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

Also, all: just be aware that the article above has linked directly to this thread, so we may be getting more traffic, not all of which will be benign.

Just submitted Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust - had a bit more time than expected today. Please allocate me another one :-)

This one had a few extra flourishes and quite a witch-hunty vibe alongside repeatedly mis-stating the law which made it particularly tough reading, including (my bold):

"This policy supports the Trust in its delivery of inclusive services and ensures it does not breach the Equality Act 2010. Under this legislation it states that a transgender person no longer has to be under medical supervision or have a gender reassignment certificate to prove that they are transgender. They must be treated as the gender that they identify as."

"It should be noted that discrimination against trans people and discriminatory behaviour, such as repeatedly using the wrong gender pronoun, is tantamount to abuse and such incidents may be reported and investigated through safeguarding and through trust internal investigation and complaints processes."

"intersex- a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn't seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male. For example, a person might be born appearing to be female on the outside but having mostly male-typical anatomy on the inside. It’s worth noting, however, that not all intersex people identify as trans and often view that their needs are unique and different to transgender needs."

"Consideration should always be given to any safeguarding issues and these be reported through the normal channels.... The Safeguarding Team will always support the patient in these circumstances, as well as the staff with any complex issues to ensure the patients’ rights are upheld and that there is a safe environment. This may involve reporting unacceptable behaviours as a hate crime to the Police or Local Authority safeguarding teams."

"It is not uncommon for parents or those with parental responsibility to have differing view or be at a different stage of adjustment in relation to their child/young person’s gender identity/transition. Every effort should be made to respect and validate the preference of the child/young person in relation to their gender identity and expression even if the child is not Gillick competent."

That final paragraph is one I've come across a few times @Cantunseeit - although it sounds even worse at the end of all that.

On a nicer note, I've added this little charm to the chain I always wear, to celebrate working with the vipers of the Ermine Research Group 🥰

That’s delightful @teawamutu! Someone else on here got a viper necklace a while ago - it’s such a lovely idea!

@Cantunseeit, you are on a roll! I can give you

County Durham & Darlington NHS Foundation Trust

if that’s ok?

Ooh that’ll be a good one - for Karen!

Lovely, thanks

@SeaStoat, have just DMed you.

Just in case you haven't seen this 'investigation' which 'proves' that there is no issue as no women complained. Well once did, but the Trust did nothing. So take that, right wing TERF bigots! 🙄

https://translucent.org.uk/trans-women-in-female-nhs-hospital-wards/

I have no words. Just none.

When will the world realise that “I was terrified into silence” is not the same as “I’m not bothered.”

FFS.

Don’t forget that if anyone had the temerity to complain they would be informed PDQ that the Trust has zero tolerance for alternative points of view and they should shut up if they don’t want to be reported for a hate crime / have own treatment stopped/ reeducated.

edited to remove dodgy autocorrect

It's a good illustration of what you get from men who have no understanding of either female socialisation or of institutional capture.

It's no different than Trusts only asking the LGBTQ+ stakeholders opinions, and then confidently stating that stakeholders are all in favour of the policy.

In other news, not one woman in Afghanistan has officially complained about their policies in relation to women. NOT ONE!!

👏👏👏

Did no women complain, or did no-one make a record of women who complained that they did not have a single sex space, instead recording it as a 'transphobic hate incident'? After all Sandie Peggie complained, and look what happened to her. The Darlington nurses complained, and look what happened to them.

I'm assuming the woman raped on an NHS 'woman's' ward, where the NHS gaslit the woman for a year claiming no male was present, but then due to CCTV and witness evidence had to finally (after a whole year) admit there was a male present, had no 'complaint' officially recorded?

I could well imagine the women who wanted to complain being told, if you insist on making this official we will have to record it as a hate incident and this may affect your treatment/employment. Let us know what you decide...

Brilliant timing thanks! This is an excellent example of a misunderstanding of correlation and causation.

They conclude no complaints = no problem.

But fail to deal with the issue that to complain = cancelled NHS treatment.

So theres defo a problem but just not what they were expecting. Fab they’ve written this article as now there’s something to respond to.

So now that “no debate” is over it’s a bit more tricky when dealing with facts

No code on Datix to record rape. So obvs it doesn’t happen

Yes, and even if there was a code, if all staff firmly believe they'll get sacked if they record a rape, because in 1984 NHS a space is women's single sex even if there are men present, they won't do it anyway. As appears to have already happened once that we know of.

I've submitted Leeds and York Partnership - they offer a gender identity service.

