NHS Policy Audit - working party - thread #2

[KnottyAuty]

This is a thread about “keeping the receipts” on NHS Policies prior to the Supreme Court ruling on 16th April 2025.

Our working theory is that there were no single sex spaces for NHS Staff or Patients in the entire country before that date, having all been removed by stealth. We are aiming to prove this by auditing websites and policies for all the UK trusts and using the results to raise public awareness. As well as recording what has happened historically, the information will form a baseline so we can check which Trusts comply or defy the judgement in due course.

We are working around the country region by region. If you fancy getting involved in a bit of grassroots feminism then please do join in to help!? Each trust takes about an hour to research and you can upload online without giving any personal details away. Comment below and we can give you the link to an online survey - it changes for each region.

Thanks soooo much to all the vipers who have helped so far and @ Twoloons for doing a great job with the thread wrangling!

Here are the press articles we’ve managed to generate so far:

Scotland:
25th March: The Telegraph
https://archive.is/dTUhY
26th March: Scottish Daily Express
https://archive.is/kaLCB
26th March: The Telegraph
https://archive.is/iSD9m

London:
21st April: The Telegraph
https://archive.is/awGuz
23rd April: The Telegraph (in conjunction with another thread by NHS mumsnetters)
https://archive.is/1DO8d

Original thread #1 here:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5291237-nhs-policy-audit-working-party?page=1

Done

Query re zero tolerance on harassment. I've seen several policies that state this position in both patient and staff policies, I've not included quotes relating to this in the jotform (except for the one that made it clear that simply stating the sex of the patient - of the wrong sex for the ward - was harassment) as clearly there should not be harassment of staff or patients happening.

However, I think we can infer that any reasonable questioning or request for a ward or facility to be single sex would be treated as harassment by most of these Trusts. On the other hand, the black and white statement in the policies I've read (without reading between the lines) is reasonable and for that reason I haven't included.

Checking in with the other auditors here to see what the consensus is on this please.

So that’s tricky, and I agree: the policies use words like harassment, or give examples of patients saying they don’t want a trans doctor. Obviously harassment isn’t on, and saying “I don’t want a trans doctor” is also problematic. But! We know from Peggie v Fife that harassment can mean a woman not wanting to use a changing room when a TiM is in there, and that a woman saying “I don’t want a male doctor” when faced with a TiM could potentially be labelled as the woman not wanting a trans doctor, not her not wanting a male doctor.

But unless it says explicitly what counts as harassment in the written policy, it’s hard to argue against “harassment is bad.”

On the Midlands stuff I flagged things where the consequences of “harassment” etc were more punitive than you might expect - removal of services from patients, for example.

Thanks!

“simply stating the sex of the patient - of the wrong sex for the ward - was harassment”

Examples like this are brilliant - I’ve not seen this so clearly as other policies hedge.

So people who don’t know a lot about GI say - what’s the problem? We all agree there should be no harassment”….

But are appalled to discover that the “transphobic hate” involves stating things like “man” “male” etc as statement of fact in relevant context (as opposed to sneering or abusive use)

Is that CUH?

I've submitted West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust.
More of the same - mixed single sex accommodation, unclear on website, policies only available via FOI, children don't need to be Gillick competent, rainbows, a trans flow chart...

I'm puzzled by the EIAs I've seen. They seem to relate solely to trans and how the different PCs affect them: surely an EIA is supposed to consider how, for example, permitting a TW to use female changing rooms, might affect people with the other PCs? It's hard to describe but I really think they're getting it very wrong and always have (no surprise there).

TBH @Rightsraptor I haven't seen a single one that has been done properly. Some are so skewed to the trans issue they are meaningless. Others are a basic tick box exercise that assumes because you have written a policy everything is hunky dory. Literally not worth the paper they are written on 😒

You would think, wouldn’t you.

That is absolutely par for the course. Some of the best ones I’ve seen said things like “Race - yes, some trans people are different races and this policy will positively impact on them.” I have seen precisely 1 that made any mention of people with gender critical views (let alone just plain old ordinary women) - they were classed under religion and belief.

Not worth the paper they are written on.

@FarriersGirl snap!

Just to say, I couldn't admire you wims any more if I tried. This is the first thread I catch up with now. You're all amazing and this work will be invaluable.

