Trans activists urge doctors to fight NHS data overhaul
Trans activists are urging NHS staff to campaign against plans to protect women by collecting data on sex and not gender.
They have posted on NHS England's LGBT intranet to implore doctors and nurses to show their 'allyship' by writing to their MP to oppose the proposed changes.
In a report last month, Professor Alice Sullivan said police forces and the NHS should collect data on biological sex rather than a person's self-declared gender identity.
Critics say that allowing public bodies to remove sex from statistical records compromises research into women's issues and makes it difficult for researchers to spot trends in rape cases, medical trials or gender pay gaps.
Professor Sullivan's review found that cancer referrals had been missed and previous convictions overlooked because biological sex was not being recorded.
The report was welcomed by Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, who said having accurate data on sex was vital for patient safety.
But activists have described it as 'biased, inadequate and potentially harmful'.
'Demonstrate your allyship'
In a post on NHS England's LGBT network, one activist linked to a statement from the group TransActual which rejected the report.
The post said: 'Leading transgender organisation TransActual together with academics from the Feminist Gender Equality Network (FGEN) today rejected the conclusion of a report on data collection by academic Professor Alice Sullivan as biased, inadequate and potentially harmful to all citizens of the UK, whether trans or not.
'For allies within the network, now is the time to take action. Demonstrate your allyship by writing to your local MP and urging them to oppose the recommendations of the report.
'Encourage them to speak out against it within their party and advocate for a more inclusive approach.'
The activist then linked to TransActual's statement on the Sullivan Review, which claimed the idea that there are only two sexes is 'factually incorrect' and an 'incorrect dog-whistle assertion'.
It also said Professor Sullivan was a 'prominent anti-trans activist'.
Its strategy director, Keyne Walker, said: 'These recommendations would do nothing to support the Government's stated objectives regarding equality and diversity, nor on data use. It represents a deviation from the Government's stated position, and would be a U-turn should it be implemented.
'Worse, the experience of those working in the field suggests that far from improving data quality, the measures promoted by this report would make data collected on sex and gender far less reliable.
'The Sullivan Review is rooted in factually incorrect assertions about the binary nature of sex and gender and antipathy towards trans people, despite lip-service towards respect for diverse gender identities.
'The Review's recommendation for both sex and gender characteristics to be collected is presented as in the interest of the welfare of trans people.
'However, the recommendations would effectively mean that trans people have no right to privacy, likely breaching human rights law, as well as codifying the incorrect dog-whistle assertion that sex is binary and immutable.'
She went on: 'Despite its claims of impartiality, it was produced by leading members of an anti-trans campaign group and reflects their arguments.
'As such, it is an unsuitable basis for policymaking and we encourage DSIT to reject its findings entirely.'
Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at women's rights charity Sex Matters, said the comments showed why Mr Streeting needed to 'get gender ideology out of the health service'.
She said: 'It is shocking to see an NHS England employee amplifying calls from a trans activist group to ignore the recommendations of the Sullivan report.
'This should be a wake-up call to the [Health Secretary] to get gender ideology out of the health service, for everyone's sake.
'Whether a patient is male or female is vital information in healthcare, but this lobby group wants the NHS to record falsehoods instead of facts in people's health records. This is not good for anyone. It's no longer credible to claim that trans activist demands are no threat to anyone else.'
A spokesman for NHS England did not comment on the campaign against the adoption of Prof Sullivan's recommendations.
He said: 'The NHS has written to GPs to ensure that they immediately stop the process of changing NHS numbers and gender markers for children and young people under 18, following the Sullivan review and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care's direction.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
PETER HITCHENS: The private school pupils refused NHS care show we're becoming a People's Republic by stealth - ruled by blank-eyed bureaucrats
We are becoming a People's Republic by stealth. The warnings are increasingly urgent, but is anyone listening? Last weekend The Mail on Sunday reported a deeply disturbing fact. An NHS bureaucrat had refused therapy to a young boy, saying, 'We are unable to see this child as we do not provide a service to school-age children who attend an independent school. We are only commissioned to provide a service to the mainstream schools.'
