The ‘Incompatable’ Stonewall

Drive for transgender rights is risking patient safety in hospitals, says  former NHS chief | Daily Mail Online
Kate Grimes former CEO of a London hospital

The influence of Stonewall – a charity devoted initially to the rights of lesbian, gay and bi-sexual people – the name based on the New York riots in 1969 which starting at the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village – has become a highly fractious and contentious topic of debate in Scotland. England is experiencing similar anxieties, so much so, some repercusions of the charity’s influence has ended up in court, an outcome that is at odds with an institution devoted to greater equality and happiness for sections of society.

The charity is promoted heavily and fiercely by the Scottish National Party. In the last years, the SNP has awarded Stonewall over £400,000 of grant funding. Opponents feel the charity has moved from a foundation with a narrow brief to one where it is able to bypass the normal routes of the democratic system, locally and nationally, and impose their principles on society without proper debate, constraints or public participation. While the rights of gay, lesbian and bi-sexual people seemed to be accepted by western societies for many decades, Stonewall claims that is not so, that there are other ‘genders’ to take into account. The debate has become angry and hurtful on both sides.

To add to the clamour for free expression on both sides of the debate, questioners contend aspects of Stonewall’s policies already put into practice have led to some very odd demands and behaviour by men who claim to be women. In addition, champions of women’s rights argue Stonewall is helping to obliterate women’s rights fought and won over a hundred years, and in so doing, hand back power to a male dominated society.

The SNP Minister of Health, Humza Yousef, announced he wants Scottish Health Service staff to sign a pledge upholding the principles of Stonewall, and to wear a lapel badge showing that they do. Many SHS staff have reacted with outrage and anger, pointing out how the government directive belittles their integrity and professional ethics, appearing to supercede the medical oath they have already taken to care for and be compassionate to, patients from all walks of life without discrimination.

Kate Grimes worked for 27 years in NHS management, including over 10 years as CEO of Kingston Hospital, in South London. She retired in 2016. Here, the former NHS trust chief executive shares her three-fold concerns over Stonewall’s expanionist ambitions. In her view she believes that working with Stonewall is “no longer compatible with NHS values and risks the reputation of the NHS and the safety of our patients and staff“.

Not Compatible with NHS Values

by Kate Grimes

I was already working as a hospital manager when I came out as a lesbian in the late 80s. My internal post arrived with “dyke” scrawled across it. In the early 90s I was proud to run one of the country’s leading HIV/AIDS services. We had two wards full of mainly young gay men we could not save. The beds filled as quickly as they emptied.

I battled prejudice in the hospital for my staff and patients. I marched on the streets for equal rights and repeal of the hated Section 28. And then along came Stonewall. They changed the world for those of us who were lesbian, gay or bisexual.

So imagine my distress to find myself adding my voice to the many others urging organisations to break with Stonewall. Liz Truss, the equalities minister suggested that government bodies should withdraw from Stonewall’s “Diversity Champions” scheme. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission and ACAS have now left and last weekend the Ministry of Justice signalled it was planning to leave stating that the charity had “lost its way”.

At last count, over 90 NHS and healthcare organisations are members of Stonewall’s diversity scheme including the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England, the Care Quality Commission, the GMC and many hospitals and other healthcare providers. The NHS has been well and truly captured by what some now describe as an extremist trans lobby group.

Secondly, Stonewall insists that there should be no debate or discussion about the implications of this change for other groups. Indeed, Nancy Kelley, the CEO of Stonewall, said last week that anyone who believes that sex is binary and immutable is a transphobic bigot akin to anti-Semites.

The implications for patients are significant. Female patients are exposed to the distress and dangers of sharing private space with men who are strangers, at a time when they are vulnerable. Religious requirements are disregarded. Additionally, the censoring of discussion together with the air of legitimacy offered by such broad membership of the Stonewall scheme means that other, more dangerous changes have been introduced without discussion of the potential risks and how they might be mitigated.

In many places we no longer collect data on sex, restricting our ability to undertake accurate research. Children under 16 who identify as trans may be given completely new medical records and NHS numbers showing their new (incorrect) sex, with potentially life-threatening consequences. Meanwhile the High Court has had to intervene to stop the NHS giving children as young as ten experimental drugs that can have devastating effects.