Many, many thanks xxx

Yes. This is it. It's Orwellian. Not only have they redefined 'woman' and 'man' but also 'harassment'.

I've found the same. The simple statements about harassment seem fine until you cross reference with other statements in the same or different policies.

So, for example in the trans staff policy for CUH (transitioning at work) staff are told to 'treat the trans colleague the way they want to be treated' and 'DON'T: Question a trans person's assessment of whether an incident was transphobic or not.'

So it's quite possible for normal behaviour to be labelled 'transphobic' and hence harassment because only the trans person's perspective matters (as happened with Sandie Peggie and Dr Upton).

I've also found a policy on chaperoning for intimate procedures which says this:
'Muslim and Hindu women may have a strong cultural taboo against being touched by any man other than their husband and may prefer a female practitioner. ' with the implication this should be accommodated. Of course unless you'd read all the trans policies you wouldn't realise that Dr Upton's self ID as a woman means he now probably qualifies as a 'female practitioner'. He would almost certainly consider any Muslim or Hindu woman's objection to him treating them as 'transphobic'. It's actually really horrific but also cleverly, quite difficult to unpick and many patients will only realise once they're in a terrifyingly vulnerable situation where they may feel they have no choice but to stay silent.

It's organisational coercive control. Changing the meaning of words, placing the transperson as always right and anyone who doesn't do exactly what any transperson or trans colleague wants in the wrong. Sacred caste as dear departed LangCleg used to say. It's a huge safeguarding loophole.

Same for the one I've seen too.

I think I've got something about this from back in the day, how EIAs were only done with reference to how they'd affect transpeople in each PC eg trans older people, trans disabled people, not actually assessing how they'd affect people who weren't trans but had other PCs. I'll try to find it.

I like your “mixed same sex accommodation” term. 🎯

I’ve not seen a single one I’d think could be legal… in theory that means the EHRC could fine them…

I seem to remember something along those lines, @nothingcomestonothing, and suspect it could have been to do with prisons.

How wonderful if some of them got fined, Knotty. That'll learn 'em.

A couple of old threads about EIAs:

Check your blood pressure before you read this one (link to doc is in the first post, for some reason it won't let me c&p): https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3988555-Scottish-research-was-there-a-response-to-this

This is an FOI about it:

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000011201/

Shenanigans in Wales:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3652524-Welsh-Assembly-and-the-lost-equality-impact-assessment

I think this is the thread I was thinking about re how public bodies are totally misunderstanding what EIA are for or how to carry them out:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4352399-The-Welsh-Government-have-done-an-Equality-Impact-Assessment

IANAL but I don't think public bodies are compelled to do a EIA, it's just the usual/simplest way to show they've considered the PCs and are complying with PSED. Usually they're not, it seems, even when they've done one

Suggestions on challenging flawed NHS EIAs, by a group of sex realist doctors:

https://biologyinmedicine.substack.com/p/challenging-flawed-nhs-equality-impact?utm_medium=android&triedRedirect=true

Sorry I’ve been offline a bit this week and didn’t finish NW Anglia as soon as I’d hoped. Busy week compounded by migraine on my day off meaning I was sleeping it off most of the day.

However, I’ve just uploaded it to Jotform now. Usual fuckwittery. Someone other than @SeaStoat had done an FOI to ask about Stonewall links and got some redacted emails back from 2023.
Edit- SPAG

Just done Essex Partnership. Shite as per.

On to South Essex! Maybe they'll be different! (🙄)

I'm really struggling with Mid and South Essex. There's literally nothing, even via Ermine, that mentions accommodation. One foi response pointing to national guidelines (so I'm assuming yes, mixed sex).

Anyone else found this?

If I’m not mistaken, Shropshire Community was the same.

Hmm. Mid Essex was still getting awards from Stonewall in 2022. Without wanting to sound all tinfoil-hatty I doubt that's a coincidence.

Anyone found any useful other routes for getting policies?

Oh that’s a bit interesting. Anything on wayback
machine?

“Shite” rarely heard where I live these days… makes me feel quite young so thanks for that! 🤣

I don’t think you need to go further - if there’s an actual Stonewall Award then the Trust is self ID. Same for Rainbow badges. Just the stonewall WEI which might not be a total confirmation as it depends on scores (hidden) … so under the MSA you can put Y and then cite the Stonewall Award page/URL. Thanks!