Beaumont Society in Confidence Breach: Equally Blessed and Cursed

The first time a Pregnant Man Story did the sensationalist rounds of the UK media was in 2008, with Thomas Beattie, pictured above.

Oh, the Beaumont Society; that oldest of UK trans ‘support’ organisations. In the minds of some a wonderful network of potential friends, support, and a font of knowledge, and in the minds of others a dangerous relic and bastion of old ideas, poor understanding, an overly inflated sense of importance and a certain air of self-aggrandisement. Simultaneously understated and overstated, many would be forgiven for wondering who they are, but the Beaumont society is never the less quite pervasive, and often in a rather unhelpful way.

The society has recently come into the spotlight following a rash of stories in the UK on the subject of what the press are referring to as the UK’s first male pregnancy. While it makes a definite change to see that the UK media are finally showing some manner of acknowledgement of a person’s gender identity, the story is never the less a sensation. Just like the whole Thomas Beattie affair, this story of a trans man using his body in a way he sees fit has provoked quite a stir; a stir which has also resulted in an equal and opposite reaction from those who don’t see the world through quite the same absolute-binary-tinted-glasses common to much of society.

The fact is, wider society is not ready for this yet, in that such an event stirs the passions of many people with no to little understanding of the issues concerned, who simply respond to a gut reaction resulting from an internalised assumption and belief that men don’t give birth… ever; never mind, of course, that a trans man may retain all the biological machinery required to do so. Clearly, such a man should refrain from giving birth to avoid causing offence to the sensibilities of others!.. or so it would appear to be believed.

This has, as mentioned, all happened before. There is surely no trans person who would be unaware of this fact. Likewise, there would be no trans person who would be unaware of what would happen if the tabloid media were to get just a sniff of it. Apparently though, this was not the case for the Beaumont society, who through either bravado, publicity seeking, stupidity or incompetence, have recently disrupted the life of a person who came to them for advice and support.

The first rule, for trans organisations, for dealing with journalists is simple; it’s “Don’t feed the media!”. The Beaumont Society, on the other hand, have a different approach, as discovered by the journalist Jane Fae in her attempt to get to the bottom of all this. In speaking to the Beaumont Society, she recieved this little nugget:

As their spokeswoman put it, if other organisations want to be in the press, its up to them to get back and respond. She told me: “if they want a response, we’ll give response: if the rest of the trans community doesn’t respond, then that’s their problem.”

They didn’t name any names – nobody could be quite that incompetent. What they did was to confirm that the story existed, which gave the press all they needed to go wild with the statement that there was a trans man in the UK with a pregnancy. The gutter press need at least some basis for a story, after all, even if it’s just an interview where they take the basic facts, distort them, and make up all the rest… and the most basic fact required in this story was that simple fact of the existence of a trans man with child in the UK. In the words of the Beaumont Society, again from Jane Fae’s blog:

“We were contacted last year through our information line number asking for details on this issue. As an information line, we were unable to help with this query and so referred the matter onto GIRES. Some period of time later we received a thankyou for being there and the info we provided.”

This simple fact is what allowed the story to run. Nothing more, and nothing less. All of the other information was out there to be easily gleaned from other sources. What was not out there, however, was the name of the man concerned, which leads on to the true gravity of what the Beaumont Society have actually done through their actions here.

Tabloid newspapers (perhaps most notably, The Sun), now have a bounty, through public request, on the name and location of the man concerned. That man, and his family, are having their privacy invaded and under threat of invasion, and must now live out their time in fear that everyone they encounter in their lives could be the person that’s about to sell them down the river for a quick buck, allowing the UK press to make their lives even more hellish.

Perhaps this, frankly, idiotic stance on the part of the Beaumont Society is a reflection of it’s attitudes and origins. It is these same attitudes and origins that create the somewhat dualistic perceptions of the 45 year old organisation which still clings to an old “TS/TG/IS” paradigm that’s long outdated. However, things weren’t always this way, as when the TS/TG/IS paradigm was in vogue, the BS was still clinging to an outmoded concept of Transsexualism and Transvestitism being essentially different expressions of the same thing.

Formed originally under a different name in 1966 and now named after a moneyed and privileged 18th century crossdressing spy, the aims of the society, which they themselves note to be strikingly similar to it’s current aims, were:

 1. To provide information and education to the general public, the medical and legal professions on transvestism and to encourage research aimed at fuller understanding.

2. To provide TV’s with an opportunity for a social life together.

It is perhaps also telling that the section of the society devoted to the partners of trans people is somewhat inappropriately named “Women of the Beaumont society”, which not only ignores the existence of transsexual men, but implies that transsexual women are not really women also. The implication, of course, is that the organisation primarily serves the interests of cross dressing men… an implication which would suggest that it is ill advised and ill equipped to speak on behalf of transsexual women; a fact so clearly demonstrated by this whole current media debacle.

