These outlandish assertions form the basis of the “the war on wokery”(4) which has become a fantastically ambiguous construct and strategic tool that allows for opponents of equality to throw anything they dislike into its current definition. 

A prime target of this approach is inclusive language, which attempts to describe anatomy and eligibility as a means of clinical accuracy and inclusion. To provide context: To say cervical screening is for all women is a misnomer, it is for those with a cervix. If someone has had a procedure that has completely removed the cervix, they no longer need to attend for cervical screening.

This phrasing is important to help patients make informed decisions about their care, understand their risk, and know which appointments they need to attend. It is important that this information is made available in multiple languages and in Easy Read format. In turn, this approach to information also benefits those who are trans and takes an intersectional view in recognising those trans people with English as a second language, those with a learning disability, and those who are neurodiverse. 

The need for this detailed and nuanced approach to information was previously understood and supported by NHS Digital. However, we now have a government that is removing this type of information from webpages, reducing the ability for trans patients and others to make informed decisions about their care. This is not the behaviour one should expect from the Secretary of State for Health.

In truth, sex specific language is alive and well throughout healthcare. Anyone working in the sector knows this fact. The LGBTIQ+ community does not refute its importance, instead we recognise that both sexual characteristics AND gender identity are impactful in patient and public health.

Assuming all aspects of health and medicine are rooted in a person’s sex registered at birth is simplistic and naive. Though some genetic and biological factors can drive disease and ill health, so too can social and gender based factors. For instance, in our community we know that lesbian women smoke at higher rates.(5) This is not due to their biology as we know that heterosexual women smoke at lower rates than men.(6) It is rather an aspect of activity related to social identity and sexual orientation. 

As negative reporting on trans people increases(7,8) we see public attitudes decline(9) and hate crime increase at an exponential rate, faster than any other group.(10) With substantial delays to trans healthcare defended(11) and differences in patient experiences identified by NHS and Government surveys(12,13,14) one would expect the Secretary to lead with calls to improve our community’s access to healthcare services, not the opposite.

We are clearly at a crisis point where our community’s health and safety is expendable for political posturing. I fear if we do not vocalise our dissent, the path we are on will only worsen. As a charity, we are proud to stand up for trans rights in healthcare, and as the CEO I personally implore everyone who feels the same to join us in calling out this harmful rhetoric.