Doctors condemn Supreme Court ruling on trans women as ‘scientifically illiterate'
Doctors at the British Medical Association (BMA) have condemned the Supreme Court's ruling on biological sex, dubbing it 'biologically nonsensical' and 'scientifically illiterate'.
The union branch representing resident doctors – made up of around 50,000 medics previously known as junior doctors - passed a motion on Saturday criticising the judgement, which ruled that trans women are not legally women under the Equalities Act.
Politicians have said the judgement - which means that transgender women with a gender recognition certificate can be excluded from single-sex spaces if 'proportionate' - provides clarity, while gender critical campaigners have hailed it as a victory for biological women.
However, the doctors argued that a straightforward binary divide between sex and gender 'has no basis in science or medicine while being actively harmful to transgender and gender-diverse people'.
The union branch said it 'condemns scientifically illiterate rulings from the Supreme Court, made without consulting relevant experts and stakeholders, that will cause real-world harm to the trans, non-binary and intersex communities in this country'.
It is understood the BMA's official position will not be decided until a conference in June.
The motion, first seen by The Times, will spark concern that the medical profession could seek to obstruct the implementation of new NHS guidance on trans patients and single-sex spaces.
Last year, the union became the only medical organisation in the country to reject the findings of the Cass Review, an independent review into gender identity services for young people in the UK. The BMA also called for a ban on prescribing puberty blockers for under-18s to be lifted.
Its latest motion comes amid growing pressure on the equalities watchdog to withdraw its interim guidance on single-sex spaces in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, after campaigners dubbed it a 'bigoted attempt to segregate trans people in public spaces'.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has been accused of breaching trans peoples' rights, with campaigners saying it not only forces them into inappropriate spaces but it also risks outing them.
Interim guidance published by the equalities watchdog in the wake of the ruling says that trans women 'should not be permitted to use the women's facilities' in workplaces or public-facing services like shops and hospitals.
But it also says that 'in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men's facilities, and trans men (biological women) not to be permitted to use the women's facilities'.
It is unclear what these circumstances are or who is expected to make such decisions.
While the guidance adds that 'trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use', trans activist and model Munroe Bergdorf dubbed it a 'tool of humiliation designed with the intention of stoking the escalating flames of British transphobia'.
Meanwhile, Steph Richards, CEO of trans campaign group Translucent, told The Independent that the guidance is likely to force trans people to out themselves, which she said would be in breach of article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to respect for private life.
She said: 'Let's say there is a trans woman working in an office in London somewhere, and the company turns around and says, 'You can no longer use the female loos', and perhaps only one or two people know that she's a trans woman.
'If she suddenly no longer goes in the ladies' loo and she trots off four floors down to find a gender neutral loo, that is outing her, and that is a violation, in my view, of article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights.'
Helen Belcher, chair of campaign group TransActual, said officials have 'clearly not thought through any of the vast and disturbing consequences raised by the Supreme Court ruling'.
The EHRC guidance comes after the prime minister said he no longer believes trans women are women in the wake of the ruling, which he said brought clarity to the situation.
The prime minister has since said the government's approach is to 'protect single-sex spaces based on biological sex' and 'ensure that trans people are treated with respect and… dignity in their everyday lives'.
A BMA spokesperson said: "Attendees at the BMA's resident doctors conference voted to show their opposition to the Supreme Court ruling on Saturday. However, BMA-wide policy is set at the Annual Representative Meeting (ARM), with the next meeting coming in June.
'The BMA respects trans patients' dignity, autonomy, and human rights and continues to believe that trans doctors, NHS workers and patients deserve dignity, safety, and equitable access to healthcare and healthcare facilities."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court curbs discrimination claims over lost retiree benefits
June 20 (Reuters) - Retirees cannot sue their former employers for disability discrimination after leaving their jobs, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Friday in a ruling against a disabled former Florida firefighter that could make it harder to bring lawsuits seeking to restore lost retiree benefits. The ruling, opens new tab upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit by Karyn Stanley, who had worked as a firefighter in Sanford, that accused the city of discriminating against her by ending a health insurance subsidy for retirees. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the ruling, wrote that only job applicants and current employees are "qualified individuals" covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, a landmark federal law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. "In other words, the statute protects people, not benefits, from discrimination. And the statute also tells us who those people are: qualified individuals, those who hold or seek a job at the time of the defendant's alleged discrimination," Gorsuch wrote. Gorsuch was joined by the court's five other conservative justices and liberal Justice Elena Kagan. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson penned separate dissenting opinions. While Stanley worked for Sanford, located in the suburbs of Orlando, the city changed its policy to limit health insurance coverage for disabled retirees to 24 months after they stopped working. Stanley retired from her job after two decades because her Parkinson's disease had made it impossible for her to work, according to court filings. She sued the city in 2020, claiming it discriminated against workers who retired early because of a disability by giving them a smaller healthcare subsidy than employees who retired after 25 years of service. The city in court filings has said its policy was lawful and necessary to contain costs related to employee benefits. Sanford covers insurance costs for workers who retire after 25 years of service until they turn 65, and had previously done so for employees who retired due to a disability regardless of how long they worked for the city. While Stanley worked for the city, it changed its policy to limit coverage for disabled retirees to 24 months after they stopped working. Stanley was 47 when she retired. Friday's decision will help reduce the legal risks that employers face when they change or terminate retirement benefits, according to Caroline Pieper, a Chicago-based lawyer with the firm Seyfarth Shaw, which represents employers. "While there are certainly other considerations ... this case should give employers more comfort under the ADA when they modify or reduce post-employment offerings," Pieper said, referring to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Friday's ruling affirmed decisions by a judge in Florida and the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had dismissed Stanley's lawsuit.