Job going if anyone fancies applying? Be quick - it closes on 16 May!
www.nhsjobs.com/job/UK/West_Yorkshire/Preston/Leeds_York_Partnership_NHS_Foundation_Trust/Gender_Identity_Services_Lancashire_LGBT_Preston/Gender_Identity_Services_Lancashire_LGBT_Preston-v7183165

@GreenAllOver I have found a really good article that explains clearly the legal precedent [set in the High Court] for the definition of sex dating back to 1971 and cited in SC judgement.
The relevant bit is as follows:
In the seminal case of Corbett v Corbett [1971] p 83, cited by the Supreme Court at [54], the High Court concluded that as far as the common law is concerned, sex is biological, immutable, and fixed at birth at the latest. Determination of what sex an individual is, where it is contested, is a matter of fact to be determined based on the evidence presented, as it was in Corbett. In that case, a male-to-female transgender person argued that medical intervention including genital surgery changes someone’s sex. The High Court rejected this contention, concluding that biological sex can be determined by evidence relating to chromosomes, gonads, and external genitalia. It rejected the contention that hormone levels or psychological factors including what we would now call a gender identity were relevant for determining an individual’s sex.
Obviously, in the vast majority of cases chromosomes, gonads, and external genitalia align as unequivocal evidence of an individual being of either the male sex or the female sex. Even more obviously, the overwhelming majority of transgender people are unequivocally male or female. Having a DSD is not a precondition for having a transgender identity and the law is clear about how to deal with those who do have DSDs: it regards determination of their sex as a matter of evidence to be proven in court where it is contested.
The decision in Corbett has been approved on several occasions over the past five decades. It is unequivocal at this point that our law has a clear and established meaning for the expression “biological sex”, one which the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland felt no need to re-hash for the benefit of academics or campaigners unfamiliar with the last 50 years of law in this area.

https://knowingius.org/p/sex-has-always-meant-biological-sex?hide_intro_popup=true

Just having one of those WTAF moments (another one) and thought I'd drop in to share.

As you can tell from my user name, once the scales fell from my eyes, or I reached the foothills of Mount Woo, I looked at everything differently - suddenly saw what I hadn't taken the time to see / think about before and couldn't go back to not seeing it that way. I have since struggled a lot with the lack of logic in gender identity ideology - I try and make sense of the insensible and it physically hurts my head!

So when I come across a definition in an NHS policy (that has been reviewed and signed off in a seemingly official process) that makes no sense to me at all, can't even wrap my head around how anyone can think this is a thing, it leaves me baffled how this ever took off or has serious people taking it seriously:

"Bi-gender
People experience two gender identities, either simultaneously or varying between the two. These two gender identities could be male and female but could also include non-binary identities"

I'm sure I've seen this one dozens of time already but stopped and considered it this afternoon. I wish I hadn't. I'm going to step away for a little and look at some kitten videos or something ... back later.

I take it this is Darlington? Home to Rose and Karen?

I have seen that definition too. In quite a few places - if I remember I try to make a note that the Trust is using lists of definitions to which the EA doesn't apply. And which most people will never have heard of. I now daren't think about Bi-Gender...

Enjoy the kitten videos - well deserved!

@nothingcomestonothing thanks so much for posting that article up thread.
I haven't read it all yet but it links to a series of FOIs made in Dec 2023 and responded to in early 2024. I think 180 requests were sent and 167 replied (93%). Asking How many women inpatients complained that a trans woman inpatient was being cared for in the same ward as the complainant?
Mental Health Trusts were asked additional questions about day rooms.
A specific 12 month period was requested: 1st Sept 2022 and 31st Aug 2023 (inclusive).

Of the 157 trusts (87%) who responded almost all reported 0 incidents in the time period. However The Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust reported a single complaint (this was followed up and found not have been classified as a "serious" incident"). But no information was provided about whether/how this was recorded in the Datix and what the outcome was for either patient.

10 trusts "declined" to answer "in most cases claiming a section 12 exemption (the costs of responding were estimated to exceed the appropriate limit)". Looking at the results these were:

• DEVON PARTNERSHIP NHS TRUST
• EPSOM AND ST HELIER UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS TRUST
• KING'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
• MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
• NORTHERN CARE ALLIANCE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
• SANDWELL AND WEST BIRMINGHAM HOSPITALS NHS TRUST
• SOUTH LONDON AND MAUDSLEY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
• WEST LONDON NHS TRUST
• WIRRAL UNIVERSITY TEACHING HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
• WYE VALLEY NHS TRUST

Anyone else find it interesting that 10 trusts "declined"? Surely this is a basic Datix search? My spidey senses are tingling... What question in an FOI might ferret out some further details?

Here it is, County Durham and Darlington policy:

"We will agree with the employee when they wish to start using the facilities appropriate to their acquired gender and how this should be communicated to colleagues. Any concerns raised by others will be dealt with promptly and sensitively and harassment of the individual will not be tolerated.

If others do not wish to share the gender specific facilities, they should use alternative facilities."

Jotform submitted. A lot of attachments as many relevant FOIs including one asking if it were true that a 70 year old patient had been asked to select their gender from a list of 18 options (unfortunately that was true although they have since changed the form).