Подтвердите e-mail

Для публикаций, комментариев, реакций и сообщений подтвердите адрес.

←

Публикация

Предыдущая публикация
Ethel Weapon

Side note: the abbreviation used for this "Core Information Standard" is CIS - nominative determinism or trolling, you decide

1492
Ethel Weapon

The implementation guidance equates "Sex at birth (observed)" with "phenotypic sex". Which suggests trolling or massive stupidity. Sex at birth doesn't determine what a person's "phenotypic" sex is. Gender affirming healthcare can change primary and secondary sexual characteristics...

Обсуждение

1 прямых ответов · 11 сообщений

Ethel Weapon

... alters hormone levels, and a host of other things which are centrally important in determining what healthcare interventions are appropriate for the patient. This is cisgender "common sense" brought to bear, and it is dangerously wrong.

Ответ для Ethel Weapon
Ethel Weapon

But look! If there isn't any record from birth, it can be determined by asking the patient! I don't know if that means it is mutable/editable, or whether that is done each and every time. Whether an existing value can be changed in the actual data model is unclear from this.

Ответ для Ethel Weapon
Ethel Weapon

If we look at the NHS data dictionary for "phenotypic sex" it looks like the only places it is mutable is as a result of maternity events. www.datadictionary.nhs.uk/data_element...

PERSON PHENOTYPIC SEXA classification of PERSON PHENOTYPIC SEX.www.datadictionary.nhs.uk
Ответ для Ethel Weapon
Ethel Weapon

Very unclear what the status of people that have already changed medical records as a result of gender transition will be in relation to "phenotypic sex", and what processes will be open to trans people to modify this value. It's not just about what medical treatments trans people get...

Ответ для Ethel Weapon
Ethel Weapon

... it's about treatment generally. The "sex at birth" field is mandatory for personal demographics, meaning that - unless a process to modify it for trans and intersex people is in place - you will be outed to every single person in the NHS you interact with...

Ответ для Ethel Weapon
Ethel Weapon

... every time you touch base with medical services. Regardless of whether it has any bearing on the medical treatment you are receiving. Regardless of the fact that the information may be misleading, and acting on it potentially dangerous. Regardless of the fact that this exposes you to...

Ответ для Ethel Weapon
Ethel Weapon

... the potential disbelief, hostility, and maltreatment of ill-informed or flat out bigotry of staff in every single interaction you have with medical services, not just with clinicians, but ubiquitously. That represents a stupendous, gross violation of fundamental rights to a private life.

Ответ для Ethel Weapon
Ethel Weapon

That represents a barrier of contempt for trans lives inbuilt into the service, that will drive people away from seeking medical care altogether, with all the horrific impacts that will have. Somehow the NHS failed to notice any of these problems as a potential hazard.

Ответ для Ethel Weapon
Ethel Weapon

But they exist merely from the exposure of "sex at birth" data for someone whose lived sex obviously does not match that. It doesn't require exposing a mismatched piece of "gender" data for all of these consequences to follow.

Ответ для Ethel Weapon
Ethel Weapon

But what of these added "gender" fields? Let's have a look at those. First up is "Administrative gender"

Ответ для Ethel Weapon
Emmy D

Somehow. And somehow it's not institutionalised transphobia - not AT ALL driven by one of the influential GC transphobes whose only concern is to ensure DaTa Is PuRe. No other reason. No ma'am.