Updated BMA guidance on rights for trans staff

[AnonMedic]

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

Staff should use facilities that match their gender identity.

Yep cas waving your dick at your female coworker in what should be a female only changing room has not just been recognised as a breach of contract by the courts.

What other contract obligations can they break?
Rob drugs from the controlled drugs cabinet?
Forge crips for themselves to get high or sell for cash?

Patients can request same gender care but have no right to know the sex of their practitioners.

No patient is requesting any type of same gender care if the individual asks for a woman/female or man/male the individual means sex and sex means biological sex not the personal gendered self belief of the HC provider

Funny how assault and sexual assault is fine. It shows how low the ethical standards of the Union management is when they have to play word games to justify the doctor getting to play god with the body of someome who said no.

The stupid thing is that women will have had to manage this for years and the was no blanket statement that the doctor can force a person to comply.

Thanks OP. That is pretty grim to read.

Why do they have chaperones in healthcare if nobody needs to know or can tell the sex of a medical professional? Make it make sense. Actually, no - make it stop.

Are they asking to be sued?

Aren't they putting trans members at risk. After all Beth Upton followed their policy and has ended up having to emigrate.

Its a crime to assault another person.

The patient who requested SS care would have the right to make a complaint to the hospital and GMC.

Being TiF/ TIM would not remove the minimum professional standard of obtaining consent before laying hands on the individual who asked for SS provision. So if GMC investigate they would have to find a breach of professional standard.

That is why the policy NHS normally has a whole detailed plan for dealing with a TIM in a female ward and a "Oh fuck speak to managment" blank page section on the professional standard expected from staff.

Are the individual proposer(s) and management in breach of GMC professional standards by advocating for and saying its ok to assault a person who requests SS provision?

They seem to be diving into dangerous waters by doubling down like this:
the SC made it clear that even if a TIM has a GRC, he still remains a man for the purposes of the Equality Act.

'Gender Identity' isn't really officially a 'thing' any more, is it?

Patients can request same gender care but have no right to know the sex of their practitioners. (Neither do employers.)

As if nobody knows...

It's all based in a fantasy isn't it.

Yes - are these guidelines for how members should act or how they would like the world to be? Do they understand that they are giving advice that doesn't comply with the law?

Mad as a box of frogs. Fingers in ears shouting la la la won't make this go away, certainly not that the workplace law has just been very helpfully clarified by old Jules.

One of the interesting exchanges I had on here was from a poster from Australia who was convinced men should be able to go into women’s toilets. He didn’t think there was a problem. So I told him about my research and out of interest said I bet there are incidents in toilets near you. So it transpired he was around Melbourne so I googled and the first result was this story and it transpires the hospitals are being sued by the doctors.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/australia-trainee-doctor-ryan-cho-video-female-colleagues-hospital-restroom/

https://www.carbonelawyers.com.au/case-files/nurses-doctors-could-receive-big-payouts-from-melbourne-hospitals-after-they-were-allegedly-filmed-in-toilets/

The BMA are being very naive that their advice isn’t going to come back to bite them. It sounds like they were involved in giving advice/guidance to Upton. That didn’t go well for anyone.

all these guidance things are the same: they are working on the assumption that anyone with eyes in their head cannot tell that the person in front of them has a transgender identity.

I'm guessing that if a patient uses their eyes and says 'er, no' when presented with a TIM doctor claiming to be a biological female then this will be deemed a transphobic act?

100% agree with the hypothetical patient scenario you describe. It doesn’t actually matter if the patient or colleagues know what sex dr Y is - dr Y DOES know and should self exclude from providing that care regardless. SO much of the whole “right to privacy” regarding biological sex for transgender people (and what seems to be the basis for lots of “trans inclusive” policy) relies on the false premise that the majority of trans people “pass” seamlessly as the opposite sex such that no one can tell they they are trans.

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.

It’s not even about privacy. It’s about bodily autonomy and informed consent. As I understand it, examination and physical contact without consent is treated as assault in law so we are talking about a patient’s right not to be assaulted or sexually assaulted whilst receiving healthcare. The practitioner’s sex is highly relevant to the patient’s decision for consent. I assume this is why the exceptions in EA2010 recognise this.

I had a gynae appointment recently and the female doctor called in a female chaperone for the examinatio. It protects the doctor as well as the patient.

It seems that they are giving advice that doesn't align with the law. Which is pretty bad for a union.

Also, just to reiterate, patients DNGAF about doctors' gender identity.

Yes, my experience has been that there is always a chaperone regardless of sex of HCP

I assume this is why the exceptions in EA2010 recognise this.

Absolutely.

I don't think the right to same sex care is absolute because obviously that isn't always possible, but I do think that patients have the right to give informed consent.

Sounds like another union who won't be defending a member if they get into trouble with management for a legally held sex realist stance.

You can't tell me Unions aren't fit for purpose anymore, they've always had a cosy relationship with management but now they're just another level of management.

We're usually told that the BMA's stance doesn't reflect most of the membership, but that doesn't cut it anymore. If you in this Union and you don't agree with this policy you need to leave instead of continuing to give this Union the power that it has to maintain this deeply misogynistic and homophobic position.

From the BMA Link above:

Key principles

• The BMA supports the rights of all trans and non-binary individuals to live their lives free from discrimination and persecution. Trans and non-binary individuals should be able to live with dignity, autonomy, and respect.
• We support the rights of trans and non-binary people to have equitable access to healthcare, including timely access to gender affirming care and being accommodated in accordance with their gender identity.
• We support informed and considerate discussion by medical professionals to determine the most appropriate care for individual patients. This approach must be patient-centred, maintain patient privacy and confidentiality, and respect patients’ identities and pronouns.
• We are committed to ensuring that trans and non-binary doctors and medical students can train and work in inclusive environments, free from discrimination, bullying, and harassment.
• We support the inclusion of trans and non-binary people in all aspects of healthcare research and decision-making processes that affect them. In regard to gender affirming care, their perspectives and experiences should inform both research and the development of clinical guidelines, so that care is truly patient-centred, respectful, and evidence-based.

On the other hand what is implied snd unstated:

• We disagree with the Supreme Court judgment that sex is biological in law and sometimes matters when medics deliver treatment.
• We don’t think women deserve recognition in law or society.
• We don’t think that the Equality Act applies to anything related to women or sex based rights.
• We don’t recognise women’s rights or women’s inclusion in “inclusive environments”
• We don’t think women deserve the right to bodily autonomy, privacy or dignity.

Other than that their oddly timed publication seems perfectly reasonable…. Oh dear maybe not. Who can sue them first for this?! What a bunch of turkeys

I agree Unions are no longer fit for purpose. I don't understand how members can allow this stupidity.

I would be surprised if anyone requested 'same gender care'...it's about sex

So depressing. Since when can unions interpret the law as they wish it were, channeling Stonewall…