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

Yes, Leeds and York all yours. Will DM new form!

I suspect at a certain point that unless (or until) we get people with access to join in, we may start hitting brick walls. But if you’re logging all the things that should be there but aren’t, even that is a smoking gun of sorts. Thank you again for your stirling work on this!

Maybe that's the approach to take - to write a letter saying our research suggests the whistleblowing posts are captured and pointless.

If there is no protection, which the cases already on the ET books suggest is the case let alone any stories we've discovered through this audit, why is taxpayers money funding these posts rather than an extra nurse / doctor?

Here's an update from yesterday's Telegraph on the Scottish trusts - with your work linked.

All are ignoring the law and "waiting for the EHRC’s code of practice and new Scottish Government guidance".

FWS posted on X that 2they've set up a working group, no doubt stuffed with the usual suspects who 'misunderstood' the Equality Act for over a decade and ignored and stigmatised women who tried to point out their mistake...". archive.ph/ja6mT

Another story is the FOIs.

An awful lot of the stuff I found was ONLY via Ermine's (and a few other) FOIs. There would be one statement on the website (saying there was single sex accommodation) and then one or more trans policies found via FOI - but not freely available to patients - which would undermine that and show in practice all 'single sex spaces' are in fact mixed sex as anyone (staff or patient) can self identify into the opposite sex spaces.

I would personally call that blatant and deliberate lies to patients. It seems quite calculated to me - using phrases most people would understand in a certain way on the website then policies which are not freely available which undermine that and change the definition of commonly understood words. Not a 'misunderstanding' of the law at all but quite calculated deception, misinterpretation of the law and undermining of patients ability to safeguard themselves / their relatives.

Another story is the piss poor standard of response from some NHS trusts to FOIs and also huge inconsistency in such responses.

Thanks for posting!

@TwoLoonsAndASprout Please allocate me a trust although it will be later in the week before I get to do it I suspect. I'm also going to do a bit more digging through the EqA bits for @GreenAllOver

Some entirely predictable news:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/1a972637178207cf

Archive version in a second…

Archive version: archive.is/ja6mT

@TwoLoonsAndASprout Chuck another one or two my way please!

Totally missed that @SeaStoat had already linked!

@Cantunseeit, I’ve got

Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust

for you! Will DM new form.

How about:

Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust

I’ll DM the new form.

Two for you:

• Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust
• Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust

Many thanks! Will DM the new form.

I'm still over on the East of England - but here is a document flagged to me. What do you make of this?
https://nds.healthwatch.co.uk/sites/default/files/reports_library/Transitions%20Report%20Final%20January%202025.pdf

29 survey participants and 3 interviews! With a sample size that small, even drawn from a small population, you really shouldn't be presenting your findings as percentages.It's misleading.

Great choice btw my sister used to work for them so there will be a bit of insider info.😏

Oh, excellent! Look forward to seeing the results of that one 😬

I would go so far as to say you shouldn’t be presenting your findings at all…

Dreadful. Sample size is awful and there is nothing surprising in the report I feel the money spent on this 'research' could have been usefully been spent elsewhere. Bias in those who participated such that the views of these 29 individuals may not be representative does not seem to be discussed at all (I only skim read it).

'People who want something don't like waiting for it'. No-one likes being on a waiting list for healthcare - do we need research to confirm this?

There was an assumption that 'gender affirming' care was ethical, that 'pronouns' were a reasonable ask of people and that people getting non-standard pronouns wrong was an issue, which it shouldn't be (I note one GP got pronouns wrong - the horror!). Lots of TRA assumptions.

They used evidence on the mental health impact of waiting for life saving surgery (e.g. organ transplant) as some kind of comparison, completely inappropriately.

Page 5 footnote 1:
"These figures have been disputed by some researchers due to the wording of the question on gender identity in the 2021 census (Biggs, 2024). However, it is the first time it has been collected in the UK and as such there is no other data"

Incorrect the 2022 Scottish Census managed a better question and the populations are similar enough that the percentages are good enough - certainly better than the ONS!

However the Scottish results were inconvenient because of the 0.44% who were trans, half of them were Non Binary. So let's not mention that because it ruins the narrative/demand for female facilities

"Some trans people will experience “gender dysphoria”"

To paraphrase Naomi Cunningham - By definition that group must by definition suffer from gender dysphoria otherwise I am not sure what you mean by a trans person.

Word of your excellent work is spreading:

dailysceptic.org/2025/05/13/the-nhs-no-longer-recognises-the-reality-of-biological-sex/

Hmm. Would have been nice if she’d spoken to us rather than just scrape the threads…

Don’t get me wrong, I do appreciate the sunlight - I just resent the appropriation of the hard work of everyone on here. At least she gave credit.