There has been a massive outcry from LGBTQ+ campaigners, other Tories, and health authorities in the UK after Health Secretary Steve Barclay announced intentions to exclude trans patients from female and male-only hospital wards.
Reports claim that the decision was made despite the absence of any data showing that trans people’s presence has been the source of any complaints.
At the Conservative party conference in Manchester on October 3, Barclay announced the proposals, declaring that the Tories “know what a woman is.” The health minister has promised to reinstate “common sense” and acknowledge “the importance of the biological sex in healthcare” in light of the proposal to bar trans women from female hospital wards.
Stonewall, an LGBTQ+ charity, blasted his proposal as a “cynical attempt” to deflect attention from more pressing problems in women’s healthcare after hearing his speech. Women “regularly report dissatisfaction with the healthcare they receive in England,” according to a representative of the group.
The charity also mentioned the insufficient funds allocated to female-specific health issues and the fact that women’s symptoms are not taken seriously in the healthcare system. “This is a cynical attempt by the Secretary of State to ‘look busy’ instead of getting on with the graft of implementing the Women’s Health Strategy, and, besides being unworkable, all it will achieve is to restrict access to healthcare for trans women, by making it humiliating and dangerous,” the spokesperson added.
UK trans charity Mermaids also raised concerns about the proposed ban, saying that trans women have had access to female hospital wards for years without issue. “There is no evidence to suggest this should change now,” the group added.
“Once again, the trans community is being scapegoated for systemic issues within a healthcare system which has for years been failing to provide equal access to high quality care for all women; whether it’s black women being 5 times more likely to die in childbirth, punitive policies for queer women accessing IVF, or trans women taking their own lives while waiting years to access gender affirming care,” it added.
Extreme criticism was levelled at the Health Secretary’s announcement, and not just by LGBTQ+ advocates. Other moderate Tories spoke against the measures out of concern that the LGBTQ+ community was being singled out as part of a larger culture war fought to win over the electorate.
Conservative lawmaker Jamie Wallis, who made history as the first openly trans member of parliament, called this a “non-issue” last year. He referred to a study conducted by TransLucent, which, after filing freedom of information requests with 102 NHS Foundation Trust, concluded that no female patients had ever complained about having to share a ward with trans people.
Wallis also stated that he was happy to collaborate with the Health Secretary on ways to improve access to healthcare, saying: “I hope to see him solve problems which actually exist.”
Others in the Conservative Party who spoke out against Barclay’s remarks did so anonymously to The Guardian because of their positions in the UK government. One of them said, “I’m fed up of feeling intimidated by bigots and want people to know we’re still a home for LGBT+ people. Many of us will not back down.”
NHS Providers Chief Executive, Julian Hartley also voiced his opposition to Barclay’s plan, stating, “Any proposed changes to the NHS constitution should have improving inclusivity at the heart of what they do and be subject to wide conversations and consultation.”
Sara Gorton, head of the Unison health department, called the Health Secretary’s address “deflection politics at its worst,” suggesting that he was trying to divert attention away from the pressing matters of reducing waiting times, putting an end to strikes, and restructuring social care.
After Suella Braverman remarked at the Conservative conference that LGBTQ+ people fleeing injustice and persecution in their native countries should not automatically be eligible to asylum in the UK, there were broader worries about the agenda of some of the speakers.
Leave a Reply