Woman requests a female nurse. She gets a transwoman instead.

The trans thing I think was because he also looked at the TIM smear test nurse thread and got confused

Oh is that what happened? I guess I'm having trouble telling all the recent bridge-dwellers apart. They all seem to drink at the same pub or something.

Then a pissed wanker came on. Calling women muppets, jokers and precious. Whilst managing to put in sexist comments regarding hot nurses

I'd forgotten the hot nurses.

I guess I thought of MRA/TRA more than random pissed wanker though because of the odd bit re trans.

Oh, sorry, that's this thread!

Yes my impression was also adult. The trans thing I think was because he also looked at the TIM smear test nurse thread and got confused.

They did bring trans in, but it wasn't coherent. I was going to screen-shot it when I read it because I had a hunch it would be pulled, but I got distracted and forgot. Datun was fighting the good fight up until the early hours so she might have more insight. My impression was adult rather than teenage.

I think Datun was part of the fray so she probably has a better image than me.

It was a fairly useful thread for rebutting sexist ideas that women should just roll over. Although frustrating. And several comprehensive posts about medical guidelines, which were also useful.

Then a pissed wanker came on. Calling women muppets, jokers and precious. Whilst managing to put in sexist comments regarding hot nurses.

Although he was clearly an idiot, his conviction that it was okay for woman to choose a female HCP only as long as she had been raped was very depressing.

Partly because I think many people think this way. They have an idea that woman's boundaries can be defined by someone else on the basis of arbitrary conditions that they get to grade in order of importance.

I reported him several times. But as someone else pointed out, the night time mods are a bit thin on the ground.

(Although it was awesome when one poster told him to fuck off and he became infuriated with her use of 'profanity').

The fact that they brought trans into it makes me think that they had an agenda as from what I saw it was not about that.

I was wondering if it was TRAs - the bridge dweller did go off on an odd rant about trans at one point and it did occur to me that a TRA tactic could be to discount the need for sex-specific HCPs more generally.

There seems to be a rash of teenage boys joining up to derail these threads at the moment.

Why didn't they just ban the abusive troll?

Don't know. I'm not HQ :). Datun might have more insight when she wakes up. The bridge dweller was pretty nasty but up until overnight it seemed to be more a battle between 'understanding women of a feminist bent' and others who were pretty sexist or who had not RTFT - the bridge dweller was something.

I haven't had/didn't get the opportunity to really read a string of recent theads in depth, but there does seem an alarming tendency of late for rogue posters to mock women who have been sexually abused.

Thank you Spartacus , I'd been following the thread but missed all that.

Why didn't they just ban the abusive troll?

What was the trolling please

It was a different thread. The OP went to a six week postnatal GP appt and requested a woman GP. After a convoluted series of events she received a male who pushed her into a physical she didn't really want. It was complicated and I'm not doing it justice here. Initially, most posters lambasted her and said either that she should not be able to request a woman or it was her fault for not being assertive enough. It appears that overnight a nasty troll appeared who basically told her she had issues and should request 'benzos' or ECG for her 'issues'. It was pretty horrible, but the OP held her ground from what I could see. I think Datun was part of the fray so she probably has a better image than me. I was disappointed it was pulled to be honest because the core issue was salient and it seemed to be dragged down by a single -troll- rouge poster.

What was the trolling please?

Red I very much agree. Women in general need to hear a whole lot more, it is ok to say no. You are not somehow being naughty or entitled to say no. Your consent matters, and just not wanting to accept that care in that way from that person is perfectly ok.

I keep banging on about this the last few days but it's only really just joined up the dots from me: this is all over the relationships board where women are experiencing various degrees of abuse, the whole 'wife work'/mental load stuff, every MIL thread, you will find women shaming other women for standing up for themselves, for having boundaries, for not putting themselves last, for not enabling others at the cost of themselves, for not accepting that this is somehow just their lot in life. Women shame other women into surrendering consent, they silence other women, and I'll bet the deeply ingrained misogyny that they internalised came from other women and not directly from men.

