Give trans staff extra breaks to adjust underwear, NHS LGBT group suggested
In draft guidance seen by The Telegraph, an LGBTQ+ staff network within the University Hospitals Sussex NHS Trust (UH Sussex) said trans colleagues 'may require extra scheduled breaks in their shift in order to have breaks from binding and tucking'.
However, the trust said the new proposals, which also said women-only spaces should include trans women, had been dropped in February and would not be pursued following the Supreme Court ruling last month.
Judges ruled that the Equality Act referred to biological women and biological sex, rather than those choosing to identify as a woman.
But critics said the draft guidance raised concerns about the time spent by NHS staff on working up and consulting on these types of policies. The NHS has no specific advice for trans people who wear chest binders or tuck their genitals, but the actions are considered controversial by some because of the harm they can cause.
Chest binding is when a woman wears an item of clothing to compress their breasts to look more like a man, while the 'tuck' involves pushing the testes and penis back between the legs to appear more female.
Both can cause infections, inflammation and other health problems, doctors have warned, which in some cases can be irreversible or lead to infertility in biological males.
The proposed guidance said:
It is understood that employees in the UH Sussex LGBTQ+ staff network had written the 15-page document last year and sent it to other groups for consultation.
One former employee at the trust said: 'If we're going to make allowances for people who have to use the toilets to change and do this, that and the other, should we not be making allowances for women with heavy periods, or people who have to pray three times a day? Why are we making allowances for one group of staff over everyone else?'
Dr Alice Hodkinson, a co-founder of Biology in Medicine, a doctors' campaign group, said people binding or tucking were 'risking medical and psychological harm'.
She said tucking male genitals 'between the buttocks can cause pain, inflammation, fertility problems and testicular torsion', while 'binding can cause chest and spine deformities, cysts, infections and difficulties breathing'.
Dr Hodkinson added that testicular torsion 'is a surgical emergency requiring an immediate operation to preserve fertility and sexual function', saying: 'The UK National FGM Centre considers breast flattening to be a form of child abuse.'
'Disgraceful coming from a healthcare body'
Helen Joyce, the director of advocacy at Sex Matters, a human rights charity, said the proposals for 'employees who are self-harming in pursuit of the impossible goal of sex change should never have made it onto paper, even as a draft'.
She added: 'Tucking genitals and binding breasts are culturally motivated actions that cause permanent physical damage, just like breast ironing and the use of neck coils. The only difference is that self-harm in the name of trans identity is high status and fashionable.
'This blatant attempt to normalise such a harmful practice is particularly disgraceful coming from a healthcare body. It is a relief to know that NHS Sussex won't be taking it forward.'
The draft guidance also told staff they should try and understand the impact of cross-sex hormones on any trans colleagues and their mood.
'It is also helpful to gain an understanding of if there are certain times that are better or worse for their mood and wellbeing e.g. when someone is prescribed testosterone, energy levels and mood can be lower towards the end of a medication cycle, and can vary greatly on the type of preparation,' it said.
'Feminising hormones can require a lot more consultation to achieve an appropriate dosage, and may similarly impact mood and energy levels.'
UH Sussex said it had never had a policy on this and that this draft had been rejected in February, after being reviewed by management.
A spokesman for the trust said: 'This draft paper is not trust policy or guidance, it never has been, and never will be.
'A colleague submitted it to a manager in February, for consideration, but it was not accepted.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
National living wage likely to rise to £12.71 next year, advisory body estimates
The national living wage could rise by as much as 65p an hour next year, an advisory body has estimated, as the terms of its annual review of wage rates were published. Ministers are determined to deliver 'a genuine living wage', according to the Low Pay Commission's (LPC) latest remit for increasing the so-called national living wage – the UK minimum wage for workers aged 21 and older. At the moment, the national living wage is £12.21 an hour. The LPC estimates that this will need to increase to £12.71 in 2026 to not fall below two-thirds of median earnings: the threshold which the Government expects it to stay above. But the LPC acknowledged the national living wage could rise to as much as £12.86 an hour, or as little as £12.55 an hour, depending on changing economic conditions. Founded in 1997, the advisory body provides recommendations to ministers each autumn regarding how it believes the minimum wage should be changed. The Government ultimately sets minimum wage rates for the following April after this advice. A letter from Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the committee must take into account the cost of living as it reviews the national living wage. The two senior ministers insisted the Government was 'committed to ensuring that the minimum wage is a genuine living wage'. They added: 'We continue to recognise that our ambition should be backed by evidence, and that the minimum wage rate should be consistent with delivering inclusive growth for working people and businesses alike. 'We are therefore asking the LPC to recommend a national living wage rate that is at least two-thirds of UK median earnings for workers aged 21 and over, to apply from next April, which takes into account the cost of living, effects on employment and developments in the wider economy.' Elsewhere, the Government is pushing forward with plans to end 'discriminatory' age banding for the minimum wage, and has extended the LPC's remit to examine this. It said the LPC will consult with employers, trade unions and workers on narrowing the gap between the national living wage and the minimum wage rate for 18 to 20-year-olds, which is currently £10. There is also a minimum wage for those aged under 18, and apprentices, of £7.55. The LPC will report back in October with advice to the Government on how much the minimum wage should rise by in 2026. The Resolution Foundation, a think tank which works to improve living standards, suggested the Government was using 'ambitious language' on increasing the minimum wage, but in reality was adopting a cautious approach. Nye Cominetti, principal economist at the think tank, said: 'Despite the Government's ambitious language around 'delivering a genuine living wage', the new remit for the Low Pay Commission represents a steady-as-she-goes approach to the adult rate, after faster increases in the years preceding 2024. 'This caution is warranted given worrying labour market data, which is thanks in part to the Government's increase in employer national insurance contributions in April.'
