New public records for medics who change gender are wiped of previous suspensions and formal warnings it has emerged, after the General Medical Council confirmed that this is its policy. The Telegraph has the story.
Sandie Peggie’s case against NHS Fife for alleged harassment after the nurse raised concerns about a trans colleague has caused alarm among women and campaigners across the country. The NHS, she claims, was prioritising the rights of Dr Beth Upton, a trans doctor who was born male but insisted on using the women’s changing room, over her rights to a single-sex space.
Now, it can be revealed that the General Medical Council (GMC), which regulates doctors, takes an even more extreme stance on trans medics – effectively scrubbing the public disciplinary history of doctors who change their identities in this way.
“If a doctor had received a historical sanction [i.e., the suspension is no longer in place] prior to transitioning, this information would not be available on their new public-facing record on the medical register,” says a GMC spokesman. The GMC confirms that Dr Upton is one of 62 doctors to have been given new registrations under different GMC numbers, meaning that future patients would be unable to see any details of their doctor’s previous identity by searching the GMC’s online database using the medic’s new name and number.
The GMC’s position has come to light after a retired anaesthetist contacted the Telegraph, raising concerns that Dr Upton had been given a new registration number.
“Because the GMC has an even more important role than it did a couple of decades ago – recording and marking the careers of doctors – people need to be confident about the identities of doctors,” the whistleblower said.
A GMC number is a doctor’s professional fingerprint and appears on all of their paperwork – training, appraisals, official “revalidation”, prescriptions and, should they be unfortunate enough to receive one, complaints. It’s the one constant that proves a doctor is who they say they are.
Not only has the GMC issued Dr Upton with a new registration number, but the page with the doctor’s previous male identity remains on the GMC list, without any visible external link between the two.
Further more, according to its own guidelines, the GMC does not require doctors to “provide any evidence of your change in gender status”. Thus, a female patient who specifically requests a female doctor has no way of knowing whether that doctor was once biologically male.
A patient would also not see any details of any disciplinary sanctions – such as upheld suspensions and formal warnings – issued to a doctor before they transitioned. There is no suggestion that Dr Upton has faced any such disciplinary actions.
“There are extremely serious implications for the GMC issuing new numbers – essentially new identities – to 62 doctors,” says Helen Joyce, the Director of Advocacy at Sex Matters, a gender-critical human rights charity.
The GMC insists that records of doctors pre and post-transition are linked internally, but potentially important information about the records of a particular doctor would be withheld from the public if that doctor had changed their gender.
According to the GMC, this information would not be available on their new public-facing record “because there are clear legal protections afforded to individuals, including doctors, who transition, and relate to the use and disclosure of their personal information. This includes human rights and equalities law, data protection law and the Gender Recognition Act.”
Because the records of doctors pre and post-transition are linked internally, the GMC insists there is no risk of a doctor who has been struck off changing gender and re-registering.
But it appears that an upheld suspension, which would normally be visible on the register for years, depending on the circumstances, would be obscured from public view if that suspension had been incurred by a doctor pre-transition.
And the GMC is unable to tell the Telegraph if any of the 62 doctors who have been issued with new numbers had any disciplinary measures taken against them under their previous identity. “Owing to the complexities around information relating to doctors who have transitioned, we would need to carry out a Freedom of Information access request for details of any doctors who had ‘fitness to practise’ sanctions recorded on their pre-transition public-facing medical register entry,” the GMC says.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Cut your dick and balls off and wipe the slate clean. It is more than castration it is a great moral bath that expunges any previous wrongdoing. You’ve got a fanny now you’re a good girl. It is like the witness protection scheme on a whole new level.
Apparently Dr Upton still has his “toggle and two”, as we used to say in the RN.
Self-identification is enough.
“Thus, a female patient who specifically requests a female doctor has no way of knowing whether that doctor was once biologically male.”
One always remains ‘biologically male’.
The conflating of social and biological language is part of the problem.
Indeed
As I wrote yesterday, “male” is an entirely biological term. There is no other way to be male.
Gender is a grammatical term and has no meaning with reference to humans
Habits, qualities and behaviours that differ at population level between the sexes are easy to observe and jolly interesting but they are neither sex nor gender
Dr Upton is a man. He was born a man and will die a man, and no amount of hormone treatment, surgical mutilation, cross-dressing and wishful thinking can ever change that.
