In 1530, England was an extravagantly Catholic country of many centuries’ standing. Yet by 1560, it had become the country that would define itself as fundamentally anti-Catholic for the next 400 years. Just as we are on the cusp of consigning Brexit to the same memory hole as the Commonwealth of England, so we are on the verge of taking the period from 16 April 2025 to some date in the near future, and filing it alongside the reign of Mary I. In each case, that would be because the wrong people had been given responsibility for holding the line, people who never used to believe it, who still did not quite believe it, and who had no real idea why they should. We urgently need to move them aside in favour of those who always had, who truly did, and who knew exactly why. For example, Paul Knaggs:
At three in the morning on an acute medical ward, dignity is not an abstraction. It is a curtain that closes properly. It is a nurse who knocks. It is the knowledge, as you lie in a backless gown with a cannula in your arm and no strength to argue, that the person on the other side of the thin partition is not a man. Women have understood this forever. It took the National Health Service the best part of a decade, two employment tribunals and a Supreme Court to catch up.
Yesterday, NHS England published two guidance documents, one covering same-sex accommodation for patients and one covering physical facilities for staff, confirming that single-sex provision must follow biological sex. Trusts are told to audit their estates for gender-neutral and single-occupancy alternatives, to record in writing any departure from the rule, and to report it as a breach through the Strategic Data Collection System. Letters have gone to every trust and integrated care board in England, requiring chief executives and boards to respond. It arrives eighteen months after the Supreme Court held, in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex, and ten weeks after the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s updated statutory code of practice came into force on 5 August 2026.
The guidance is right. It should have been written years ago. What deserves scrutiny is not the decision but the journey to it, because that journey tells you almost everything about how this institution now treats the people who use it and the people who staff it.
Start with the inconvenient fact that none of this was ever legally mysterious. The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 have required separate changing facilities for men and women for more than thirty years. The NHS Operating Framework committed every provider to eliminating mixed-sex sleeping accommodation back in 2012, and breaches have been centrally reported since April 2011. The Royal College of Nursing itself wrote to County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust on 27 March 2025, telling it plainly that its changing-room policy breached the 1992 regulations. There was no gap in the law. There was a gap in institutional nerve.
Darlington Nurses Tribunal: The Cost of Defiance
Which is why the job fell to eight nurses from the day surgery unit at Darlington Memorial Hospital. On 16 January 2026, Employment Judge Seamus Sweeney found that the trust had harassed and indirectly discriminated against them by requiring them to share a female changing room with a male colleague and then treating their complaints as a nuisance.
The tribunal found the environment created for them was “hostile, intimidating, humiliating and degrading”. Allegations the nurses made about their colleague’s personal conduct were dismissed, and so was their claim of victimisation. The finding that mattered was against the employer, and it stands: the trust confirmed it would not appeal.
Now count the money, because this is where the story stops being about ideology and starts being about stewardship. Chief executive Steve Russell reported to his own board that the trust had spent around £603,000 defending the case. In June 2026 it paid the nurses £187,000 in damages, apologised, and committed to separate changing facilities. Seven of them went back to the Newcastle tribunal in September seeking roughly £400,000, being ninety per cent of their own £443,000 legal bill. Judge Sweeney has reserved his decision. Should the application succeed, an NHS trust will have burned something close to £1.2 million of public money losing an argument about who gets to use a locker room. That is a consultant nurse’s salary for fifteen years. It is beds. It is a night shift fully staffed for a year.
And it is not finished with them yet. Four of the claimants, vindicated by a tribunal, still face potential investigation by the Nursing and Midwifery Council. In Fife the pattern repeated: on 8 December 2025 a tribunal found that NHS Fife had harassed the nurse Sandie Peggie after she objected to sharing a changing room with a trans doctor, while dismissing her other claims and all claims against her colleague. The judgment required two rounds of corrections.
In August 2026 the Employment Appeal Tribunal granted her leave to appeal on all thirteen grounds, with a hearing expected early next year. Fife’s legal costs had passed a quarter of a million pounds by the middle of last year, and the meter is still running.
