NHS forms with no option to record biological sex and instead ask parents their newborn baby's 'gender identity'

[IwantToRetire]

" ... staff at Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust were 'shocked' to find during a training session for the Epic software system that there was no option to record a baby's biological sex on registration forms, which are filled in just hours after a baby is born.

Instead the form – described by campaigners as 'ludicrous' – asked healthcare staff to log infants' legal sex, sex assigned at birth and gender identity alongside the birth time and date, with a drop-down menu giving options for sexual orientation.

... It is understood the US software, embedded with the options to appease trans rights activists who had successfully lobbied the Biden administration for their inclusion, has been adopted in at least ten NHS trusts. "

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15495555/NHS-midwives-farcical-forms-no-option-biological-sex.html

(I am sure someone started a thread about this, but cant find it. If you know the link can you post.)

Hang on: do these loons in charge of form-creation seriously believe that a newborn baby has both a gender identity and sexual orientation?

I remember when the question was "has my baby got all his fingers and toes?" not "what gender does my baby identify as?"

Thank goodness "these are not mandatory fields"; they are indeed ludicrous.

Apart from the total nonsense of the form itself, it also worries me that the mantra about how technology is going to make the NHS work better is perfectly illustrated by this.

Did no one actually check how the program had been written.

In the end it maybe that relevant data will not be recorded in the future, not because of TRAs but nobody bothered to check the world view and experience of the 10 year old work experience programmers who were left to create the form.

But certainly makes you wonder at the decision making process within the NHS.

Are they this sloppy is other areas of their work?

Well, I got a letter last week about a hospital procedure, which instructed me to read the enclosed leaflet.

There was no enclosed leaflet.

When I was pregnant and registering with the midwife, I was asked both my gender identity and my birth sex as separate questions.

You’d have thought the answer to the second of those was obvious, given the service…!

Ha! If you think this hospital system is chaotic, have a look at the patient registration form for GP services! You might be able to find a copy of the paper form. It’s pure comedy: what is your sex as recorded in your NHS record; male / intersex / female.

Intersex people are either male or female, just with a difference in sex development within that sex! Also, foreigners often don’t have an NHS record before registering with a GP 🧐

How the actual fuck is a new parent/midwife supposed to work out the gender identity and sexuality of a newborn?

And how insulting the 'assigned at birth' - the midwife and parents and pre birth scanner all with their sorting hat presumably.

Batshit. It's this kind of thing that exhausts all patience with this political movement.

This is an epic set up/ implementation issue.

The DEI page is actually quite good so the database function for accuracy is there.

You can record Sex, legal sex and gender identity on the epic build I use. Some of the morons in my trust use it wrongly. I work in paediatrics so they will change everything for a gender confused child.

Everytime I find a case like that I change back the biologicaly bit and report it as a patient safety near miss. I once had to trawl clinic letters back to a teens really early childhood as there was so much fucking obfuscation around their actual sex. I mean it really doesn't matter in a hospital setting at all.... (heavy sarcasm). It's so basic and I would hate a bio girl to lose an ovary through torsion or get an undected pregnancy heavily irradiated during surgery because everyone is so busy tip toeing around the delusion that they are a boy to actually have that crucial piece of info on their medial record. I'm sure you can all imagine as well how some parents react if staff try to make a distinction between sex and gender.

I'm hoping that eventually someone will actually roll out some training everyone the difference between sex and gender identity and tell them that CHILDREN CAN'T CHANGE THEIR LEGAL SEX because they are obv. children.

There is also a section to record what gender confirmation surgery has taken place/ what organs have been lost. I have never seen it filled in.

I'm totally with you on the batshittedness of this form, but have to say I've had a slight change of heart about the use of being 'assigned' a sex at birth. Purely from a DSD point of view I feel more accepting of the use of this term, but only where there is physiological/genital ambiguity! The twisting of the use of this term outside of DSDs, seems entirely out of proportion.

Children with DSDs are not assigned a sex either @Sellseashells . Where one of the conditions is observable at birth there will have been genetic and other testing. For conditions that do not become apparent until later the child will have been registered according to phenotype.

I've read so many trans ideologues claiming that it's 'sick', 'gross' or 'creepy' to inspect a newborn's genitals, which forms part of the normal neonatal check, and is done in case there's something wrong. As there occasionally is.

Yet this same ideology holds that a newborn baby can have a sexuality? I find that 'gross', 'creepy' and 'sick' in the extreme. Not to mention paedophilic.

Whoever designed that form should first have all of their hard drives checked, and then be sacked for being unable to do the simple job for which they were paid.

How can 'sex assigned at birth' possibly be any different from the baby's actual sex anyway, when the baby has only just been born?! And the very idea of discussing a baby's sexual orientations is playing right into the hands of the filthy MAP crowd.

Whoever designed that form should first have all of their hard drives checked, and then be sacked for being unable to do the simple job for which they were paid.

But it'll be someone in California, won't it? Why do we have to source software from the US anyway?