Senior Conservatives have intervened in the growing controversy over the admission of biological males to female psychiatric wards operated by Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust.
Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Damian Hinds, and Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, Joy Morrissey, have written to the Trust’s chief executive, demanding urgent answers about safeguarding, the recording of biological sex and whether female patients can receive same-sex intimate care without having to justify their request.
Their intervention follows reports that a biologically male patient was admitted to a female psychiatric ward and, despite complaints about the patient’s behaviour, including an allegation that the patient exposed himself to vulnerable women, was returned to the female ward after initially being moved.
In their letter, the MPs describe the allegations as “particularly disturbing”, pointing out that many female psychiatric inpatients are detained, may have experienced sexual or domestic violence and may not be able to advocate effectively for their safety and dignity.
The intervention comes as a senior doctor and consultant psychiatrist, anonymised as Dr A, launched legal action against the Trust, alleging that it dismissed serious safeguarding concerns over biologically male patients who identify as women being admitted to female psychiatric wards.
Dr A, who is supported by the Christian Legal Centre, says vulnerable women, including survivors of sexual violence, have been detained on wards under policies that allow biological males to access female accommodation, toilets, showers and bathing facilities on the basis of gender identity or presentation.
Trust statement fails to answer central question
On 11 September, Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust issued a statement to staff reaffirming its commitment to providing a “safe and inclusive environment” for patients.
In the statement, the Trust said it had convened a steering group, undertaken audits, created an interim admissions protocol and begun a review of its policies.
However, the MPs argue that the statement does not appear to provide any assurance that the Trust has stopped admitting biological males to female wards. In their letter, they contend that the measures outlined by the Trust are insufficient if the underlying practice continues.
As they put it: “Conducting a policy review is not an for breaking the law. A female psychiatric ward cannot be described as single-sex while biologically male patients are admitted to it.”
The MPs have asked the Trust directly whether it continues to admit biological males to female wards and facilities.
Dr A alleges that the Trust is seeking to give staff the impression that it is dealing decisively with the controversy while avoiding the fundamental question of whether its practices have changed.
She says that establishing working groups, conducting audits and promising reviews will not protect women if the Trust continues to place biological males on female wards.
The MPs’ letter also asks whether the reported exposure incident and the decision to return the patient to the female ward have been investigated. It seeks clarity on whether the Trust accurately records patients’ biological sex, whether women can receive same-sex intimate care without having to justify their request and whether staff who raise safeguarding concerns will be protected from professional detriment.
The letter to Chris Oliver, the chief executive of Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, asks:
- Does the Trust still admit biological males to female wards and facilities?
- Has the reported exposure incident, and the decision to return the patient to the female ward, been investigated? If not, why not?
- Does the Trust accurately record patients’ biological sex?
- Can female patients receive same-sex intimate care without having to justify their request?
- Will the Trust guarantee that staff raising these concerns face no professional detriment?
“The Trust has not answered the question that matters”
Dr A said: “Working groups, audits and policy reviews do not answer the central question: is the Trust still admitting biological men to female psychiatric wards?
“Women who are detained and cannot leave should not be required to share wards and intimate facilities with male patients. Many are traumatised, acutely unwell or survivors of sexual violence. They have a right to privacy, dignity and safety.
“The alleged exposure incident, and the reported decision to return that patient to the female ward, require full and transparent investigation. Damian Hinds and Joy Morrissey are right to demand answers. The Trust must stop hiding behind process and explain clearly how it is protecting vulnerable women.”
“A policy review is not a safeguarding policy”
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “A steering group is not a safeguarding policy, an audit is not a female-only ward, and a policy review does not protect vulnerable women today.
“The Trust must answer a simple question: is it still admitting biological males to female psychiatric wards?
“The reported exposure incident shows that this is not hypothetical. If a biologically male patient was returned to a female ward after allegedly exposing himself to women, the decision demands full and transparent scrutiny.
“Damian Hinds and Joy Morrissey are right to demand answers. Female psychiatric patients, many of whom are detained, traumatised or acutely unwell, have a right to privacy, dignity and safety.”
Policies unchanged following Supreme Court ruling
On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the terms “sex”, “woman” and “man” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex. The judgment also confirmed that people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment remain protected from unlawful discrimination.
Dr A expected the Trust to bring its policies and practices into line with that ruling.
Instead, she alleges that her repeated requests for clarity were met with delay and resistance, together with suggestions that the Supreme Court’s interpretation might be challenged at the European Court of Human Rights or could conflict with the position of professional bodies.
The day after the Supreme Court ruling, the Trust reportedly informed staff that there would be no immediate changes for patients.
As of 12 August 2026, the Trust’s published Delivering Single Sex Accommodation policy continued to state:
“Trans people should be accommodated according to their presentation (the way they dress, the name and pronouns that they currently use).”
The policy, last updated in October 2023, added that:
“This applies to toilet and bathing facilities.”
It also stated that patients who identify as non-binary should be asked about their preferences and allocated to a male or female ward according to their choice.
The Conservative MPs have asked why, 17 months after the Supreme Court clarified the meaning of sex under the Equality Act, the Trust’s published policy reportedly continued to provide for transgender patients to be accommodated according to their presentation, including in toilets and bathing facilities.
Incidents involving vulnerable female patients
Dr A’s legal case has brought renewed attention to allegations involving a biologically male patient who was admitted to a female psychiatric ward.
