Hullo - I've submitted University Hospitals Sussex - in the Stonewall top 100. This is very long!
Supreme Court:
Support for our trans members of staff has also never been more important, following the recent UK Supreme Court ruling concerning the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010. The ruling does have implications for our policies concerning single-sex wards, services and facilities, for both patients and staff... We are committed to delivering safe, compassionate and lawful services for all patients and staff. We acknowledge the concerns the ruling has raised, particularly for our trans colleagues and patients, as well as recognising the need for women only spaces...
Perinatal Care for Trans and Non-Binary People 2020
Toilets and changing facilities can be labelled according to who can access them, but this should not be in terms of sex or gender. For example, toilets in the Postnatal Ward should be labelled as “Birthing Women & People Only”, rather than “Women Only”.
Many references to say that 'pregnant people' may want to refer to their 'front hole' rather than vagina.
Trans Guidelines staff and patients - mad overreach:
While an increasing number of organisations (and teams at this Trust) have introduced gender neutral facilities in recognition of gender diversity and safety of all people, not all areas have these... no-one has the right to ask a trans employee to leave a facility; if a person feels uncomfortable they should consider leaving and seeking appropriate advice from our Equality, Diversity and Inclusion team.
It is a privilege to not have to worry about which pronoun someone is going to use for you based on how they perceive your gender. If you have this privilege, yet fail to respect someone else’s gender identity, it is not only disrespectful and hurtful, but also oppressive.
Key Policy Implications:
Criminal Justice: Recording and addressing hate crime and harassment of nonbinary people, and ensuring that police are well-trained in this area. Our Trust uses a system called Datix for recording incidents...
Culture, Media and Sport: Improving the visibility of non-binary gender, and ensuring that all public facilities are accessible to non-binary people.
At the time of writing the GRA is being reformed by the Government. The main areas being supported for reform are a GRA that: Requires no medical diagnosis or presentation of evidence for trans people to get their identity legally recognised. Recognises non-binary identities. Gives all trans people, including 16 to 17 year olds, the right to self-determination, through a much simpler and more streamlined administrative process.
From example letter to colleagues:
I have been seeing a specialist doctor for a while, who confirms what I have recognised for many years. I am a man, and I always have been. Because I do not look like a man, I have lived with a feeling of great discomfort, which I have tried to ignore, repress or overcome.
One of the FOIs about Stonewall:
Withholding info due to commercial interests:
Section 43(2) of the FOIA provides an exemption from disclosure of information which would or would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person, including the public authority holding it... Guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office recommends that public
bodies should contact third parties for their view about the disclosure of information relevant to them. This is particularly important where information could be perceived to be commercially sensitive. The Trust took this action and Stonewall expressed a series of concerns about the disclosure of this information and indicated that should disclosure occur, it would be likely to prejudice their commercial interests for the following reasons.
It is Stonewall’s view that their “Diversity Champions programme is the leading employers' programme for ensuring all LGBT staff are accepted without exception in the workplace. This programme is important to Stonewall as it provides valuable income for the charity, while at the same time furthering its charitable objects.” Stonewall felt that the disclosure of their comments regarding policy language would be prejudicial to Stonewall’s commercial interests in two ways. First, it would allow competitors access to Stonewall’s expertise in relation to inclusion in NHS trusts. They explained that there are a wide range of workplace development organisations who deliver training, guidance and/or accreditation on LGBTQ inclusion (e.g. National Centre for Diversity, Go1, MyHRToolkit, etc.) and that other organisations providing similar services are likely to do market research around their competitors, and would be likely to use any information gained in relation to Stonewall from FOIA disclosures to strengthen their own marketing advantage. Second, it would allow other similar public authorities (and potentially other organisations) that are considering becoming Diversity Champions the benefit of Stonewall’s expertise without becoming Diversity Champions themselves. This would deprive Stonewall of the income from such bodies and more broadly impact on Stonewall’s ability to ‘achieve its charitable objects’. It was Stonewall’s view that there is ‘a real and significant risk that the prejudice described would occur’.
Section 43 is a qualified exemption, therefore the public interest in withholding the information should outweigh the public interest in its disclosure. The Trust considered the views of Stonewall and applied the public interest test relevant to this exemption. We accept there is public interest in ensuring that the Trust receives value for money relevant to the organisations we do business with. Disclosure of information about the feedback we have received from Stonewall regarding our policies would go some way in demonstrating this value, which would serve the public interest in accountability regarding the spending of public funds. Disclosure would also serve the public interest in openness and transparency about the Trust’s decision making process as it relates to this policy work. This level of public interest does not, however, outweigh the prejudice that disclosure would likely cause to Stonewall and the Trust in a broader sense. There is a strong public interest in protecting the commercial interests of companies and that they should not be disadvantaged as a result of doing business with the public sector. Disclosure would also likely damage relations between the Trust and Stonewall, giving rise to a loss of confidence on the part of Stonewall (and other similar organisations) to do business with the Trust in the future due to the fear that this may lead to disclosure of information that would have a negative impact on their competitiveness. It is the Trust’s view that there is a strong public interest in ensuring that business of this nature is carried out in an environment where free and fair competition is possible, that good working relationships are maintained with the organisations we work with, which in turn allows the Trust to negotiate the best value for public funds. For these reasons the Trust has decided that it is in the overriding public interest to withhold this information at this time.
Additionally, Stonewall’s view is that their Workplace Equality Index (WEI) feedback is provided to organisations in confidence and that disclosure would represent a breach of that confidence. They explained that this is made clear from the privacy statement on the submission which notes that “Any scoring or comments made on the submission is confidential between Stonewall and the applicant/organisation…”. Their view is that such feedback has been generated using Stonewall’s expertise and experience, is unique to each WEI organisation, and is not in the public domain. They feel that it is made clear in their privacy statement that the feedback was given in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, that disclosure would be detrimental to Stonewall’s interests and that such disclosure would constitute an actionable breach of confidence.
Section 41 exemption [provided in confidence] under the FOIA provides that information is exempt if it was obtained from another person or organisation and disclosure would give rise to an actionable breach of confidence. Since this information was obtained by the Trust from Stonewall, the first test for engaging the exemption is met. For section 41(1)(b) to be met disclosure of the information must also constitute an actionable breach of confidence. It is clear from Stonewall’s view indicated above that they feel this information was communicated with the expectation it would not be disclosed in this way and that disclosure would constitute an actionable breach of confidence. The Trust therefore considers section 41 exemption engaged...
Acres of stuff on Trust website about Pride etc. Re LGBT+ history month, it links out to a charity called Schools OUT:
We founded ‘The Classroom’ website to draw together our free education resources for key stages 1- 5 (5 years old to 19 years old); to enable educators to embed LGBT+ inclusive lessons and history throughout the curriculum. We introduce the ‘whole school’ approach and the concepts of ‘Usualising’ and ‘Visibilising’.