Times
4 hours ago
- Times
Streeting should stand firm in face of doctors' risible demands
No country can claim to be in the forefront of democracy and development unless it can ensure the health of its citizens. Whatever its woes — and they are many — the National Health Service does keep most Britons in better health than many people on other continents. Partly that is thanks to pioneering excellence in medical research. And partly it is the result of a long tradition of top surgeons and physicians whose skills underpin specialist units attracting doctors from overseas. The consultants know it. They are proud of it. And, to their discredit, they are ready nowadays to exploit it. NHS consultants earn, on average, £145,000 a year. It may not be the salary of an investment banker. But it is considerably more than most people are paid. And there is ample opportunity to supplement this salary with private practice and filling in as a locum at the going rate of £200 an hour. Consultants have been awarded a pay increase of 4 per cent for the coming year, a figure above inflation. The British Medical Association, the doctors' union, has described this as an 'insult'. It insists that a pay rise of 35 per cent over the next three years is needed to restore consultant pay to 2008 levels in real terms. Otherwise, the BMA says, it will support a strike if an 'indicative ballot' shows that this is what senior doctors want. The consultants' claim is risible. It is not only unaffordable in today's straitened times and given the parlous state of NHS finances; it is based on the threat of holding the health, and sometimes the lives, of thousands of patients to ransom. It is a maximalist demand, backed by possible strike action, similar to the bullying approach of the rail unions. Consultants ought to be able to see that their claim has far less validity or public support than the claims by nurses and resident — once known as junior — doctors. They, too, insist that their pay needs to catch up with what they once enjoyed. They, too, risk losing public sympathy, following earlier strike action. But millions of Britons have seen their take-home pay fall in recent years. Comparisons do not help consultants. Famously, Aneurin Bevan, the architect of the NHS, bought off consultants opposed to his proposals for a state scheme, saying that he had 'stuffed their mouths with gold'. And since 1948 they have enjoyed this well-funded quasi-independence from state control, with generous state pensions. They have also enjoyed the fruits of expensive training, provided largely by the state in Britain's medical schools. Doctors, like everyone nowadays, are obliged to pay back their tuition fees — but many will not do so for years. An alarming number will never do so; on qualification they look for more lucrative contracts abroad, often in Australia. As a result Britain has partly depended on an inflow of doctors trained overseas, largely in India, a situation benefiting neither country. In the long term, the tight restriction on the numbers enrolling in medical schools should be eased; a developed country should never risk a doctor shortage. Also in the long term, doctors, especially consultants, should be compelled, by legislation if necessary, to devote a defined period of their careers to the NHS and serve in areas of greatest need. Other countries make provision for nationwide coverage. The immediate challenge, however, is pay. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, is holding talks with the BMA. He must stand firm in resisting its absurd new demands.
Powys County Times
4 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Lammy urges Iran and US to keep talking as Middle East conflict continues
David Lammy has urged Iran to carry on negotiations with the US as he continued to seek a diplomatic solution to the Middle East conflict. The Foreign Secretary met his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi in Geneva on Friday alongside foreign ministers from France and Germany and the EU's foreign policy chief. Following the meeting, Mr Lammy said the Europeans were 'keen to continue ongoing discussions and negotiations with Iran, and we urge Iran to continue their talks with the United States'. He added: 'We were clear: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.' Friday's meeting followed Donald Trump's statement that he would delay a decision on whether the US would join Israeli strikes against Iran for two weeks, raising the prospect of a negotiated solution to the crisis. German foreign minister Johann Wadephul said the group had left the room 'with the impression that the Iranian side is fundamentally ready to continue talking about all important issues'. Speaking to broadcasters after the meeting, Mr Lammy described the situation as 'perilous' and urged Iran to 'take that off ramp' and 'be serious about the diplomacy that is required at this moment'. He added that the US and Europe were pushing for Iran to agree to zero enrichment of uranium as a 'starting point' for negotiations. But Mr Araghchi said Iran would not negotiate with the US as long as Israel continued to carry out airstrikes against the country. Tel Aviv's campaign continued on Friday, with Israel saying its aircraft had hit military targets including missile-manufacturing facilities as it continues to attack locations connected with Iran's nuclear programme. Iran insists its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful. Meanwhile, the UK Government has announced it will use charter flights to evacuate Britons stranded in Israel once the country's airspace reopens. Number 10 said on Friday morning the situation remains 'fast-moving' and it will continue to be monitored closely. A spokesman added: 'We are advising British nationals to continue to register their presence in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, to be contactable with further guidance on these flights.' Mr Lammy said work is under way to provide the flights 'based on levels of demand' from UK citizens who want to leave the region. 'The UK will provide charter flights for British nationals from Tel Aviv when airspace reopens,' he said. 'The safety of British nationals remains our top priority.' According to the Israeli government, some 22,000 tourists are seeking to board evacuation flights. It is unclear how many of these may be UK citizens. Government advice for British nationals in the country remains to follow local guidance, as well as to let officials know about their presence within Israel or the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Land routes out of Israel remain open and British staff are on hand to support UK nationals who have crossed the border, he added. The move follows criticism of the Foreign Office's initial response, which saw family members of embassy staff evacuated while UK citizens were not advised to leave and told to follow local guidance. The Government said the move to temporarily withdraw family members had been a 'precautionary measure'.