I keep wondering if we're raising the next generation of girls to be less co operative and ready to take on the mental load, but then I walk through Tesco and look at the girls' t shirts which are in weak and pastel colours and talk about being pretty, smiling, making the world happy, being daddy's little princess, and think OMFG. I refuse to let the 1990s be as good as it ever got for women.

I've also posted on that thread - she's being hammered for NOT being clear and assertive when her booked appointment with a female doctor was changed. Such vitriol and such a lack of understanding of why women often aren't assertive when 'cornered'

That thread has just been pulled following trolling overnight.

Jesus Bindi - well, done! And yes, I imagine as a younger woman - and maybe even now if I was feeling ill - I would just do as I'm told, it's ingrained.

every single male doctor or pharmacist I've ever seen, when talking to them about 'womens problems' has checked if I wanted to see a woman (well, except my first ever doctor when I was a kid - but he might have asked my mum) - hell, even the fucking pharmacist when I was getting the morning after pill checked before he took me into the private room to ask the questions he has to ask. TIMs who are professionals would absolutely do the same, and it's ridiculous and unprofessional behaviour from the doctor in that other woman's thread (who did, clearly state she wanted a female), and the TIM in this one.

All this stuff just reminds me to step up and enforce my boundaries (and my children's boundaries) when we need medical care.

Sparkly I agree, but in order to do that, its got to get past as somehow progressive or fly under the radar without people noticing.

The former seems unlikely to spin the latter is more likely to be attempted. Thus many eyes are needed to keep an eye on developments in this area.

If we are aware of the potential danger its easier to defend.

Personally for many years due to issues over medical consent I refused to see a doctor without someone I trust being present. This is somewhat logistically difficult. The problem I could fall foul of is ironically questions being raised that I am under undue influence of my partner or deemed incapable to consent because of panic or anxiety.

That said, because I am particularly sensitive about my rights in this area, I know that ensuring there is something on record about conditions of consent and demonstrating that I have considered options in a calm way and that I fully understand the implications is important. I do feel explaining my position is inevitable as part of that though.

I am actually very disappointed that MN have taken it upon themselves to delete that aibu thread about the GP and consent because in order for people to asset their rights they need to properly understand them and to know the finer points over medical consent.

I'm passionate about this and don't feel women really understand. As a rule women don't asset their rights in this area, and after many years and reading threads I think have many more examples of horrendous treatment I do think lack of knowledge of rights is a central core problem to poor care carried out by clinicians.

I think to fight this, establishing a) what women's rights are b) why those rights exist c) making people have greater awareness of what those rights are and d) normalising women who stand up for thise rights and act upon their right and entitlement to complain are crucial stepping stones.

Unfortunately I do think this would run into a backlash which will involve women having to justify and defend existing rights. But I think thats an inevitably now anyway in an era where cuts are eroding your general right to healthcare and there is an increasing attitude that you should be grateful for any kind of 'free' (paying your NI clearly doesn't count) healthcare.

I am beginning to see this in terms of needing a strategic battle plan to defend womens health generally, otherwise women take the brunt of cuts to services. Mental health and consent are the two key defensive hills to stake yourselves out on imho. Both are progressive and currently hold value in society's terms. That means politically they are important.

Bela - about mammograms. My understanding is that at the moment they are always carried out by a female radiographer. Apparently at the TUC conference last year there was a motion to allow male radiographers to carry out mammograms (because there's a shortage of radiographers, so supposedly allowing males to do it would help redress that), but it was defeated.

On another note, I've often wondered how many women and children have been sexually assaulted by medical practitioners. I suspect it's one of those big hidden scandals, like the Catholic Church, boys' boarding schools etc. A lot of it goes on but victims are too frightened to speak out about it. Shocking as Bindi's story is, I think it may be more common than is realised.