It is alleged that the patient exposed himself to vulnerable female patients. Despite complaints about the patient’s behaviour and the patient initially being moved, the individual was reportedly returned to the female ward.
The Conservative MPs have asked whether both the alleged incident and the decision to return the patient to the ward have been investigated.
Dr A argues that the alleged incident demonstrates why biological sex matters in psychiatric accommodation and why the issue cannot be resolved through assurances about inclusion.
Many women admitted to psychiatric hospitals have experienced sexual violence, domestic abuse or other serious trauma. A significant number are detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 and are therefore not free to leave if they feel unsafe.
Patients may also be heavily medicated, acutely distressed or unable to advocate effectively for their own privacy and dignity.
Concern over recording of sexual safety incidents
Dr A has also raised concerns about how the Trust records biological sex and sexual safety incidents.
She alleges that the Trust’s Sexual Safety Policy could result in an assault committed by a biological man who identifies as a woman being recorded as female-on-female violence. She argues that this would obscure the sex of the alleged perpetrator and hinder accurate safeguarding analysis.
In January 2026, Dr A submitted a Freedom of Information request seeking data on opposite-sex admissions to a local adult inpatient unit.
The Trust reportedly responded that its records captured self-declared gender and that incomplete information about birth sex meant answering the request would require a costly audit.
Dr A argues that this response indicates the Trust cannot readily establish how many biological males have been accommodated on female psychiatric wards or reliably monitor the safeguarding implications of opposite-sex admissions.
She says a Trust cannot meaningfully audit sexual safety incidents, identify patterns or provide public accountability if it does not consistently and accurately record biological sex.
Same-sex intimate care
Dr A is also concerned that biologically male members of staff who identify as women could be assigned to provide intimate “same-sex” care to female patients.
She has raised the example of a vulnerable woman who is considered at risk of harming herself and must therefore be supervised while showering or using a razor.
When she raised this scenario with the Trust’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion team, Dr A says she was told that the patient would have to explain why she wanted a biologically female member of staff to provide intimate care.
The patient might be asked to disclose a history of sexual abuse, after which the nurse in charge would decide whether her reasons were sufficient.
Dr A alleges that she was told there were no plans to address the scenario in Trust policy and that her concerns were treated as hypothetical.
The letter now asks the Trust whether female patients can receive same-sex intimate care without being required to justify their request.
Women’s toilets at Trust headquarters
Dr A’s case also raises concerns about staff facilities.
The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 require separate toilets, washing and changing facilities for men and women unless appropriate single-occupancy facilities are provided.
However, the Trust’s Transitioning at Work policy reportedly states that members of staff who identify as transgender are entitled to use facilities corresponding to their gender identity.
In May 2025, Dr A said she was reluctant to use women’s toilets at the Trust’s headquarters because male colleagues who identify as women were permitted to use them.
A senior colleague reportedly offered to accompany her to the toilets and guard the entrance while she used them. Dr A rejected the proposed arrangement as offensive and humiliating and was advised to use gender-neutral toilets instead.
She alleges that this effectively displaced a woman from the women’s facilities rather than ensuring that those facilities were reserved for women.
Internal warnings and formal grievance
Dr A says she began raising concerns about the Trust’s policies in 2023, long before the Supreme Court judgment.
She repeatedly approached the Trust’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion team about policies and training that she believed confused biological sex with gender identity.
In January 2024, she submitted a formal complaint to the Trust’s then Head of EDI concerning what she described as “factually incorrect and misleading” mandatory Equality, Diversity and Human Rights training.
She says she received no response, even after chasing the complaint six weeks later. The Trust subsequently confirmed, following a Subject Access Request, that the emails had been received.
After the Supreme Court ruling, Dr A raised the matter with senior executives and, in June 2025, submitted a formal grievance concerning the Trust’s alleged failure to amend its policies and practices.
The grievance was partially upheld in autumn 2025. As part of the outcome, the Trust reportedly agreed to review its relevant policies and training, establish indicative timescales for implementing changes, clarify the distinction between sex and gender, communicate with staff about the provision of single-sex facilities, and review its Transitioning at Work policy.
Dr A subsequently appealed. Although her appeal was largely rejected, the Trust agreed to undertake further steps, including issuing a Trust-wide statement on facilities, adding explanatory notes to relevant policies and training, providing progress updates and giving clearer information about toilet provision.
It did not agree to firm deadlines for its broader policy review.
The Trust has since clarified the meaning of sex in mandatory EDI training, removed several optional training modules and added information about the Supreme Court ruling to its intranet.
However, Dr A alleges that, by 6 August 2026, most of the agreed action points remained outstanding and no key policy had been formally revised.
She says the 11 September statement still does not establish whether the underlying practice of admitting biological males to female wards has ended.
Legal action
Dr A’s claim alleges harassment and direct or indirect discrimination because of her gender-critical beliefs and their expression.
She believes that biological sex is binary and immutable, that the words “man” and “woman” refer to biological sex and that women are entitled to single-sex wards, toilets, washing facilities and changing rooms.
Her case argues that these beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010.
She alleges that the Trust’s policies, its handling of her grievance and appeal, its response to her safeguarding concerns and the delay in implementing agreed actions created a hostile and humiliating working environment.
Dr A is asking the Employment Tribunal to determine whether the Trust’s actions formed an ongoing course of unlawful conduct.
She seeks compensation and other relief under the Equality Act, including a recommendation that female toilets be reserved for biological women.