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Chancellor unveils £6bn NHS funding after health-centred spending review
Some £6 billion will be spent on speeding up testing and treatment in the NHS, Rachel Reeves has announced, after she placed the health service at the heart of Government spending plans. The Chancellor unveiled the investment, which includes new scanners, ambulances and urgent treatment centres aimed at providing an extra four million appointments in England over the next five years, after Wednesday's spending review. The funding is aimed at reducing waiting lists and reaching Labour's 'milestone' of ensuring the health service carries out 92% of routine operations within 18 weeks. In the review, Ms Reeves set out day-to-day spending across Government for the next three years, as well as plans for capital investment over the next four years. The NHS and defence were seen as the winners from the settlement, as both will see higher than average rises in public spending. This comes at cost of squeezing the budgets of other Whitehall departments and experts have warned tax rises may be needed later this year. The Chancellor and Sir Keir Starmer both sought to portray the review as a 'new phase' for the Government, following the criticism Labour has faced during its first year in power, including over cuts to winter fuel allowance. Ms Reeves claimed the NHS had been 'put on its knees' as a result of under-investment by the previous government, adding: 'We are investing in Britain's renewal, and we will turn that around.' The new £6 billion investment will come from the capital settlement for the NHS and will also help to speed up diagnoses with scans and treatment available in places such as shopping centres and high streets. The scale of day-to-day spending for the NHS is akin to an extra £29 billion a year. In a broadcast interview on Wednesday evening, Ms Reeves said the Government was 'confident' it could meet its pledge to reduce waiting lists after the boost to NHS spending. But while health and defence have benefited from the review, the Home Office, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Department for Transport and Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are all in line for real-terms cuts in day-to-day spending. The Foreign Office is also in line for real-terms cuts, mainly as a result of a reduction in the overseas aid budget, which was slashed as part of the commitment to boost defence spending to 2.6% of gross domestic product – including the intelligence agencies – from 2027. Ms Reeves acknowledged 'not everyone has been able to get exactly what they want' following Cabinet squabbling over departmental budgets. She said 'every penny' of the spending increases had been funded through the tax and borrowing changes she had announced in her first budget. The Chancellor also insisted she would not need to mount another tax raid to pay for her plans, but experts warned the money for the NHS might still not be enough and the Government is under international pressure to boost defence funding further. Paul Johnson, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, described the hospital waiting times target as 'enormously ambitious', adding: 'And on defence, it's entirely possible that an increase in the Nato spending target will mean that maintaining defence spending at 2.6% of GDP no longer cuts the mustard.' At a summit later this month Nato members will consider calls to increase spending to 3.5% on defence, with a future 1.5% on defence-related measures. Steven Millard, interim director of the NIESR economic research institute, said the Chancellor's non-negotiable fiscal rules, coupled with the 'small amount of headroom' in her spending plans, meant 'it is now almost inevitable that if she is to keep to her fiscal rules, she will have to raise taxes in the autumn budget'. Elsewhere, policing leaders warned forces may need to make deep cuts after their settlement was announced. The spending review provides more than £2 billion for forces, but ministers have acknowledged some of that 'spending power' will come from council tax hikes.
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
Britain needs reform
This week's spending review confirms that where there should be conviction, there is only confusion; where there should be vision, only a vacuum. The country is on the road to higher taxes, poorer services and a decaying public realm, with the bandits of the bond market lying in wait to extract their growing take from our declining share of global wealth. When every warning light is flashing red, the government is driving further and faster towards danger The Chancellor approached this spending review with her credibility already undermined. Promises not to raise taxes on working people translated into a tax on work itself which has driven up unemployment. A pledge to put growth first has been accompanied by changes to employment law that make the labour market more rigid and the cost of hiring workers commensurately greater. A party which excoriated the Conservatives for letting prices rise has pumped billions into public-sector wage hikes and seen inflation increase again. An apparent determination to take difficult decisions to control spending by removing pensioners' winter fuel payments has crumbled in the face of backbench pressure. The farcical retreat has only emboldened those in Labour who want to drive us deeper into debt. The NHS and the Ministry of Defence are the most hopeless spending addicts but they are not the only departments to have wrung more from the Treasury than the nation can afford – or the Chancellor indicated she wanted. Ed Miliband has shown that, whatever other criticisms may be directed at him, he is brilliant at getting high on the taxpayers' supply – with generous subsidies for domestic decarbonisation and billions for the most expensive energy the markets can provide. The Department for Education has secured millions more to get the state to pay for families' food. Angela Rayner has extra billions, not to build new houses but to buy existing homes for the state. The Department for Transport also has a line of credit to pay for schemes no private sector investor would go near. And any lingering expectations that welfare reform would yield significant savings seems fanciful given the Prime Minister's desire to end the two-child cap on benefit payments. It is not as though this programme can be justified on the basis of an economy that's roaring back. Tax changes this government has introduced have led to a flight of the wealthy and a consequent depression in revenue. Alongside rises in inflation and unemployment, the cost of government borrowing is escalating to a level which causes international markets to demand a heftier risk premium. At a time when every warning light is flashing red, the government is determined to drive further and faster towards danger. Perhaps the greatest sin of this spending review is one of omission. There is no indication that all this additional expenditure will be accompanied by meaningful public-sector reform. The civil service headcount is growing. In education, the greater autonomy and accountability which drove up school standards is being abandoned. Our shoddily inefficient criminal justice system remains a mess of unaccountable fiefdoms: lamentably inadequate chief constables hide their failures behind the alibi of 'operational independence', the Crown Prosecution Service is a creaking liability and courts are hidebound by a judiciary that resists effective management of their operations. The additional money for defence is going to a department whose procurement policies are hardly a model of prudence. And despite the best efforts of Wes Streeting, one cabinet minister who is at least intent on reform, the extra cash for the NHS risks being swallowed whole by staff unions rather than being used to create incentives for change. The failure to fundamentally reform the functioning of government is all too visible in every operation of the state. Britain desperately needs reform. But our government offers only the inadequate management of accelerating decline. Licences to kill While the state proves incapable of reform, our parliament is attempting to prove it is world-leading in terminating innocent lives. Legislation to make it easier to kill the ill and elderly (the private member's bill to encourage suicide) appears still to enjoy majority support. And next week Labour MPs seek to amend the Crime and Policing Bill to decriminalise abortion. The state should undoubtedly treat any decision to terminate a pregnancy with sensitivity. But this amendment is an invitation to abusive partners to coerce vulnerable women into late-stage abortions and removes one of the last protections unborn children still have. Do we really want this decade to be one in which the only thing we do more efficiently than ever is kill innocent souls?