Excellent post Red

I'm getting increasingly concerned just looking at how discussions here between women over theoretical situations are beginning to frame it as women need to have justifiable cause to refuse intimate care from anyone but a woman. (And not messing with semantics, sorry, I'm out of patience for all this due to all the trouble it's causing, I do mean a woman.)

I am worried that women may be expected to provide an objectively judged and evidenced reason to get a female health carer for intimate care. That's completely unacceptable. 'I want a female HcP' should be all they need to say, with no need for evidence or to try to justify a reason for their feelings. This would be a step back in time to infantilise and patronise women. 'You may make decisions about your body but only if I objectively agree your reason is good enough'.

This is the sort of thing a FOI request would be useful for.

I was thinking last night that someone needs to throw a very large FOI grenade at this. It probably needs to be a newspaper, to blow open some of the lack of policy and gap with the current law. It would throw up issues over any possible changes too.

Basically the system needs to be used by women for their rights as they are entitled to use it to defend their rights. Trans cult are using the system to destroy rights because women are not using what is available to them because they don't enforce that entitlement.

Its more difficult for individuals to do the same because of harassment and intimidation techniques used by transcult.

In this case the Trust have immediately apologised. Does this mean they are developing a policy? Or does it mean they are avoiding making a formal policy and indeed a court case that would force a formal policy.

My understanding is that in this case the nurse did not have a GRC, they simply self-ID'd as a woman, hence the apology for 'clerical error'.

If the nurse had a GRC then theoretically the exceptions in the equality act could be used to ensure that women still get a female HCP when this is requested. Who knows if the trust, or any other trust, has such a policy in place though. This is the sort of thing a FOI request would be useful for.

The biggest loophole as I see it is what happens when a HCP has a GRC (and has subsequently changed their birth certificate) and applies for a job without disclosing that they are trans. It's illegal to disclose a person's trans history without their consent if that information has been gained in a professional capacity, so no referee will mention it. Even the prison service are not allowed to ask to see a GRC.

As far as I can see (and I would love to be wrong about this) such a person would simply be recorded as female, even if everyone with eyes could tell they were male. The exceptions in the equality act would be of no use whatsoever. They would be recorded as female, employed as female and it would be illegal for anyone to say otherwise.

Oh, I read your post wrong binding. You meant women who have been abused shouldn't have to disclose tgat to get the hcp they want. Sorry for the misinterpretation.

'I really don’t think a patient should have to disclose previous abuse or assault for their preference on who touches them intimately to be listened to'

Yes, this.

Too much focus on protecting women who have suffered rape and abuse leaves other women feeling like they don't have the right to bodily autonomy also. It's similar to rape and abortion, where that justification is more easily accepted by greater numbers of people. I'd hate to see history of sexual assault the only justifiable reason for women to request a female to provide intimate healthcare.

Thanks for comments, I was confident in complaining as was a practicing Nurse at the time. But I could easily imaging a less confident and/or knowledgable patient doing as they were told.

I really don’t think a patient should have to disclose previous abuse or assault for their preference on who touches them intimately to be listened to.

I have no issues with trans people, that maybe because the only ones I’ve met are respectful of women (and are as horrified by TAs activities. They strongly feel they are wrong and worry that there will come a massive backlash).

I’m happy to fight for their rights, except when it infringes on my rights as a woman.

I've recently hit #PeakTrans and everything I'm reading lately is getting me more concerned about this issue and where we are headed. I think a lot of well-meaning people are just trying to be kind & supportive to people with gender dysphoria (which certainly sounds horrendous) - i was one of those people. However, they are probably not aware of things like AGP (I've only just read up about this) & are losing sight of bigger issues at stake for women. I find this latest incident very disturbing.

This is far less important but I also hate being referred to as "cis". It all seems ridiculous to me and all these different pronouns/labels just seem like people wanting attention & to have special treatment/stand out. I imagine this makes me a TERF? Has everyone on this thread seen the new website www.peaktrans.org