If a patient requests same sex care and a doctor lies to them and performs intimate care, that should be a sex crime

@thenosiesttermagantexactly. Medicine has no place for this absolute nonsense. If you want to be part of a cult which claims to believe literally mad and impossible fantasies about the human body, that's your own business, but you cannot then also be a practising clinician and occupy a role in society in which honesty and probity are absolutely key, along with a very detailed understanding of human biology. It's one or the other.

I simply cannot imagine what the GMC is thinking to allow this man and others like him to continue to practice while taking the piss out of women, biology and the entire medical establishment, or what the Trust was thinking in employing him. Are they going to allow people to turn up at work as doctors dressed up as witches, animals, satanic preachers or aliens? I don't think so.

But Upton believing he's actually a woman (with his penis and testicles which he presumably can still see, feel and pee out of) is literally insane. It makes him not fit to practice.

It's like a Catholic thinking that water can literally be turned into wine or wine into blood via transubstantiation and trying to give a patient a wine transfusion.

It is not compatible with being a doctor. Witch doctor maybe, not doctor in the NHS though.

I imagine someone like Upton would argue that they reasonably believed they had consent, because a patient asked for a woman and he considers himself to be a woman.

He said precisely that in court.

@SernieBanders I think the problem is that when they say "Transwomen are women" they literally think it is gospel truth. I have no idea how to combat that

This could cause a problem around "belief" of consent too. Obviously it's clear a patient hasn't consented to be examined by a biological man. But in order to establish most sexual offences you also have to evidence that the 'perpetrator' did not reasonably believe that the person consented.

I imagine someone like Upton would argue that they reasonably believed they had consent, because a patient asked for a woman and he considers himself to be a woman.

Which leads us on to, how do we legally define what a woman is to combat this, and what is a reasonable belief. I would suggest that it's impossible for a doctor to reasonably believe that they are a biological woman if they were born a biological man, considering their knowledge of the human body. I.e they might "believe" it, but that belief is not reasonable.

Because it's a faith based belief. If you question it then you are excommunicated from your liberal gang, and cast out as a heretic.

If doctors were treating people for free i think it might be quite a bit different. But they're paid.

In my job i deal with customers. They often take weeks to respond to an email. I wouldn't dream of complaining obviously, even though that sometimes makes my job quite difficult. Because responding to me isn't their job and because they're the customer. If i take longer than a few days to reply, they have the right to complain because it's MY JOB.

Urgh. Not surprising the NHS is in so much shit. All the good HCPs having to pick up the slack for the narcissists given freedom to abuse too.

Exactly.

Doctors are there to serve patients. That's the relationship.

Patients do not exist to 'affirm' this doctor's special beliefs about himself. That's not their job. If his family/friends want to do this, fine, but why would it be incumbent on anyone else? Particularly those he is supposed to serve?

How did the nhs get this so badly wrong?

Another thing that seems to be missing is the fact doctors are paid to do a job, part of which is gaining the trust of the patient and making them as comfortable as possible. They're not paid to wang on about their inner identity and impose it on their unconsenting patients , whatever the hell it is. The sooner all this nonsense is stopped the better.

One person is paid to do a job, the other is paying (either directly or through taxation) and customers needs should come first. Under consumer law, providers of services cannot lie, I don't see how this is suddenly different just because it's a medical setting.

Fair enough some people literally think they're something they're not. Well, they're not fit to practice, honestly, if they're so untethered from reality. I would argue most transpeople don't think they literally become the other sex or they wouldn't be 'trans' would they?

I think if people were open/honest and patients could choose whether to give informed consent, there wouldn't be a problem.

However the problem is that gender ideology has convinced some people that biological sex doesn't matter and we shouldn't have to disclose it. In many situations sex doesn't/shouldn't matter. But in other situations sex does matter, e.g. in single sex spaces, in sports, and when giving/receiving healthcare or personal care.

I once booked in for a smear test but forgot to request a female health professional. When I got there it was a male doctor. When he realised what it was for he said "Oh would you like to book in another time and see a female staff member". I just wanted to get it done really so I asked if he felt comfortable doing it. He said yes fine and that he had experience working in obs and gynae. So he called in a female chaperone and we went ahead and it was fine. However he clearly wouldn't have minded in the slightest if I had chosen to rebook.

Equally if the doctor had been a trans woman / trans man and was open about this I would have been happy to make an informed choice. I probably would have gone ahead, others would choose to rebook.

It's the deception (and self-deception!) about biological sex that is the problem.

I'm not sure this is the point though. Surely if this was the case they could be honest and the patient could make a choice.

"I'd like to see a female health professional for my smear test"

"Sorry we are short staffed at the moment, we can book you in with a male nurse/doctor plus female chaperone, or you can wait a few more weeks/months to see the female nurse/doctor"

Then patient makes their choice

Yes, gratifyingly broad overall agreement amongst most posters, just a difference in emphasis on whose perceptions/feelings are the most important.

If I requested a female doctor I would expect the doctor to be an actual woman. I would only specifically request a female doctor if it was gynaecological. For anything else I wouldn't mind who tipped up. Tbh I would be ecstatic if there was any doctor available.

I didn’t say l didn’t agree that some men are motivated in this way, as they clearly are. And l broadly agree with what’s being said. The NHS are pushing ‘inclusivity’ at all costs, at the expense of informed consent. But inevitably, and as evidenced here, the trans women who are motivated by these fetishes are rapidly leading us to a place where no trans woman will be trusted to do their job because there’s no way to tell, and on past evidence, the NHS can’t be trusted to put the patient first every time.

I think we basically agree, we're just disagreeing on some of the details @Rosscameasdoody

No.
Lesbians are women.

Sorry, l wasn’t clear. Yes, l agree. Forcing these so called ‘inclusive’ policies on patients in turn forces female patients to make more demands on the NHS as a result. It’s unsustainable.

I’m not missing the point at all. If the crux of the matter is the belief that the sole motivation of a trans woman HCP is to obtain some sort of sexual gratification from the examination of a womans’ body, then the same could apply to an HCP who is a lesbian couldn’t it ?

You are missing the point. A lesbian is a woman. Yes it is possible, but very unlikely. A "trans woman" is not a woman, but a man. Men commit 98% of all sex crime. No one has said that all "trans women" are motivated by a very male pattern sexual fetish, but it's extremely naive not to see that some are.

This.

I’m not missing the point at all. If the crux of the matter is the belief that the sole motivation of a trans woman HCP is to obtain some sort of sexual gratification from the examination of a womans’ body, then the same could apply to an HCP who is a lesbian couldn’t it ?

@heroinechic I'm not just talking to you, but several posters including you have expressed prime concern for the people of gender and that Wrongeous people are only interested in tarring them for sexual deviance.

I cannot speak for other Wrongeous posters. For my part, I am looking specifically at the patient/victim in the OP's scenario, who cannot know anything about the internal motivations of the practitioner in front of them wielding the speculum. The only quibble is whether the patient/victim has been "sexually" assaulted or "just" assaulted.

@Kucinghitam I think you're conflating two different things.

Pretty much everyone on here agrees that when it comes to medical treatment, if a person requests care from a particular sex, and is told that the care they receive will be from a person of that particular sex, the outcome should be that they receive the care they requested and were told they would receive. This is entirely patient focused and concerned with how the patient feels.

There is some disagreement about whether it should amount to a sexual assault (new offence to be created as proposed by OP) if they do not receive that care.

Currently it does not fall within any of the definitions for sexual assault unless there is a sexual nature to the assault. Obviously there must be a sexual element to an assault for it to be a sexual assault. Otherwise it may be a physical assault. If you want to establish a sexual element you need to look at the wider context and not solely at the feelings of the 'victim'.

If you familiarise yourself with the legal definitions for various types of sexual assault you will see that the law is not only concerned with that an alleged victim feels. It is not victim focussed. It will look at the entire context, including how the alleged perpetrator feels.

It is not a BeKind issue, it's one of legal practicality.

Again with the identity!

My focus is on the patient and their request for a practitioner of a particular sex, and the deception/coercion in the OP's scenario. But apparently the BeingKind thing to do is to focus on the thoughts, feelings, identity, level of sexual excitement of the practitioner who is the one in the position of power.

You can quote statistics all you like. What we’re actually saying here is that those women who don’t want a trans HCP examining them for fear of it being for their sexual gratification, don’t even consider that the female HCP could be a lesbian and getting exactly the same kicks.

Because it's vastly more likely that a man is.