Профиль

The NHS said it “consulted” about its transphobic changes to data. This presumably refers to the Sullivan Review. I asked every UK national trans-led organisation if they were contacted by The Sullivan Review, none reported that they had been.

I am so mad again at healthwatch for just blindly endorsing Sullivan and once again peddling the lie that this change is for our own safety, completely disregarding hundreds of people complaining about this awfulness of it

They never even bothered to acknowledge us. transsafety.network/posts/danger... What good is a patient advocacy network that won't engage with actual stakeholders?

Following the Sullivan Review blindly is going to cause a *lot* of issues with medical care, as I've previously discussed.

If we can close down children's name records when they get adopted, or even change their assumed date of birth, we can close down other data. Yes, you can guess what this is about.

If they apply the same to reference ranges for various tests, then you get a similar problem - people may be refused treatment for serious conditions because they're judged against the wrong reference range. This sort of thing will lead to trans people being killed. 7/7

The obvious example of this is that a trans woman with sex assigned at birth as male on her NHS records, would not be selected for breast cancer screening under this guidance. Despite having similar risk of breast cancer to cis women. 6/7

Under business process control: "When systems are creating cohorts for patients for sex specific screening they MUST be designed to appropriately select patient according to their sex at birth." This is fundamentally putting trans people at risk. 5/7

The other new hazard is 37. "Mis-representation of sex" and is focussed on ensuring patients are selected for the right screening cohorts. "Potential severe harm could occur due to the patient being sent or not sent for sex specific screening procedures." 4/7

There is no way that this does not immediately disclose someone's gender reassignment status. If a woman patient is in front of you, and their sex observed at birth states male, it's immediate disclosure. If gender identity and sex don't match - the same. 3/7

The admin advice in 2.1 went into detail about how disclosing gender reassignment status is unlawful. This is missing from the 2.2 version, where the focus is explicitly on sex observed at birth MUST be included, and gender identity is optional. 2/7

If you dig into the detail, it's not a good change. The Hazard Log 2.2 compared to 2.1 makes it really clear. 1. The risk in hazard 16 of disclosing gender reassignment status has been dropped to a low severity. They have also removed the admin advice that was there. 1/7

Yep, it doesn't surprise me that this is their plan all along.

Understandable! Hoping it goes well today.

How did day 1 go, if you're able to say?

Inside the containment shield at Chernobyl?

I can absolutely see some ruling in the next few years predicated on exactly this interpretation by the Supreme Court. 5/5

So to qualify for protection in law, we need to be undergoing this process of changing sex; but the supreme court says that such a process doesn't change our sex. If there's no process that can do it, no one qualifies under the 'gender reassignment' characteristic. 4/5

The act says: "A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex" 3/5

"The critical process on which the section 7 characteristic depends involves a change in physiological or other attributes of what must necessarily be biological sex; but there is nothing to suggest that undergoing such a process changes a person’s sex as a matter of law. It does not." 2/5