BBC News
23 minutes ago
- BBC News
What are the rules around police giving out a suspect's nationality?
Ministers have said police should be more transparent about the nationalities of people who are charged. But what exactly are the rules?When a police force in England and Wales arrests or charges a suspect and they are thinking of giving information to the media, they need to have two things in mind: the laws about contempt of court which are designed to make sure suspects have a fair trial, and the College of Policing guidance on media of court laws are quite simple in this context. No-one should make public any information that might make a future trial unfair, for example giving out details of the evidence that police officers have collected. In most cases publishing the nationality of the person charged is unlikely to make the trial unfair, so the contempt of court laws are not often College of Policing guidance is more complicated. Before 2012 police forces made decisions on what information to give to the media on a purely case by case basis. These decisions were often nuanced, but were based on how much that information was considered relevant, and were sometimes simply dependent on the force's relationship with an individual journalist. But after Lord Leveson published his report into the ethics of the press in 2012 police forces became much more cautious abut what information they culminated in the College of Policing guidance on media relations which says that if someone is arrested (but not yet charged) police should only give the suspect's gender and age. The guidance does not say anything about nationality or asylum status at this stage. Once a suspect has been charged the guidance says police can give out information such as the name, the date of birth and the address of the nationality and asylum status are not mentioned, but the guidance says: "The media are aware of automatic reporting restrictions and it is their responsibility to follow them. Any information permitted under such restrictions should be released upon charge, including the following: name, date of birth, address, details of charge, and date of court appearance. "The person's occupation can be released if it is relevant to the crime - for example, a teacher charged with the assault of a pupil at the school where they work."So there is nothing in the guidance that prevents police giving information about that nationality, asylum status or even ethnicity of someone who has been charged. But there is nothing that specifically mentions them Warwickshire Police charged two men in connection with the rape of a 12-year-old girl, the force would not say whether the men were asylum seekers. The force said: "Once someone is charged with an offence, we follow national guidance. This guidance does not include sharing ethnicity or immigration status." While this last sentence is true, the guidance does not actually make suggestions one way or another on ethnicity and immigration UK leader Nigel Farage accused the police of a response, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Tuesday: "We do think there should be greater transparency. We do think more information should be provided, including on issues around nationality including on some of those asylum issues."The prime minister's official spokesman had earlier said: "Our position is that authorities, whether it is the police or whether central government, should be as transparent as possible on these issues."In truth, what information should be released to the media is largely at the discretion of the police force. As events in Liverpool in May showed, when forces think it is in the public interest they will release information about a suspect's ethnicity even before they have been charged. When a car ploughed into crowds celebrating Liverpool FC's winning of the Premiership title, Merseyside Police quickly said the man arrested was white and British, in order to quash rumours of a terrorist College of Policing said: "Police forces make challenging and complex decisions on a case-by-case basis and transparency is essential to prevent misinformation and reassure the public."It said that its guidance was "already under review" and that police forces were considering how to balance their legal obligations with "their responsibility to prevent disorder".The issue of what information police can release about a suspect came sharply into focus last summer when Axel Rudakubana was arrested for murdering three young girls, Alice Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, in first Merseyside Police did not release any information about him or his religion, which allowed false information that he was a Muslim asylum seeker to spread. Such disinformation was at least partly responsible for last summer's riots. At the time Merseyside Police said it was not giving out more information because of the contempt of court Law Commission has also been looking at contempt of court laws, with a review due to report next month.
