Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Mixed sex wards and trans women.

632 replies

sarsleypage · 24/11/2016 17:46

I've opened a new account as the old one was too full of personal bits and someone could've connected the dots.

I am a medical student and we have a diversity lecture coming up, so I had a look at the LGBT slides. A lot of this seems to focus on trans.

I got curious about the requirements for sex-segregated wards, as I know this has been an issue for a while. Women want single-sex wards, both on wards for physical illness and those for mental illness, because they see themselves as vulnerable to abuse from men, especially whilst ill.

Fine. Nobody seems to oppose this, and it's become a requirement in pretty much all hospitals.

And then you see this: uktrans.info/attachments/article/5/trasngender_booklet_low%20res.pdf

"• Trans people should be accommodated according to
their presentation: the way they dress, and the name
and pronouns that they currently use.
• This may not always accord with the physical sex
appearance of the chest or genitalia;
• It does not depend upon their having a gender
recognition certificate (GRC) or legal name change;
• It applies to toilet and bathing facilities (except, for
instance, that pre-operative trans people should not
share open shower facilities); "

There's an example in the leaflet of a young female nurse refusing to wash a trans person because it was against her religion. This is held up as an example of trans discrimination.

I am struggling to square this away with feminism. In fact, I don't think it does square. Women have fought for this segregated space, based on female sexual characteristics (not a preference for make-up, long hair, but XY/vaginas/generally smaller in stature and weaker). But now, apparently, if you decide you feel like a woman, you're entitled to be on a woman's ward when women are at their most vulnerable.

It means if you're sectioned under the mental health act and a trans woman with a penis is on the ward, you have no legal argument to get them removed to make you feel safer.

How is this right?

OP posts:
Original poster
sarsleypage · 24/11/2016 19:01

The nurse thing arose because I had a misunderstanding of the role, sorry for that. I was coming at it from a medical PoV.

OP posts:
Original poster
sarsleypage · 24/11/2016 19:00

FTM carry a perceived threat if they present as male. The women on the ward have no way of knowing that they have no penis.

They should be in a side room, as I already said, but the leaflet suggests this is not enough.

OP posts:
LassWiTheDelicateAir · 24/11/2016 18:58

Of the examples you give I don't really see that making the situation easier for the family is such an outrageous thing to do.

On the other one , the patient in question knows I'm sure it was their penis not their lesbian status which caused the problem,.

I'm not hugely sympathetic to the nurse's position. If you are going into nursing I think it is not unreasonable to expect hat you may have to deal with a penis. We discussed whether a female beautician could refuse to wax a trans woman's penis and most people agreed yes. But that is different from nursing where I think one sort of expects you are going to be dealing with many aspects of the human body those of us who are not nurses would find unpleasant.

Seachangeshell · 24/11/2016 18:58

FTM do not carry any threat to women! They can't rape them. Where would you put the Trans Man having a hysterectomy? On a male ward?

Seachangeshell · 24/11/2016 18:56

It says 'nurses would not care for me' after the operation.

Geretrude · 24/11/2016 18:55

So trans women get to go on female wards and so do trans men.

If a trans woman is having a prostate operation, do they go on the men's or women's ward?

The examples you've given contradict one another.

Original poster
sarsleypage · 24/11/2016 18:55

It seems women can't really win then? Either they're on a ward with MTF, who have penises and therefore would pose a threat, or on a ward with FTM who appear to be male and therefore still carry a perceived threat.

What situation actually best serves the women who are there to recuperate, other than use of side rooms?

OP posts:
Seachangeshell · 24/11/2016 18:55

I don't think the side room was being blamed in that example. It was the fact that nurses refused to attend to the patient because they were Trans. Which, if true, is appalling.

Original poster
sarsleypage · 24/11/2016 18:53

I think the side room was the right decision, and without further information I wouldn't have any idea whether it led to side effects. Often very sick people (contagious illnesses) are in side rooms and there is no evidence that this leads to further complications..

OP posts:
OrangeSquashTallGlass · 24/11/2016 18:51

As a medical student what do you think - In the case of the patient who was left to haemorrhage for example, what set up do you think would have been best? A bed on a male ward or female ward?

Seachangeshell · 24/11/2016 18:51

I'm afraid you are confused sarsley. The Trans Man having a hysterectomy was born a woman. They are biologically female. That's why they had a womb so that's why they had to go on a women's ward. They were on the correct ward according to their biological sex.

Original poster
sarsleypage · 24/11/2016 18:47

The guidance says that open showers should not be used by pre-operative transpeople - a telling recognition that there is a tension inherent in their policy...

This also stood out to me because I thought that the position was generally "you have no right to know about my genitalia" and that pre/post op terminology is now unacceptable?

OP posts:
OlennasWimple · 24/11/2016 18:46

Those examples raise lots of interesting questions.

FWIW, I agree that a nurse should not be allowed to cite religious reasons for not washing a transperson. If her religion prevents her from doing her job properly, she shouldn't be in that job. The FTM appears to have received appalling treatment.

