The latest update to this policy is 12th February 2026. Highlights include:
Staff should use facilities that match their gender identity.
Patients can request same gender care but have no right to know the sex of their practitioners. (Neither do employers.)
Obviously the BMA is essentially a trade union, and these positions are in line with other unions - and there is of course a conversation to be had about whether they would stand up to legal challenge. But the difference between the BMA and eg UCU is the impact on patients.
I actually think it’s not unreasonable to take the position that gender identity, like sexual orientation, is largely irrelevant at work, and I certainly wouldn’t start a discussion with colleagues or patients by saying “hi, I’m AnonMedic and my sexual orientation is x, my gender identity is y, and my sex is z.” But the BMA is (deliberately?) missing the point here; patients don’t tend to request same gender care - they request same sex care. There’s an interesting podcast where Michael Foran interviews Timothy Pitt-Payne KC about whether there is ever a reasonable expectation that sex is private. Legal commentary aside, it is clearly possible to honour requests for same sex care without trans medics needing to tell patients their sex. For example, patient x tells doctor y, who has a female gender ID and is of male sex, that she will only consent to a vaginal examination done by a doctor of the female sex. “No problem”, says dr y. Dr z then arrives and says something like “dr y has been called away, is it ok if I carry out your vaginal examination?” (Does dr z need to be told dr y’s sex? Putting to one side the fact that dr z will likely deduce that for herself, the answer is “no”. She just needs to know that the examination needs to be done and that dr y can’t do it.)
My other observation here is that the BMA is in line with the GMC which says that they don’t expect practitioners to disclose their sex as part of the consent process. I wonder whether that policy would stand up to a judicial review, especially in light of case law around consent. For example, if consenting to have your foot examined you might agree that the sex of the clinician is not relevant - but you might feel differently for a vaginal examination. (And of course for some religious women, the clinician’s sex would be relevant for the foot examination.)
I really think a judicial review of GMC policy is needed here. Patients need to know if they have a right to same sex care, and doctors need to know where the line between their right to privacy, and their patients’ rights to privacy, should be drawn.
(The changing room policy should obviously be amended to be in line with the law. Will it take a union being named as a responding party to sort this out?! SP is also suing RCN, but I think that is to do with them not supporting her claim rather than their policies on changing rooms.)
https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/equality-and-diversity-guidance/lgbtplus-equality-in-medicine/policy-position-on-the-rights-of-transgender-and-non-binary-people-in-healthcare-settings