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Calvin Harris and Vick Hope appear to share ‘placenta capsules' photo – here's what the experts say
Vick Hope and Calvin Harris recently announced they'd welcomed a baby boy into the world in a series of Instagram posts. The posts showed photos of Harris and the baby, named Micah, and photos of Hope in a birthing pool. There were also photos of Hope's placenta and some capsules that looked like the product of placenta encapsulation. Harris wrote, '20th of July our boy arrived. Micah is here! My wife is a superhero and I am in complete awe of her primal wisdom! Just so grateful. We love you so much Micah.' Many women opt to consume their own placenta after their baby is born, and although many animals do this, experts disagree about whether this is a worthwhile practice for humans. The placenta is a temporary organ that provides a baby with nutrients during pregnancy, and it looks as though Hope decided to have hers encapsulated – a practice that is growing in popularity. Hillary Duff opted to drink a portion of her placenta in a smoothie after giving birth. 'I know it sounds gross, but it's so badass a woman can grow a temporary organ – and then you can eat it!' she said. Millie Mackintosh also posted that she had 'decided to get my placenta made into pills' after the birth of her second daughter, and Kourtney Kardashian also opted for placenta encapsulation. Many women choose to consume their placenta after giving birth, sometimes raw but otherwise cooked, dehydrated, processed, drunk as tea or encapsulated as a supplement. We asked the experts whether there are any benefits to doing this and, if so, are placenta pills the best way to do it? What is Placentophagy? Placentophagy is the postpartum ingestion of the placenta, which can be eaten in a variety of ways. Placenta tablets, also known as placenta capsules, are pills created by drying and grinding up a placenta into a powder, then encapsulating it. Placentophagia is a common mammalian behaviour observed in rats, sheep and primates, and studies have shown the benefits in these animals. However, there is little evidence that the practice is beneficial for human health. Women who choose to consume their placenta after birth believe it provides health benefits associated with hormones and nutrients that might have been depleted during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Some people consume a portion of or the whole placenta immediately after giving birth, and some might take capsules each day during the postpartum period. A 2020 research paper explains that, 'the supposed benefits' of eating placenta are '[an] increase in milk production quality and quantity, improving weight gain of the newborn, as well as decreasing postpartum depression rates'. However, the same paper cites reports disputing these supposed benefits. Researchers found that 'Placebo-controlled studies of placental capsules have not shown significant effects on hormonal levels, milk production, and weight gain in the newborn.' In fact, there is also evidence that eating a placenta could be harmful. Placentas exchange nutrients and waste products between a mother and her baby, so placentas have been known to contain trace elements of toxic elements like arsenic and cadmium, particularly if the mother is a smoker. Placentas also need to be prepared safely to prevent disease. This 2020 paper states that if a mother chooses to eat or drink her placenta, there is also a present risk of 'bacterial or viral infections, hormonal, or trace elements that could become toxic for both the mother and baby.' 'It can be very appealing thinking that the placenta that has helped you nourish your baby inside your womb, can then also nourish you after birth. In one sense, it feels right because that is its job – to nourish and grow your child, ' adds consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist Dr Shazia Malik. 'But we shouldn't forget that the equally important role of the placenta is to remove toxins and chemicals from the baby via your circulation, so you could inadvertently be giving yourself a concentrated dose of heavy metals, toxins, and also bacteria. Cases of babies getting GBS infections from placenta capsules have been described, and as there is no universal screening for this, you would not know if this is present in your placenta.' Placenta pills: Are there any health benefits? Despite the increasing popularity of placenta pills, some research has debunked the theory that consuming the placenta offers health benefits. In 2015, the BBC reported that a review by Northwestern University found no proven benefits and no research on the potential risks. Lead study author Cynthia Coyle says, 'Women really don't know what they are ingesting.' A 2018 study showed that women who were given placebo capsules or placental capsules had no significant differences in mood, fatigue, or the emotional bond between mother and newborn. Another paper from 2017 compared placenta capsules with a beef placebo and found that, despite the placenta being higher in iron, there was no difference in the iron levels of the women consuming the capsules. Some experts suggest that the way the placenta is prepared – whether raw, cooked, dehydrated, processed, or encapsulated – alters its components, and thus the desired effects. However, the level of digestive absorption of the different hormones present in the placenta has never been studied. 'The science for any benefit just isn't there,' says Malik. 'It's an expensive, unregulated business to encapsulate placentas. Women should not be made to feel that they are missing out by not doing it, and the concerns regarding potentially passing on harmful infections are valid.'
