Listing a health provider as being female/make when they are TW/TM

If a trans person applies to for a job why can't they be told that if patients ask for a woman GP then they will not be allocated to the trans person

You probably can, if done carefully and with reference to the EA's single sex provisions, but it won't help much because most patients don't request 'a woman doctor': they assume that, if you have a GP called, say, 'Sarah Smith', that GP will be female. So, if the Receptionist tells them the next available appointment is with Dr Sarah Smith, the patient is going to accept, and not find out that Sarah is trans until they meet. Unless Reception tell every single patient that Sarah is trans - which Sarah is likely to see as discriminatory - many patients are not going to realise she is trans until they meet her. Even if Sarah was happy for patients coming for gynae examinations to be told her bio sex, that would not help patients who are attending for other reasons, but who still prefer a bio female doctor.

Yes they are colluding in lying to patients. However it is much much easier to push the decision down the chain in this way it can be blamed on women being unkind and making a fuss. If a trans person applies to for a job why can't they be told that if patients ask for a woman GP then they will not be allocated to the trans person. If the trans person had an ounce of awareness, compassion and understanding they would put their patient first and respect the decision.

I have to say that the fact that a GP thinks they can change sex tells me that they don't understand biology and shouldn't be practising.

Four years ago I wouldn’t have minded who I saw - although I would always want women to have the choice. But after years of seeing and hearing relentless abuse of women from TW, and the trans lobby’s endless efforts to erase women, I would not feel safe.

I wonder if there's room for doing more than just identifying a doctor by sex. Perhaps doctors could undertake special training in say, sensitivity, trauma care, safeguarding and anxiety or something of that ilk, and then identify themselves as such. The training could include patient-focused care and involve a thorough understanding of the issues surrounding why some patients may choose a same sex doctor. Only doctors who were able to fully grasp the sensitivities on this subject would be allowed to ID as this special kind of doctor.

I think this is a huge breach of trust

I agree. However as a GP and an employer, I know that - if I employed a trans GP - I would probably be forced to describe them by gender identity, or risk being in breach of the EA and employment law. What I would probably do, in practice, is remove everyone's sex from our website, but even that it misleading, as patients are bound to assume that someone with a female name is biologically female.

This is the problem with the extent of regulatory and institutional capture by the TRA lobby. Even employers who are GC or neutral have little room for manoeuvre. The BMA is hardly going to back me up, given its recent support for self-ID. And the GMC and Royal College of GPs have also swallowed the Kool-Aid. All these organisations pay lip service to the rights of patients when, in fact, they are trampling over patients' rights and effectively mandating that we lie to them

I am saving that wedding for a critical moment in our household!

The alien analogy is really working for me.

All of what Arabella* said

Absolutely no problem at all with having a TW GP - all I'm interested in is that they're a good GP. But part of being a good GP is that if I or any of that GP's patients need say to them for this specific exam, for this procedure, for this particular context I need a same sex professional/chaperone, this is handled with listening and sensitivity as a professional without it being turned into a political conflict of need.

That's it. That's all. Live and let live, and respect people's beliefs and boundaries and we'll all be fine.

I think if a GP or HCP is shown as one sex or the other then it should be very clear that we are referring to sex, not gender.

Currently, having a male GP listed as 'female' seems to me the most egregious of gaslighting.

When a doctor's sex is listed, it's done so specifically because (some) patients want to be seen by someone of the same sex. To try and pass off 'gender' as 'sex' - in this scenario, is incredibly underhand. Because some people claim a gender that is not equivalent to their biological sex.

Not all doctors list sex, I don't think they're obliged to. So if there's sensitivity there they could just choose not to. If this is being done for the best wishes of patients, I imagine that is what would and should happen. That way, nobody who is specifically looking for a female GP risks finding their GP is in fact a male.

So the signposting of a male doctor as a female is clearly being done for the validation and consideration of the HCP, not the patient. Seems utterly clear to me.

I have some empathy for a hypothetical well meaning trans woman GP in this situation (not talking about any specific individual). Unfortunately if a man requested a male provider and got a trans woman, I think many men would object because many men don’t think of trans women as really male (A problem that needs addressing if we are ever to resolve this mess). Meanwhile of course women have every right to expect a biologically female provider if they request a female provider.

The only workable solution would seem to be to assign the trans woman GP only to those who don’t request a provider by sex. Alternatively, radical transparency could work. If someone wants either a woman or a trans woman for their GP, it should be possible to designate that? Or would that violate privacy?

How dreadfully bigoted of her, HollowTalk, assuming the identities and sexualities of everyone who disagrees with her!

If you've got any tales of youthful experimentation, could be a handy trump card?

I have a woke daughter who yelled at me the other day, saying that she wished people who weren't queer (her term) wouldn't make any comments about queer politics and what it is to be queer. I wish I'd had the time to say that I wished transwomen wouldn't make any comments on what it was like to be a woman, but there wasn't time before the door slammed

Not sure how I wasn't aware of this website, but:

a-question-of-consent.net/2020/09/16/doctors/

@clymene Hard to think of a clearer justification.

So now Truss has clarified that: "The Equality Act 2010 clearly protects transgender people from discrimination. The same act allows service providers to restrict access to single sex spaces on the basis of biological sex if there is a clear justification."

Can women now demand that access to a female GP (or indeed any HCP) is on the basis of biological sex as there is a clear justification when it comes to intimate care or gynaecological issues?

anyone should be able to request a same sex hcp if they want one, and this should be done on the basis of understood actual biological sex, unconfused by self identification.

I completely agree.

differential anyone should be able to request a same sex hcp if they want one, and this should be done on the basis of understood actual biological sex, unconfused by self identification. That's the point. These are extremely sensitive issues for many, there are many reasons why same sex hcps are crucial, and gender identity needs to not try and overrule this provision for others who need it. Live and let live.

Incidentally a male friend only really started to get this when he was unexpectedly faced with a male professional rather than the female he had expected, and discovered that while he would have felt perfectly comfortable and safe allowing a female to do the procedure he was surprised at how uncomfortable and anxious he was about accepting that kind of touch and contact from another male. It was essentially a new experience of feeling sexually vulnerable in a way he hadn't experienced before, but an experience most women are very familiar with. These are sensitive issues and all people need to have their feelings equally respected in these matters.

This seems to me to be a huge issue. It needs to be clarified.

@NecessaryScene1 I can empathise, no close encounters of the third kind required, because as a man I am also forced into uncomfortable situations. For example, if I need an ultrasound of my testicles, or have a cystoscopy, chances are it’s going to be done by a female (at least the prep, in the case of the latter). There are a lot more women in those roles, so it is what it is, but I think a not insigificant number of men are uncomfortable enough (we’re usually told to “man up”) that they don’t always get checked out when they should.

The 'justified consequence of intolerance' argument bothers the shit out of me.

It should bother the shit out of any thinking, responsible person capable of understanding fairness, inclusion, empathy and basic social necessity.

If this political lobby were capable of reciprocal thinking, of extending the same care and respect to others that they demand is extended to them, if this was live and let live where individual need and interserctionality had meaning other than Big Word That Makes People Do What I Want.... there would be no problem at all.

And there are many women who for religious, trauma or privacy/dignity reasons who have a stronger need for a female HCP and our preference should always be respected. I will always say I don't mind when asked if it isn't a case where I really need a female gp so that there are appointments available with female gps for those with a greater need. That doesn't mean I don't mind in all cases and I may change what I reply to make that clearer.