From the Telegraph, some healthcare news:
Cambridge University Hospital Trust under scrutiny for using the word in maternity leave policies, losing points in NHS diversity assessment.
Can you guess the offensive, verboten word?
The Cambridge University Hospital Trust, which manages a maternity hospital called the Rosie, lost points because staff use the term “mother” when referring to the policies it had in place regarding paid leave, instead of broadening it to include gender-neutral alternatives.
One might think that the employees having babies and therefore on maternity leave are, in fact, by definition, mothers. One might even think that a hospital, and a maternity hospital in particular, is a place where physical realities of this kind would be difficult to avoid. And yet.
While none of the hospitals’ current staff classified themselves as confused about which of the two sexes they are, it is, I suppose, possible that at some point one of the mothers taking maternity leave may, potentially, be sexually dysmorphic – i.e., mentally ill. But mental illness, even fashionable mental illness, isn’t generally something that one should affirm. Nor should it be a basis for the coercion of others. Farce, after all, soon loses its charm.
The scheme is commissioned by NHS England but run by trans rights groups, including Stonewall and the LGBT Foundation, who carry out the grading.
And these grifting monomaniacs appear to have their feet firmly under the taxpayer-funded table. Such that, even in hospitals regarded as doing nowhere near enough, rainbow ‘Pride’ lanyards swing freely around countless employee necks, “painted rainbow walkways” already assail the eye, along with innumerable rainbow-adorned posters and rainbow staff badges, and at least one “LGBT+ progress flag” flutters gaily from a dedicated flagpole.
In the same hospitals, unused tampons are abundant in the men’s toilets, and the womanhood of expectant female patients is being dutifully downplayed – one might say marginalised – lest the pretentious and unhinged feel in some way anomalous. Hospital staff are expected to introduce themselves to patients by gratuitously announcing their pronouns. As if their sex might otherwise be difficult to fathom.
The “diversity” assessments also insist that gynaecology services must “take… additional action to support trans and non-binary patients.” Specifically, dysmorphic women – women who wish to be perceived as men – should be spared having to sit in “a busy, gendered waiting room,” where the presence of other women may induce psychological discomfort and feelings of “dysphoria.” Instead, such women should be provided with “an adjoining waiting room that matches their affirmed gender.” In short, a waiting room for men in need of gynaecological attention.
We’re also told that gynaecology departments should remove “gendered names (e.g. ‘Women’s Health’),” as this may also make transgender visitors feel unhappy. The words “mother” and “woman” should, we learn, be replaced with the word “client.” The feelings of other, non-dysmorphic female patients on this matter, or on any of the matters raised, are not explored and are seemingly of zero interest.
Regarding the demanded erasure of the words mother and woman, another complaint is aired by our “diversity” overlords:
This change is only happening slowly across the service due to an already existing backlog.
A backlog of other “diversity” demands, that is. The ones being churned out at a boggling rate and with manic enthusiasm.
Among which, a demand that the term “heterosexual partnership” be replaced with “opposite-sex partnership,” on grounds that “bisexual people in opposite-sex partnerships” may “not classify themselves as being in a heterosexual partnership.”
Despite actually being in one.
At which point, readers may wish to imagine a bisexual chap, one in a relationship with a woman, arriving at a hospital with a fractured wrist and having the time to complain that his paperwork doesn’t allow him to stipulate that his heterosexual relationship with said woman is merely conditional and doesn’t preclude other, more manly entanglements at some future date.
Because when you’re fixing a chap’s fractured wrist, you obviously need to know about his bisexuality. And hey, priorities.
As part of the “diversity” assessment, feedback from hospital staff is solicited, presumably to determine the exact level of ideological conformity. However, much of this feedback has been denounced as “transphobic,” or “homophobic,” or insufficiently affirming of “pansexual” or “asexual” people. Examples of such inexcusable wickedness are included in the sixty-eight-page assessment report. For instance,
The sexuality or gender identity of my colleagues is not relevant to the job they do. Like everyone else, they should come to work and focus on their patients.
And,
I feel like I am surrounded by LGBTQ+ too much.
For readers on the verge of hyperventilated gasping, paper bags can be found under your seats.
Other supposedly scandalising staff comments are offered:
It gives me the impression that the hospital is prioritising trans rights over all other protected rights. Sex is a protected characteristic… and yet I am afraid the hospital will not protect the rights of female patients… Might a woman find a fully intact man who claims he is a woman in the next bed?
And,
If a patient asks for a female healthcare practitioner for an intimate procedure, can they be sure that person will be a woman?
The feedback quoted above is of course deemed worthy of a “content warning” and is prominently flagged as both bigoted and a “cause for concern.” One warranting “further investigation” by the employee’s superiors. Apparently, for Stonewall and the LGBT Foundation, and by extension the NHS, these are questions that needn’t be answered – and indeed one mustn’t ask.
Behold the new unsayable.
Recent Comments