One of the biggest problems with the NHS approach to trans support is that unlike most other NHS treatments, it is rarely as simple as diagnosis followed by treatment. Rather, there is a continuing sense of disbelief: you won’t get treated unless…
Unless you can prove this month… And next… And the one after next… That you are still a suitable candidate for treatment. That has to be bad for the patient-carer relationship. Worse, it means that because dependency is created, many people who are treated appallingly just won’t complain, because they are scared silly of treatment being withdrawn. Of drugs being stopped: grs denied. Read the rest of this entry »
The world’s transgender community are up in arms today over an ad for feminine hygiene products circulating in New Zealand and Australia, described as sexist, transphobic and hurtful.
Best not to have too many balls in the air at any one time…so to speak. So I was relieved last week to be able to draw a line under MOST of my little contretemps with Charing Cross.
As with so many of these messy public clashes, what started as a lot of angst, with issues appearing to drop out all over the place quickly dwindled to a couple of quite separate things. First off was the overall way in which the consultant I dealt with treated me.
Cold, impersonal and yes, in some respects, quite negative: in essence negating me and what I have been doing over the last year or so. Does that matter? Er, yes.
Unless you view the whole NHS thing as “them and us”, with patients relegated to a back seat in the process (which is quite contrary to the present government’s mantra of “nothing about us without us”) then simple things like courtesy, politesse and so on, really are important. Also a genuine involvement as opposed to a tick box approach to same.
It probably means recognising that whilst I am an outwardly bolshie tranny…I am also still very fragile. Question what I am about by all means: but maybe best not to take a sledgehammer to my psyche. I will either shatter – or bring my own sledgehammer back.
So, my beef in respect of the consultant was about certain mannered things…like negativity: the way he dealt as though I had not even begun the transition process; his patronising agreement to call me Jane “for the purposes of this interview”.
That was accompanied by a number of other more specific things, like using my old name loudly and publically in reception and providing a degree of disinformation about deed polls and the public/private mix.
Throughout this affair I have dealt with a lovely lady over at ChX (Linda) and have not the slightest issue with her handling of this (question: will she ever forgive me for mine?). I got back to her last week to remind her that she was going to get back to me on the consultant question – else I WOULD escalate the matter once more – and, in the nick of time, she did.
Bottom line: in some of the specifics, such as public naming and misinformation, the guy was simply wrong and not au fait with current procedures. He has been “re-educated” – worrying term that, conjuring up images of him being sent to some Yorkshire Gulag to be indoctrinated with the party line before being allowed to return to London! – and all should now be hunky dory .
Some issues, like the way that ChX seems to start every case from zero, remain on the table. Maybe, had I got further into the system, that would have been less of an issue. Perhaps I will never know.
However, that bit of the affair is now done. Dusted. Parked. Over.
Leaving just the small question of how Charing Cross relate to names and deed polls. Since I am currently winding down my first legal action on this matter (of which more later), I felt it best to leave it lying on the table for now – although I did promise Linda, terminator-style, that “I’d be back”.
I remain pretty sure that the GRPanel, from whom ChX take their lead have a) got their knickers in a twist because the international gudielines are US in origin (and the legal position over names is quite different there) and b) not quite understood UK law in this matter.
That means that ChX are possibly acting unlawfully and are ripe for legal challenge on this front: the mere fact that some other (professional) body is acting unlawfully is no excuse in law.
So. I shall now complete the current legal case: then, probably, take Tesco Clubcard to court (yes, folks: they require a deed poll in order to change card name!); and then either back to ChX or taking on a bank. Right now, the fave financial target looks a lot like Barclays, whose policy in this respect seems out of kilter with that adopted by other banks.
jane
xx