I'm not sure how police and others could establish that someone was a "part time cross dresser" from such limited information, but I don't have a problem as such with them behaving in this way: I suspect that they might do similar if the individual had been in an accident with someone with whom they were clearly romantically involved but not their wife. Ie use some discretion with what they share with next-of-kin. It's not their job to keep secrets, but neither is it their job to share personal information without agreement to do so when it can easily be avoided.

The guidance says that open showers should not be used by pre-operative transpeople - a telling recognition that there is a tension inherent in their policy...

Original poster
sarsleypage · 24/11/2016 18:46

Sorry if it's not clear to you. I guess my PoV is that if you segregate wards by sex, they should be segregated by sex and not gender. Whereas the trans literature insists on segregation by gender. I don't see how this is fair to women.

OP posts:
OrangeSquashTallGlass · 24/11/2016 18:44

I'm a bit confused as to your point of view to be honest and I'm unsure what you want to prove with the example of the patient left to haemorrhage. It's a terrible story and should never have been allowed to happen.

M0stlyHet · 24/11/2016 18:42

Should say that would be "with the patient's consent" - I've had urgent gynae problems in the past where I just wanted it looked at and didn't care what the sex of the doctor doing the exam was - but the doctor, understandably, went to fetch a chaperone. Though again, that opens up a whole range of issues - what are my rights as a patient if confronted by a female-identifying doctor with five o'clock shadow and an adam's apple? (Weirdly, I realised when having a mamogram recently that my own feelings about this are all over the place - I have had vaginal exams from male doctors in the past and not been in the slightest bit bothered, but it struck me I would feel strangely vulnerable having a breast exam from a male doctor - I have no idea why I feel this way.)

Original poster
sarsleypage · 24/11/2016 18:41

I wasn't really talking about the haemorrhaging (which is obviously awful, if true).

It's more the idea that a bearded person on a female ward, full of women undergoing gynae, should just be accepted without question. The lack of empathy as to why someone might tell that person to shave their beard for the dignity of the women there.

If the person is presenting as male, being on a female ward is really not appropriate and I can see why a side room was used. But it seems that wasn't enough either and somehow the use of a side room is being blamed for a post-op complication?

OP posts:
M0stlyHet · 24/11/2016 18:39

Though there is probably a grey area here re. examinations from the view of the HCP - if a male doctor has to give a female patient an internal exam, they will get a female nurse in to chaperone them (and presumably vv for a male patient and female doctor). What would be the rules for pre-op trans people?

Seachangeshell · 24/11/2016 18:37

Hi OP - I understand your first post but I'm not sure your examples are very good to be honest. The one about the patient having a hysterectomy sounds terrible. If the patient was really refused care because they are a Trans man then that is awful. Being left to haemorrhage is obviously completely unacceptable. The patient was also on the correct ward because they are biologically female. Where else could they go if they've had a hysterectomy?

Original poster
sarsleypage · 24/11/2016 18:31

If you're in the health service, suggest you write to your MP about this before the upcoming debate.

I'd feel uncomfortable attaching my name to anything that could be seen as "transphobic", which is apparently any criticism of trans. I think it could damage my career.

I don't even feel able to challenge the rhetoric in class.

OP posts:
TheMortificadosDragon · 24/11/2016 18:29

If you're in the health service, suggest you write to your MP about this before the upcoming debate.

lionheart · 24/11/2016 18:29

'A person who is Transgender is someone who expresses
themselves in a different gender to the gender they were
assigned at birth.' Gets off to a bad start.

Original poster
sarsleypage · 24/11/2016 18:27

I don't know, it seems identifying people by preferred gender and not the inarguably biological fact of sex is creating loads more problems than it could ever solve.

Exactly, at what point as a society do we admit that this has gone too far? All the extra stuff in place to avoid hurt feelings is denying basic biology.

First there was the theory that "gender is different to sex" but now it's all become blurred again, and apparently declaring male/female sex at birth is "doctors assigning a gender" and is a form of oppression.

I'm young, I went through a right-on phase of going along with it all, but I can't any more. It makes no damn sense.

Apologies for the thing about nurses - I had no idea you had to wash male/females. I know that doctors can get another doctor to examine a patient if they feel uncomfortable about it, and assumed it was the same across the board.

OP posts:
ErrolTheDragon · 24/11/2016 18:27

yes - in that example, if the nurse would wash any other male-bodied person (as her contract presumably requires) then refusing to wash the trans person would (for once) be a genuine case of trans discrimination.

But apart from that - single sex wards should be single-sex wards. Trans people should be treated with sensitivity, maybe using side rooms on the correct sex ward but treated properly, the example of the FtM having a hysterectomy sounds bad.

lougle · 24/11/2016 18:19

uktrans.info/attachments/article/417/annex-e.pdf This is from Department of Health 2009 policy. Gender comes above sex.

Swipe left for the next trending thread