The problem in clinical practice, though, is that a female patient has the right to ask for a female doctor, much like a male patient has the right to request a male doctor, if they are to undergo some intimate inspection or treatment. So it then becomes very awkward for all concerned, and the patient is put under further pressure and feels more uncomfortable if she can see this doctor that’s come to palpate her breast or do a gynae examination is really a man posing as a woman. It’s just really inappropriate to put a patient, who will already most likely be feeling vulnerable, in this position, I think.
Lots of patients don’t mind having somebody of the opposite sex attend to them but plenty of people do and they should know their rights and be given a choice. I once told a male doctor I wish to have a female doctor do a gynae exam on me and he acted aghast, like nobody had ever made such a request before, and he had a med student sat in the room with him, but he had to oblige and I got seen by a woman. We must know our rights and be assertive at all times but I think it doesn’t come naturally to some people.
As I said the other day, I am not bothered about the sex of a doctor but I don’t want to be treated by a nutcase
Anyway they believed “Covid” was a deadly pandemic and injected people with untested drugs so not sure I have much confidence in them anymore
I share your concerns and it would be difficult to refuse to accept the doctor once he arrives in the room in a dress, if all you had to go on was an appointment with Dr Smith.
At that stage it would be you who would be at risk of prosecution for refusing to deal with them.
All this is bad enough but I do not want these doctors allowed to be alone with children.
There’s also the fact that this Dr Upton works in A&E, where there are no appointments and patients just have to see whatever doctor is available. When a male doctor needs to assess a female patient in a cubicle the protocol is that he takes a female member of staff ( usually a student nurse or health care assistant ) in there too to act as a chaperone. This is for patient dignity but also to cover his back, because in places such as A&E especially, they do tend to see a lot of patients who are off their faces on drink or drugs, but also there’s the mentally ill too, so allegations do crop up from time to time, hence the need for a third party of the same sex as the patient.
But would this Dr Upton bother to ask a female staff member to accompany him when treating the female patient? Doubtful, because he’s convinced he’s a woman. So there is the legal implications from this aspect to consider too, as well as the obvious lack of concern for patient dignity and respect.
So he’s the mentally ill person here.
Or at least the medically trained one!
Thanks, even worse than I first supposed.
You do have an absolute right to refuse any treatment, by any doctor.
For 4 years they tried to pretend that was not the case!
I would say that on paper you may have the absolute right to do this. However, If you told Dr Upton to his face the reason why then I am sure it would be me having a “trial by media” not him.
Habits, qualities and behaviours that differ at population level between the sexes are easy to observe and jolly interesting but they are neither sex nor gender.
They don’t really differ between sexes. It’s just believed that certain habits, qualities etc occur much more frequently with woman and certain others with men. This is either based on informal, personal observations of very small samples or (at best) the subject of small sample statistical studies. But nobody can really define the whole set or develop some sort of automated test which could reliably distinguish between the two.
That was kind of my point- I think you can generalise but the variety of individual combinations of all of these things is infinite
It seems at least in part that this infinite combination is what the loonies think gender is though perhaps it’s best not to try and get into their heads
Amphibians and some fish can change sex, so to change biological sex, you would first need to transition to a Frog or a Trout.
The problem is the assumption/ assertion that we aren’t living our lives but just larping¹ them, ie, that people have no innate properties. That’s one of the core tenets of Marxism. In German, the literal wording is
Das Sein bestimmt das Bewußtsein.
That’s a bit difficult to translate. Literally, it’s existence determinates consciousness but I don’t think this makes any sense. A better attempt could be: People are what they became because of the external circumstances affecting their lives. By extension, this means that people can be turnt into anything or turn themselves into anything by changing those external circumstances. Put on a dress and lipstick and – et voilà! – you’re now a woman as good as any other woman and who says otherwise is seeking to oppress you by forcing external circumstances you don’t want into your life.
¹ LARP — live-action role-playing.
Always think of Dick Emery when this subject comes up. I think one would most likely be able to tell whether the person you’re consulting with was once a man, the shoulders are always a giveaway and the voice of course.
A strange end of civilisation phenomenon where something like this even enters the political realm. One feels revulsion and yet the situation is so absurd that it is difficult to feel any sympathy for such a culture. Perhaps the only sympathy is the sympathy for the mushrooms having been hatched and reared in the dark. Look in the mirror and if this is your preoccupation then you really aren’t living the good life. This is sick stunted stuff you need to maybe adopt a mountain man lifestyle as an antidote.
Here are the two GMC records in question:
https://www.gmc-uk.org/registrants/7844321
https://www.gmc-uk.org/registrants/8038543
Thanks
Gender: Female
The GMC thinks “gender” applies to humans. Bloody quacks. But we knew that.