Bethany Hutchison, one of the Darlington nurses and now president of the Darlington Nursing Union, put the point about the new guidance better than any policy document could. “Enforcement cannot continue to depend on the courage and personal sacrifice of individual nurses,” she said. She is right, and her phrasing carries an accusation the labour movement ought to feel in its stomach. Those women had to constitute their own trade union in order to be represented. Peggie is separately suing the RCN, alleging it failed to support her because of her gender-critical beliefs, a claim the union denies and which has not yet been determined. Meanwhile the TUC congress voted unanimously to reject the Supreme Court’s judgment, and in August eight unions with a combined 3.6 million members, including Unite, the GMB, the BMA and the UCU, publicly opposed the EHRC’s statutory code. Unison says it complies with the judgment while holding to its policy that trans women are women. So the most powerful institutions of organised labour in Britain arrayed themselves against a ruling that protects the privacy of a workforce that is overwhelmingly female and largely low-paid, and into the vacuum stepped the Christian Legal Centre, the litigation arm of a hard-right religious campaign group, which funded the Darlington case. When socialists abandon the field, somebody else occupies it. We do not get to complain afterwards about who turned up.
NHS Patient Sex Records and the Risks to Care
Then there is the clinical argument, which is the strongest of all and the least discussed. Sex is not a courtesy. It determines laboratory reference ranges, drug dosing, cardiovascular risk algorithms, screening recall and differential diagnosis. The independent review of data on sex and gender led by Professor Alice Sullivan of University College London, published in March 2025, found that sex is missing altogether from the NHS patient demographic database, and recommended that the health service stop issuing new NHS numbers and altered markers, because losing sex data endangers clinical care, screening and safeguarding. Wes Streeting, then health secretary, ordered a halt to changing children’s gender markers within days. Eighteen months on, the record as a whole remains what Maya Forstater of Sex Matters called it yesterday: “NHS patient data is a mess.”
The consequences of that mess are not hypothetical. In May 2019 the New England Journal of Medicine published the case of a 32-year-old patient at a United States hospital who arrived with severe abdominal pain. The electronic record said male. The triage nurse logged an obese man who had come off his blood pressure medication, and the case was not treated as urgent. The patient was pregnant, and had developed pre-eclampsia. By the time the error was understood, the baby was dead.
The lead author, Dr Daphna Stroumsa of the University of Michigan, said of the record: “that classification threw us off from considering his actual medical needs.” Stroumsa’s conclusion was not that trans patients should be disbelieved. It was that a medical record which cannot hold both sex and identity is a dangerous instrument. That is precisely the argument, and it is worth noticing that it comes from clinicians with no stake whatever in Britain’s culture war.
NHS Single-Sex Wards Need More Than a Policy
The objections deserve a fair hearing. TransActual and the Trans+ Solidarity Alliance warned that the guidance “will not survive contact with reality in resource-strapped hospitals”, leaving staff unsure how to care safely for trans patients. On the operational point they are very nearly right, and the evidence is NHS England’s own. In July 2026, providers reported 5,431 breaches of the mixed-sex accommodation rules, against 4,259 in the same month of 2025. General and acute bed occupancy has sat above ninety per cent since September 2021. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine calculates that around thirteen thousand beds are filled at any moment by patients medically fit to leave but with nowhere to go, because social care has been stripped to the bone. A hospital running at that pressure cannot reliably deliver single-sex sleeping accommodation to anybody, trans or otherwise.
But notice where that argument actually lands. It is not a case against the principle. It is a case against fifteen years of deliberate underfunding, against the social care collapse no government since 2010 has had the courage to fix, and against a management culture that would rather rewrite a definition than build a wall. Privacy is a material good. It requires money, estate and staff. When the state refuses to provide those, institutions discover that language is cheaper than bricks, and the people who pay are always the same: the woman on the trolley, the healthcare assistant on Band 3, the patient with no private insurance and no second option.
Which brings us to the body that issued yesterday’s guidance, and will not exist to enforce it. The Health Bill, now in the Lords, abolishes NHS England by April 2027 and folds its functions into the Department of Health and Social Care.
The same Bill mandates the creation of a Single Patient Record. That is not a technicality. It is the single best opportunity in a generation to put biological sex back into the clinical record as a permanent, non-overwritable field, alongside, not instead of, a patient’s recorded gender identity. Yvette Cooper has been Health Secretary since 20 July. Andy Burnham came into Downing Street promising a national care service and a social care settlement built on the NHS principle. Those two commitments, properly funded, would do more for the privacy of women in hospital than any number of letters to chief executives, because they would free the beds that make single-sex accommodation possible.
So the test is not whether the guidance exists. It is whether Cooper will write sex into the Single Patient Record while the Bill is still amendable, publish trust-level compliance alongside the monthly breach figures, and fund the capacity that makes dignity physically achievable rather than merely declared. It is whether the NMC will drop its pursuit of nurses the courts have already vindicated. And it is whether the trade unions will remember, before another group of women has to incorporate themselves to be heard, whose side they are supposed to be on.
The NHS has just spent six years, two tribunals and the better part of a million pounds in public money learning what any woman waiting on a corridor trolley at three in the morning could have told it for nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment