Yes, frustratingly, it’s much more likely that the right-wing press/media will cover stories like this in detail and the left/liberal papers and broadcasters tend not to, because transwomen hurty feelings.

Yanbu that it's important. Yabu to say it wasn't covered. Yanbu to say not all newspapers covered equally.
The MN hated Dailymail had few articles a week for months. If not nearly every day. And not buried somewhere under Taylor Swift news.
Including quite a harrowing read about Karen Danson's experience. That was a concerning read. Really

Carrying out surgery at another hospital could involve much longer waits and a change of surgeon which the staff member might not want. Fair enough if that's what they wish.

What normally happens where I've worked is that an all female team is provided for female theatre staff, whatever kind of surgery is being undertaken. As it should be.

I'd think it would be uncomfortable for any patient to have gynae procedures carried out by any of their colleagues. Perhaps they should routinely by carried out at another hospital, unless the patient chooses otherwise

And let's not forget that when one of the nurses - who is a survivor of childhood sexual abuse - needed gynae surgery, the male she and others had complained about was scheduled to be present during her surgery:

But worse was to come for Karen. By, as she says, ‘an unhappy coincidence’, she was due to have a gynaecological operation at Darlington Memorial Hospital in August 2024.

To her horror, she discovered that Rose was scheduled to be involved.

The procedure would be part robotic, and Rose’s role would involve being at the bedside, passing tools to the surgeon.

“It is difficult to put into words how I felt,” Karen said, “I immediately knew this was ethically wrong and that my condition would be made worse and more painful with the stress it would cause.”

With a colleague, Karen approached the theatre manager and explained the situation, the legal case and how Rose’s involvement would be “completely inappropriate”, and that she wanted women involved in the operation.

Astonishingly the theatre manager said: “But Rose is a woman”.

She added that she thought Karen was being “prejudiced”.

She tried to explain that she was not singling Rose out, but that there was clearly a conflict of interest and because of her childhood trauma she wanted women involved in the procedure.

Regarding Rose being removed from the operating team, Karen was asked: “How do you think that would make Rose feel?”

She was given the choice of cancelling her surgery, trying to get it done at another hospital, or allowing Rose to be part of the operation. Any delays would prolong the pain she was in and had been for some time.

After putting her position in writing, the theatre manager wrote to her and said that her request could not be accommodated “due to clinical and staffing skill mix issues.”

With legal support and advice from the Christian Legal Centre, days before the operation, Karen went to the Patient Advisory and Liaison Service (PALS).

After outlining her situation, PALS swiftly made the decision that it was not appropriate for Rose to be involved.

Despite what the theatre manager had said, it appeared very possible to reallocate staff so that Rose was not involved in the operation.

“I believed this was purely vindictive and demonstrated how low they were prepared to go,” Karen said. “Gender identity was placed above patient and staff care. They tried to punish me for the legal case I was part of and for opposing gender identity policy within the hospital.”

I don't get this bit though because, as far as we know, men weren't being forced to change in front of women, ie, there were no women using the men's changing rooms. So why is it a comparitor?

Going back now to carry on reading.

I don't get this bit though because, as far as we know, men weren't being forced to change in front of women, ie, there were no women using the men's changing rooms. So why is it a comparitor?

Going back now to carry on reading.

The nurses had to bring in an expert witness to state that women don’t like to get undressed in front of men. Earlier in the tribunal the (male) head of HR for the trust had claimed, when questioned, that it was no worse for women to change in front of men than it would be for men to change in front of women.

(as per previous post)

There should be extra safeguards in place for foreign workers to be able to complain/whistleblow. Especially given a lot of countries that we pull nurses in from are more socially & religiously conservative.

I can’t imagine the pressure to withdraw your complaint under ‘normal’ circumstances - when you’re thinking about rent/mortgage, bills & being able to apply for another job without having to disclose being under investigation.

Throw in work visa & being under investigation - there are some countries you’d never be eligible to work in again.

And let's not forget that when one of the nurses - who is a survivor of childhood sexual abuse - needed gynae surgery, the male she and others had complained about was scheduled to be present during her surgery:

But worse was to come for Karen. By, as she says, ‘an unhappy coincidence’, she was due to have a gynaecological operation at Darlington Memorial Hospital in August 2024.

To her horror, she discovered that Rose was scheduled to be involved.

The procedure would be part robotic, and Rose’s role would involve being at the bedside, passing tools to the surgeon.

“It is difficult to put into words how I felt,” Karen said, “I immediately knew this was ethically wrong and that my condition would be made worse and more painful with the stress it would cause.”

With a colleague, Karen approached the theatre manager and explained the situation, the legal case and how Rose’s involvement would be “completely inappropriate”, and that she wanted women involved in the operation.

Astonishingly the theatre manager said: “But Rose is a woman”.

She added that she thought Karen was being “prejudiced”.

She tried to explain that she was not singling Rose out, but that there was clearly a conflict of interest and because of her childhood trauma she wanted women involved in the procedure.

Regarding Rose being removed from the operating team, Karen was asked: “How do you think that would make Rose feel?”

She was given the choice of cancelling her surgery, trying to get it done at another hospital, or allowing Rose to be part of the operation. Any delays would prolong the pain she was in and had been for some time.

After putting her position in writing, the theatre manager wrote to her and said that her request could not be accommodated “due to clinical and staffing skill mix issues.”

With legal support and advice from the Christian Legal Centre, days before the operation, Karen went to the Patient Advisory and Liaison Service (PALS).

After outlining her situation, PALS swiftly made the decision that it was not appropriate for Rose to be involved.

Despite what the theatre manager had said, it appeared very possible to reallocate staff so that Rose was not involved in the operation.

“I believed this was purely vindictive and demonstrated how low they were prepared to go,” Karen said. “Gender identity was placed above patient and staff care. They tried to punish me for the legal case I was part of and for opposing gender identity policy within the hospital.”