It’s reputation within the trans community relates to exactly that. What’s perhaps more disturbing, on the other hand, is that it appears that many of the current generation of activists may not realise just how prominent this organisation is, believing that the organisation is only recently becoming a “first port of call” for media comment on issues concerning trans people in particular. The Beaumont Society is still prominently listed as a support organisation appropriate for transsexual people by doctor’s, psychiatrists, counsellors, Local Authorities, and information packs from a variety of organisations, including the NHS.

On many occasions, it is the one and only recommendation given by professionals in respect of support for a transsexual person in their care. This is not only inappropriate, borderline offensive and potentially dangerous, but also sends out an entirely outmoded message about who transsexual people are to the public at large, while demonstrating to vulnerable trans people that those to whom their care is entrusted know and understand precious little of who they are or the community of which they are a part.

It is high time that the Beaumont Society either entirely rethinks it’s nature, or desists from speaking on behalf of those it should not be speaking for. It is likewise time that professionals desist from approaching them over issues for which they are the least appropriate source of information. For many years, transsexual people as an overall community have largely ignored the negative influence of the Beaumont Society in the media, healthcare, and in social understanding.  While we at No More Lost would never claim that artificial hostile divisions should be maintained between cross dressers and transsexual people, this is premised upon each group resisting the urge to speak for or to denigrate the other. In this case, however, actual harm is demonstrably resulting.

Trans people need to redouble an effort to ensure that resources intended to support and speak for them are in fact resources suitable and appropriate to support and speak for them. This includes a challenge to the Beaumont Society to either change it’s ways or surrender the field in respect of transsexual people before it causes even greater damage to people’s lives… because that damage can not be allowed to continue. Far more appropriate venues and vectors of contact include Trans Media Watch, Gendered Intelligence, GIRES, Mermaids, the Gender Trust, Press for Change, etc.

While the Beaumont society argues that they are “authorised to speak on trans issues because they have ts members on their committee”, I too am by the same logic authorised to speak on behalf of black people, because some of my friends, forming a significant part of my social structure, are black.  The British National Party can speak for ethnic and religious minorities, because they have (or have had) a Jewish Councillor elected to Epping Forest district council. The logic simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

With the greatest of respect to the Beaumont Society, neither it’s logic nor it’s interventions with regards to trans matters are particularly helpful or useful.

Tweet

Written by: Krissie Pearse | February 14, 2012 | Categories: Articles | 2 Comments »

CHX Gender Identity Clinic Admin Mysteries – Shining a light.

The reception and admin area of Charing Cross Gender Identity Clinic, swamped with work, as usual.

That the administrative side of Charing Cross GIC is reputed to be obscenely slow is no secret. In fact, given the experiences of some patients, a GP (Family Doctor for the Americans reading this) might be excused for wondering if the clinicians at the GIC are required to type up their letters themselves.

In realising the importance of this issue, however, last month we sent a pair of Freedom of Information requests to the trust, and the results have just arrived. The information returned provides an insight as to the provision for admin services,  and the process of sending those all important letters to a patient’s GP, delays which can lead to immense patient distress as well as other medical delays.

Though the current turnaround on letters sent to patient’s GPs is stated to be around 6 weeks, it is not unheard of for this to actually take in excess of two months. This long-standing issue has varied in impact upon patient welfare and treatment, and has at times resulted in horrific delays of as much as a quarter of a year before patients have been able to get their medication regime changed by their GP, even having been told of the urgency of such a change at their GIC appointment.

The admin provision at CHX GIC comprises of an Office Manager, 2 Receptionists, a “New Patient Administrator”, a Medical Records Administrator, and 3 Administrators/typists, all of whom work on a full time basis. No information has been given as to the definition of “full time”, but in the UK this can be defined as a role of more than 16 hours per week, or the more commonly accepted 37.5 hours per week. This covers an average of 95 patients per week, each of whom has a letter concerning them written to their GP, which can be up to 3 pages long.

The administrative posts are expected to spend up to two thirds of their time typing, but this cannot be guaranteed as they regularly become caught up in other duties such as filing, approximately 80 telephone queries per day, reception duties, perhaps a little disturbingly “dealing with patients whose details have been deleted as a consequence of the
Gender Recognition Act”, arranging appointments, etc.

Even so, assuming that an administrator is able to type for the expected two thirds of their time, this leads to 75 hours per week dedicated to typing up 95 dictated letters of up to 3 pages long. However, this does not account for the fact that a single patient contact frequently generates as many as 4 letters dictated by a clinician regarding a wide range of subjects including funding issues and disputes, letters sent to other specialists involved in the care of the patient, letters written in support of passport applications and advice  to GPs on blood results and hormone management, which are written routinely.

