The NHS impact assessment treating compliance with long-standing law as an adverse outcome for one group is ludicrous. The Equality Act has always treated “sex” as binary and biological for the purpose of sex discrimination and the single-sex services exceptions in Schedule 3 (including hospital wards). Those exceptions exist precisely so providers can maintain single-sex spaces for reasons of privacy, dignity and safety without committing unlawful discrimination. The Supreme Court in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers unanimously held that “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Act mean biological sex, and that a Gender Recognition Certificate does not change that for Equality Act purposes. Any other reading, the Court said, would make the Act incoherent. Previous NHS guidance explicitly directed placement by gender identity rather than biological sex. That was inconsistent with the statute. The October 2026 guidance simply brings practice into line with what the law has required, while still prioritising clinical needs and offering other alternatives where appropriate. Flagging ordinary operational constraints (room availability, case-by-case decisions) as unique “adverse consequences” for 'trans' patients does not change the legal position or the fact that sex-based protections have always applied equally.

Who decides what our children are taught and who scrutinises those decisions? Having worked in education and safeguarding for many years, I believe these are questions we should always be asking. External organisations do not become exempt from scrutiny simply because their materials promote 'inclusion'. Political impartiality, parental transparency and safeguarding are responsibilities, not optional extras. An important analysis from @ProtectTeach. 👇

Thank you, Baroness Deech, for pressing the Government on the age at which children can genuinely understand and consent to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, and for raising concerns about bone health, fertility, sexual development and brain maturation. How can an 11- or 12-year-old assess long-term risks to bone health, fertility and development? Can a child sufficiently understand and evaluate the potential lifelong consequences of puberty suppression or masculinising and feminising hormones to give genuinely informed consent? The Government's reliance on parental consent, child assent and trial safeguards was beyond disappointing.... These do not answer the fundamental question.

Well we are in part... The PATHWAYS research programme is funded with approximately £10.7 million of public/NHS money!