There are also serious ramifications for staff. Hospital workers are losing their rights, enshrined in law, to separate bathroom and changing facilities. Anyone who speaks up may face disciplinary action, as policies are brought into line with Stonewall’s view of inclusion. A black lesbian barrister is currently suing Stonewall after they tried to pressurise her chambers to drop her when she helped establish a new charity representing LGB people. Another woman lost her job for saying there are only two sexes. Nurses speak of their distress at being instructed to insist to their female patients that there are no men present, in the clear presence of a man identifying as a woman. Who can they turn to when their employer, union and regulator are all Stonewall Champions?

Organisations are also risking litigation and reputation damage. The University of Essex recently publicly apologised after an independent review found its policies misrepresented the law “as Stonewall would prefer it to be rather than as it is”, to the detriment of women.

There are many ways that trans staff and patients can be included and respected alongside all others. We need open conversations, without fear, to find the best way through for all our patients. Stonewall’s divisive approach places the rights of trans people above those of women, religious minorities and LGB people and censors discussion about how those rights might best be balanced. I believe that working with Stonewall is no longer compatible with NHS values and risks the reputation of the NHS and the safety of our patients and staff.


This entry was posted in General, Scottish Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The ‘Incompatable’ Stonewall

  1. maceasy says:

    It is pernicious and quite incredible how Stonewall have manoeuvred themselves into positions of absolute authority over employers and institutions without any debate whatsoever or the slightest democratic accountability to anybody.

    They have created a system where employers, eager to display their progressive, non-discriminatory credentials, pay Stonewall large amounts for the privilege of being declared so, while subjecting themselves to Stonewall’s rules and worse, their sanctions against them should they dare disagree.

    While that initially was good for levelling the playing field for gay people, they have now moved on to attempting to police the hotly debated trans issue. Anybody who disagrees with their very fringe ideas, particularly self ID with no checks or balances, is denounced in their Stalinist way in which Stonewall set their social media warriors to harrass, smear and threaten that person with the objective of getting them sacked.

    This is, remember, for simply having a different opinion on the legal issues surrounding trans issues, not for any evidence of hate, discrimination or phobia. Even requesting a mature, reasoned debate is enough to set the screaming mob on you. The thought police are truly here.

    And Sturgeon and Evans are totally signed up to the Stonewall agenda, desperately wanting to be declared a Stonewall ‘champion’ by the organisation, for following their decrees and rules. I have no doubt that the ridiculous badge order was part of their bid to curry favour with Stonewall.

    As I said, when did an unelected quango get to to charge governments and institutions to act as their thought police, with debate not allowed? We have to end this madness.

  2. Grouse Beater says:

    In reply, the last words I heard on it spoken by Ms Surgeon in the parliament chamber were, “Let’s not weaponise anti-semitism”, whereupon she did exactly that. She omitted to mention the SNP had already accepted the IHRA’s dangerous anti-rational, anti-free-expression principles, her slow-witted but loyal staffers ready and willing to put them into action – guilt by accusation. We have a party in power imposing laws on the population never disseminated among the electorate for discussion and not in a ny maifesto as a cast-iron pledge to make law.

  3. jim4indy says:

    Yes, Stonewall have done the ‘long march through the institutions’ very effectively. They have been allowed to ambush democracy.

    A counter-revolution, on behalf of the silent majority, is now needed.

    The values of Stonewall are ‘Incompatible with NHS values and risk the reputation of the NHS and the safety of our patients and staff’. Exactly. Make the stand there and organise.

    Thank you, Kate and Gareth.

  4. diabloandco says:

    Add some parent power in schools to protect the young.

  5. steelewires says:

    Dr Marianne Legato established The Foundation for Gender Specific Medicine because of the differences between men and women which are important in medicine. The foundation has a list of differences which are important for diagnosis and treatment.

    Stanford University established its Be Well Gender Medicine because, “A man can be diagnosed with the same disease as a woman, and yet the course the disease takes in each could prove very different. And a treatment which works for one gender may prove ineffective for the other. Put simply, men and women are wired differently, and thus it is critical to study the impact that sex differences may have on diseases and their treatments.”
    “Gender medicine recognizes that due to sex differences in pathophysiology, being a woman or being a man significantly influences the course of many diseases. By better understanding that clinical manifestations of prevalent diseases differ in women and men, gender medicine aims at better disease management and treatment of both sexes.

    Certain diseases are categorized as “a woman’s disease” or “a man’s disease,” and yet — except for diseases of sex-specific reproductive organs — men get women’s diseases and women get men’s diseases. An example is osteoporosis, which we usually consider a woman’s disease. However, men account for one in three hip fractures — a fact that most people don’t know.”
    Only ignorance of advances in medicine, which are predicated on the binary sex differences between men are women, could lead to a claim there is no biological basis to real, binary sex.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s