Though all these letters are generally dictated by the clinician within 48 hours and passed over to the typing pool, no account, as yet, is taken of instances where delays may ensue due to waiting for blood results or other opinions, sickness and other absences.

It can be said, therefore, that where a typist has not been caught up in other numerous and ever-present duties in the administration of the GIC, he or she has on average 48 minutes to type a dictated letter of three pages long, assuming that each patient contact has generated only one letter. Having said that; in assuming a reasonably conservative estimate from the information given, that a third of patients generate four letters and the remaining two thirds generate only one, this time would reduce to a rate of 24 minutes per letter typed. A professional touch typist, typing at a rate of 60 words per minute without interruption, would type a standard page in around 5 minutes. “Hunt and peck” typists peak at approximately 27 words per minute, or a full page every 10 minutes. Most of the rest of us are slower still.

After the letters are typed up, they are each “returned to the clinician for checking, amendments and/or their signature”, before being sent out by post to the GP or other specialist.

The NHS trust responsible for the clinic states that the current turnaround between a patient attending an appointment and a letter being sent to a patient’s GP or other specialist is, on average, around 6 weeks. The trust aims for this turnaround to be 2 weeks, and as such, “an admin review has been commissioned with this having been identified as an objective” in an attempt to rectify this years-old problem. It is not the first time the trust has ‘attempted’ to rectify this problem for which 6 weeks will, to many people, look like a gross underestimate. It is stated that a letter resulting from the clinic’s endocrinologist typically turns around in approximately 2 weeks, or communication will be made straight away if the information is deemed to be urgent.

In mitigation for these delays, they state that “there is however a system in place to ensure that priority letters are dealt with appropriately”. This consists of the typist prioritising those letters dictated by a non-endocrinologist clinician, where the clinician has deemed the letter to be urgent. Some clinicians nevertheless hand write a letter to the patient’s GP on the day in respect of initiation or amendment of a patient’s hormone therapy regime.

Back in the real world for a moment, however, it becomes reasonably clear where the admin delays at CHX GIC stem from. In the real world, people are not robots; not even employees in admin roles. Things don’t happen one at a time, or in order. Often, things don’t even follow the plan. The role of an administrator is not to perform theoretical functions, but to perform these functions within a reality that is constantly changing, and to still some how get everything done such that things keep running. It is then, no wonder that there are such delays on the admin side of CHX GIC.

When the numbers are broken down, it almost looks as though someone has performed a time and motion study, added in a few minutes of extra time to account for a little variance, and declared that all is then well. Real life is not like that, and the admin staff, from the information given, would appear to be over-worked, and working under significant pressure.

Of course, this has all been about the outbound mail of the GIC. It nevertheless says a lot from which a possible scenario of an inbound contact might proceed. A letter requiring the attention of a clinician is sent in, say, November, but the backlog of work and the volume of ongoing work mean that it’s a little time before the letter is both passed into records and acknowledged.

From that point comes a significant wait until such time as the clinician(s) concerned have the time to read and act upon that letter; perhaps it may require discussion with another clinician or two, or worse, could require the input of a non-GIC specialist to whom another letter must be written and a reply received before acting on it once more. A letter is then dictated within 48 hours, which must enter the typing pool to be presented to the clinician some weeks or months later for approval. Only then is a reply sent, potentially some quarter or half a year or more later.

The cost of a CHX GIC appointment charged to a PCT in 2007 was £561 for first, second, and “other” appointments, and  £297 for follow-up sessions, as discovered by Sarah Brown (AKA, Aunty Sarah). The price of seeing Dr Perring for any such appointment in 2011 is £250… still a full £47 cheaper than the price charged for CHX’s follow-up appointments 5 years ago! Perhaps then, West London Mental Health Trust might consider the additional subsidy other PCT’s are effectively paying them for the services of this internationally-renowned “centre of excellence” (as CHX likes to be known) as a good source of funding for the employment of a full time professional touch typist befitting of such a title. It’d cost around £20,000 per annum to employ such a touch typist, which would surely be money well spent, and easily afforded from the artificially inflated charge for their services.

Not only would this additional 45 pages per day (assuming a typing speed of half the professional typing rate of 60 words per minute) make a significant dent in the backlog, but it’d help ensure that both services and admin run smoothly, and patients aren’t needlessly distressed and kept waiting for, frankly, abhorrent periods of time. That should help to meet the two week turnaround target easily.

On the other hand, perhaps the NHS might consider adopting email as a method of communication along with the rest of the 21st century. That way, clinicians could even type their own letters as many may already suspect of them given the time it takes for them to be sent. In fact, with some clinicians already realising the need to handwrite letters to patients’ GPs, such a change may even save money as well as improve efficiency!

The freedom of information requests and the responses received can be found both here, and here.

Tweet

Written by: Krissie Pearse | February 8, 2012 | Categories: Articles | 13 Comments »