NHS update on recording patient sex and gender identity

[Whatchamacallitt]

For a long time sex has been erased and replaced with gender identity. Trans-identified people actually lose out the most with this. There have been cases of trans-identified women having heart attacks, pregnancy emergencies, and kidney failure missed due to clinicians relying on normal male test ranges or presumed male sex. There have been issues for trans-identified men too but unsurprisingly it is the women who have suffered the most due to these policies.

Fortunately the NHS Core Information Standard has been updated to make 'sex at birth' a mandatory data item, with the option to record gender identity separately for patients who feel they have one.

(I don't personally believe in gender identity but recognise it is a genuinely held belief for many trans-identified people and also that it could be helpful information in the context of an altered body due to medicalisation.)

So if it's already "clear to any medical professional" which sex a person is there's no issue right?
What's all the worry about making sure sex is recorded accurately? They'll already have all the information they need to provide appropriate clinical care?

Heaven forbid medical professionals believe their patients when they tell them they are of a specific sex...

It matters if the professional is expecting a woman and a man turns up on a ward.

It matters to the women on the ward.

It matters if a lab doesn't know the person is lying about their sex, and the result are concerning.

It matters for public health.

Trans people act like its their world and everyone else are supporting characters.

I agree that its a lie that most people humour. The receptionist knows its a man without the computer stating their sex. No nurse is shocked when a TM arrives for a smear.

What adult men are doing is using the NHS as a way of concealing their sex. Because if they can get the NHS to do it, everyone will. And they use that to con their way into women and girls spaces.

Do you think if you aren't present, nothing is happening? Are you that self absorbed?

There are lots of times patients information is used when the patient isn't present.

You clearly don't. The sex field was unpopulated for everyone. Only 'gender' was recorded. For most patients that was their sex, for trans patients it wasn't. You are pretending sex has always been recorded and there is no clinical safety issue because patients identified gender was recorded. That is deeply disingenuous. In fact, it's an outright lie.

I notice you never responded to the examples of terrible harm that have befallen trans-identified patients due to this ludicrous lie. You claim to care but don't seem at all concerned by the woman who almost died of kidney failure, the heart attacks that have been missed, the stillbirths and pregnancy emergencies overlooked, the cervical cancer screenings that haven't been attended..

You are also lying about it being available in contexts where it isn't relevant. It is always relevant to healthcare what someone's sex is and the implementation guide makes it clear that care will be taken with non-medical staff to avoid disclosures.

The point is, the NHS has been busy collecting information that they know is corrupted.

When they analyse sex data, they have no idea how incorrect it is. At one point, the government was confidently claiming 9,000 maximum would change their details, then estimated it could be 2 million, even after the census, they dont have a clue.

All because a few men wanted to pretent that they were women.

You clearly don't. The sex field was unpopulated for everyone. Only 'gender' was recorded. For most patients that was their sex, for trans patients it wasn't.

I can't understand what you are arguing about? It doesn't matter what words you want to use, the following is true :

for the vast majority of people birth sex is already recorded in their medical records.

There is no issue with clinicians not knowing what birth sex a person is in the vast majority of cases.

In my records my sex is recorded as female which is my birth sex and there is no issue.

I'm sure the same is true for yours.

There are a small number of trans patients who have changed the marker in their medical records so what is recorded in the medical records is different to their birth sex.

the rules will change this and make it mandatory for their birth sex to be recorded , which may have consequences for revealing their trans status and creating a new privacy concern for this specific group of people.

It's already been explained to you where it may not be relevant for people to have this information - for reception staff for example. Furthermore, are lots of clinical situations where birth sex is not directly relevant to clinical care.

Also your tone is becoming distinctly disrespectful so I will leave it there. Have a lovely evening!

Fortunately trans people can get a new NHS number to change it back to the rightful identity. Sex does not matter and nor should it matter in NHS care. Patients come first not feminist identified transphobes feelings.

Patients come first not feminist identified transphobes feelings

😘👌

Supposedly trans allies calling for the deliberately bad medical care, and potential death, of trans people, just because they are trans. That's... a take.

It matters that sex was an unpopulated field for the entire population. My god if you can't see the issue I can't help you. It matters that a sense of identity was given precedence over real biological truth.

The rules absolutely should change that because of the very real and obvious harms that have been caused by lying about a patient's sex. Examples you still have refused to acknowledge and respond to.

It's already been explained to you that care will be taken so that non-clinical staff don't have that information. There are very few areas of medicine where someone's sex would not be relevant information. I'm struggling to think of a single one. Maybe you can enlighten me.

Yes. It's very revealing that finally saying NO to this tiny yet disproportionately powerful group generates so much hyperbole and drama. All because the NHS has finally been compelled to record accurate sex based data that safeguards everyone in the population.

Because you are being manipulative and lying. I have no time for that. I'm unsurprised you still haven't acknowledged the harm done to trans-identified people by the policy you advocate. A true ally would care about their actual health and wellbeing.

Recognising a privacy concern does not mean arguing against safe or effective healthcare for trans people.

Wanting clinically relevant information to be available to healthcare professionals does not imply that every piece of sensitive information should be collected and accessible without considering privacy implications.

The question is not whether clinicians should have access to information that is genuinely necessary for a person’s care. The question is whether making a particular piece of information mandatory for every patient is necessary, proportionate, and the potential consequences of that.

Patient safety and privacy are not opposing values. A good healthcare system has to protect both.

Someone can disagree with you without being manipulative or lying. I’ve been clear, respectful and focused on the substantive point throughout.
I suggest you reflect on your approach to this discussion. Have a lovely evening.

Just a reminder Alice Sullivan hangs out with sex offenders.

No you're simply being deeply passive aggressive now you've been called out.

Bolding and underlining text does not make safeguarding go away, or the need for sex to recorded accurately.

Its not up to the individual to opt out in any situation they see fit.

'This piece of information is essential to patient care and clinicians need it but it shouldn't be mandatory.'

I guess we are relying on clinicians to be mind readers then. You still haven't addressed any of the terrible examples of misidentifying the sex of trans-identified patients. Nor have you addressed the safety concern of ward placement if there is no accurate record of a patient's sex.

Which requires accurate recording and disclosure of sex.

Someone upthread wrote that they deal with problems daily from people who realise they're trans. First off, I'm sorry, that's dreadful. Secondly, these people can't all be health care professionals who only know about a trans status from medical records. It seems trans status, in some instances, is only a secret from the Doctors, nurses and similar who need the information to keep the transperson healthy. Thirdly, I suspect computer systems in the NHS log who is looking at what. If a member of staff is accessing or disseminating a patient's personal information without reason they will be disciplined, possibly sacked.

The idea that the privilege of someone not knowing my birth sex is even in the same universe as my right to receive correct treatment... You obviously don't realise how offensive this is.

This seems to replace the actual argument with a more extreme one that’s easier to object to. 🤔

I never suggested any patient should be denied correct treatment . The question is whether administrative systems should routinely record and share a person’s birth sex irrespective of privacy, purpose, necessity or consent.

Privacy - measures are already in place to ensure privacy for medical records and the implementation guide makes clear that transgender status will be treated as sensitively.

Purpose - to facilitate appropriate health care.

Necessity - entirely necessary to meet the above purpose, as illuminated by the examples of harm done to trans-identified people where this process has not been followed.

Consent - not necessary to store information on medical records. Patients have a right to file objections to information in their medical record but not to get it erased. If you choose to use the services of the NHS as a patient then you have to accept that confidential information will be stored about you to facilitate that care.