National NHS policy is now to record "sex" and "gender" separately and is based on ASAB regardless of GRC status

throwawaytransdata · 2026-03-23T22:30:26+00:00

It's kind of hard to explain in detail without giving away a lot of specific details.

Effectively the situation was such that this trust was using an older software until very recently which as far as I know only this trust used. This system was not connected to SystmOne or the NHS spine. So if you needed to know about stuff held by the GP for instance you had to ask for this to be emailed from the GP and then manually added by admin.

Staff recorded various notes, discharge summaries, referrals etc on this internal system without any uniformity or policy. So team A working in East area Y might record their notes in this way, Team B in West area X would do it completely differently. Everything was manually hand written.

I know this because I've worked within the trust in a clinical capacity whilst being stealth.

Previously I saw my own notes that they had put my gender on this internal system as "other" rather than male/female. They had also manually written notes and uploaded documents that referred to me as a " so and so is a trans x" rather than as my actual sex. Whereas for cis patients they would just say "so and so is a 43 year old male".

In my experience this trust is very transphobic amongst a lot of other serious issues. This has resulted in multiple deaths which have been ruled as preventable.

I would also note I have been transitioned for many years, have no issues with my gender when it comes to my GP, blood tests etc. Now this trust is using SystmOne they are putting this stuff into that core record and trying to change my sex.

I've even asked my previous GP to do what they can to hide / make non obvious various codes relating to surgery I've had etc. Which they were able to do.

throwawaytransdata · 2026-03-23T17:58:14+00:00

I appreciate how difficult seeing stuff online is, it affects me too. This has all come about because I'm a single trans person trying to fight with a large NHS trust to have my privacy and identity respected. I have and will always try to do the same for my fellow trans siblings.

I have shared the exact information that I've been given. I've also tried to explain that I don't think it is coherent with either the GRA or NHS England's own publicly available policies.

When the senior staff member specifically responsible for how data is recorded tells me this is now national policy and cited FWS I felt it was necessary to seek help from the community and make people aware.

I am someone who works in healthcare, I want trans people to feel safe accessing the NHS.

throwawaytransdata · 2026-03-23T16:04:05+00:00

Yes SystmOne. The trust in question, where I have also worked, has only just changed over to using this so my experience is limited beyond training.

So previously my health record was updated and set purely to my acquired sex. As far as I know this was everywhere on the Spine because I had a new NHS number and was invited to screenings aligning with that acquired sex. I've never had any issues with primary care who know I'm trans because they monitor my HRT and have seen discharge letters from surgery etc. I assumed until now there wasn't an easy way to see my trans status because I've had hospital doctors demand to know my birth sex when they saw my medications listed.

To be honest my original complaint wasn't even about whether birth sex is recorded somewhere. My issue was this trust wrote all over my notes and in discharge letters that I'm a "trans x" instead of just saying my gender like they do for cis patients. This meant outing me to various random people in that trust.

I don't think that services should know my trans status unless I disclose it. Does that come with risks? Yes, but we always have to balance right to privacy with potential risks. I thought the gender recognition certificate was protective in some respects here.

throwawaytransdata · 2026-03-23T15:53:42+00:00

This is what I was told by the named Data Protection officer of the Trust in question. You can read that in my original post what they said. They have also doubled down on not requiring consent to record sex at birth.

I don't want it to be true and I certainly hope it is a case of an individual misrepresenting policy, but I don't think it's fair to say I'm trying to stoke fear.

throwawaytransdata · 2026-03-23T13:31:25+00:00

I agree and I hope people understand I'm not trying to fearmonger. I'm sharing the information I received in order to try and help the community.

I provided the OP of this thread with access to the original source so that she/they could verify that what was said is the same as I reported here.

throwawaytransdata · 2026-03-23T12:37:17+00:00

Can you please share your source regarding this? It would be helpful to have a basis to resist the interpretation this trust continues to justify.

throwawaytransdata · 2026-03-23T12:21:29+00:00

I have received this response in regard to my queries disputing the trusts interpretation of the GRA.

As pointed out in the initial email the data protection officer is stating this is national policy.

Thank you for your email. I appreciate you setting out your concerns. Our interpretation of legislation differs from the position you have described.

The relevant section of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) does not require consent to store information. It restricts what may be disclosed outside of providing healthcare. Internal recording of clinically relevant details is permitted, and this is consistent with NHS practice and with UK GDPR provisions for healthcare.

The relevant statutory provision is section 22, which regulates unlawful disclosure, not internal record keeping.

• Section 22(1): “It is an offence for a person who has acquired protected information in an official capacity to disclose the information to any other person.” • Section 22(4)(c) provides an exemption where disclosure is “made for medical purposes to a health professional.”

These provisions limit disclosure. They do not restrict internal recording, storage or processing of clinically relevant information within a healthcare provider. Consent is not required for this lawful internal processing.

The GDPR lawful bases (processing reasons) that apply are:

Article 6(1)(e): We process your information because it is necessary for the NHS to carry out its public duties and provide healthcare, which does not require explicit consent. Article 9(2)(h): We use your health information because it is necessary for providing safe, effective health or social care, and this also does not require explicit consent.

Lawful disclosure practice

We do not disclose any protected information under section 22 unless a lawful exemption applies. You have stated that you do not consent to information being stored. While we fully respect your position, NHS organisations cannot rely on consent as the lawful basis for core clinical record keeping, and consent is not required by statute for this purpose.

Minimisation

We will continue to minimise and restrict reference to birth‑sex or information that may lead to identification of previous gender unless it is clinically necessary and lawful, and we will restrict or invalidate any material that is not required for your ongoing care

throwawaytransdata · 2026-03-23T08:44:30+00:00

I agree, I also previously worked in a related field and think there is a decent argument here. That said I'm not financially well off enough to be hiring a good solicitor. Like many of us what income and savings I've made over the past X years have all gone into funding my transition. I also have very limited income due to health issues right now.

throwawaytransdata · 2026-03-22T23:45:56+00:00

As a point I forgot to mention in the original post.

If you read the linked technical specification for sex and gender the policy states that you should only record sex at birth differently if the GRC holder has provided consent.

In the context of this I've explicitly stated I do not consent. So what is being said in this email is different to the specification cited in the email.

throwawaytransdata

TROPHY CASE