How very interesting. Thanks for that
Thanks for the links. It’s disgraceful that the GMC can do that. He looks just like a student we had in our college a while back. 2014/2015. That student reported a lecturer for addressing the group as “guys” as in “right guys, time to get started’.
This is about the NHS potentially suing Kellie-Jay Keen ( ‘Posie Parker’ ) but then goes on to look at how disgustingly woke the organization has become as a whole. They just want to erase both sexes but it’s undeniably females that come off the worst in this. And the language they use is undoubtedly dehumanizing to women; ”birthing people”, ”chest feeding” and the charmingly ‘crazy golf’-sounding ”bonus hole”. It just amazes me that here you have a ginormous organization with a focus on human biology and physiology, that manages to deny/reject essential aspects of human biology/physiology. Only in Clown World;
”….it was revealed that the NHS reported treating almost 500 women who were admitted due to problems with their prostate or penis.
At least 482 women were reportedly admitted to NHS hospitals as female despite suffering from conditions associated with male health.
This included 263 women who suffered from hyperplasia of the prostate – a non-cancerous enlargement of the gland that does not occur in biological women as they do not have prostates.
Another 85 were said to have been treated at hospitals in England and Wales for prostate cancer and 48 for ‘disorders of male genitals’, figures for the year to March 2024 show.
Under NHS rules anybody can request to change the gender on their health records and they do not need to have undergone any form of gender reassignment treatment in order to do so.
The health services was accused of ‘pandering to nonsense’ in its collection of such reports.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14416407/Womens-rights-campaigner-threatened-legal-action-Wes-Streeting-protest-leaflet-ridiculing-NHS-female-prostate-screening-male-smear-tests.html
IMHO, the terminology is inherently misogynistic as it implicitly asserts that the human body is – in essence – male except that some bodies have more ‘holes’ than necessary. One could understand this as are biologically defective. That humans wouldn’t exist without this biological defect is tacitly ignored.
It isn’t going to help. I have looked at my dick and balls and contemplated the prospect of cutting them off and maybe I would feel better. No I would feel worse. Please keep your tackle regardless of how irksome you find it.
On a bit more trivial level the English Dance and Folk Song Society is now advising callers at folk dances to stop referring to ladies and gentlemen when describing the dances, or to have too much physical contact. Most people going just like the music etc. but if one met someone nice it was a bonus. EFDSS gone woke already trying to find LBGT folk songs etc. We really like the music been to lots of concerts and dances in the past in Cecil Sharp House (they are trying to disown him also) so another organisation/charity to remove from our wills.
We noticed a couple of series ago how Strictly Come Dancing (sorry, not the same cultural level as the EDFSS, I know) no longer refers to men, women, males or females, but “leaders” and “followers”. I suppose that had to happen once they’d introduced same-sex couples (or should that be “same-identifying couples”?). For decades gay men have danced with straight women, and presumably vice versa. You don’t have to be sexually attracted to someone to dance with them. I’ve danced with elderly great aunts, for goodness sake.
The Royal Scottish Country Dance Society issued some guidelines a while back. Scottish Country Dancing Is a bit of a contact sport – not as much as ceilidh dancing though! You are supposed to ask if the person you are dancing with if they are fine with being touched. There used to be ladies and gentlemen’s sides of a dance with women regularly dancing as men as there are fewer men in most groups. Apparently it is now permissible for men to dance on the ladies side and also permissible to refuse to dance if asked. Callers sometimes use the words ‘right side’ and ‘left side’ instead of ladies and men’s.
The more experienced dancers were always polite as it’s a genteel kind of pastime. The younger ones sort themselves out and we all get on with it.
Is this just the tip of the iceberg? What happens if a convicted criminal transitions? What happens about DBS checks for such people? Transitioning looks like a get out of jail free card, albeit a somewhat drastic approach.
An absolute f..king disgrace, and hiding behind data protection is the go to excuse to shut down an investigation.
I hate what this country has become.
another very good example of the tyranny of the minority. I would suggest, this is the one thing the Uk excels at. It will be your downfall guys. How about putting your time and effort into all things that affect the majority? By all means have kindness towards a minority, but do not allow it to sway all decision making, affecting all. It is a losing strategy.
Thus, a female patient who specifically requests a female doctor has no way of knowing whether that doctor was once biologically male.
The massive hands and beard could be a giveaway!
They won’t be happy until they’ve completely destroyed any semblance of a moral society.