish Government!

So if ST have been offering their services to NHS Trusts to advise on their policies, it has been paid for almost exclusively by the Scottish Government themselves... wow

And this @KnottyAuty is the crux of the issue:
"So if ST have been offering their services to NHS Trusts to advise on their policies, it has been paid for almost exclusively by the Scottish Government themselves... wow"

You've heard of the Military Industrial Complex? This is a trans-specific EDI Industrial Complex in action.

It all starts with the best of intentions. The Govt commissions or funds services delivered by organisations that act for marginalised people, such as disability charities and Women's Aid, because funding domain experts to provide services is the most effective way to assist those people. Those organisations lobby for policy and legislation to improve the lives of the people they represent, meaning that the Govt is effectively funding organisations to lobby it. This is only OK as long as the lobbying influence that the organisations have isn't unduly high.

What has happened is that organisations like Scottish Trans Alliance and Stonewall have obtained far too much lobbying power, so they are able to influence things that are outwith their remit, such as whether hospitals use the EA single-sex exemptions. Because they are seen as the domain experts for transsexuals (using the legal term here because we are talking about orgs who are worried about equality law compliance) and have managed to position transsexuals as Teh Most Oppressed Evar, they don't get challenged even when they give unlawful advice about the Workplace (Health Safety and Welfare) Regs. I mean, who wants to be told that they are wrong and bigotted?

And both Westminster and Holyrood are forking over eye-watering amounts of cash to these organisations, giving them a war chest with which to do even more damage.