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

I would be very disturbed by a HCP putting their need for validation above my need for a same sex HCP and about a health service provider that would go along with that.

In my little head fantasy, I'd like to imagine the day when we meet some alien civilisation, who are considerably bigger and stronger than humans, with totally different reproductive systems.

I'm sure we could get along fine, on the whole.

But how would human males feel about being told they couldn't request a human doctor for some of their more delicate procedures, because some of these aliens "identify as humans" and we don't want to hurt their feelings. (Or that they were bigots if they objected to these aliens competing in their sports...)

Males do have this immense privilege of being the physically dominant organism in society, and I'd just like to force some empathy to what it might be like if they weren't.

This would inevitably lead to some female people no longer being willing to access essential life care.

It may also lead to some women not being allowed access to medical care.

The NHS website says:

"Can I choose to see a male or female GP?
You can ask to see a male or female GP, as long as your surgery has both male and female GPs available.
GPs at your surgery
Most GP surgeries and health centres have male and female GPs. However, a small number of doctors work on their own. You can find out more on our GP services explainedd_ page.
If your GP surgery does have both male and female GPs, they will try their best to meet your request. However, this may not always be possible, or you may have to wait longer to see a specific GP."

If I ask to see a female GP, I mean a natal woman. That should be patently obvious.

Personally, I don't generally have a problem with a male doctor. Although I appreciate that many women don't wish to be seen by a male doctor and I am 100% supportive of them being allowed to choose.

But I'd have a huge problem with a doctor misrepresenting themselves as female. How could I trust someone who is standing in front of me insisting that they are something they are not? If I am told that my doctor is female, that doctor should be female.

A male doctor extracted dc1 from his position wedged in my pelvis when forceps and pushing couldn't. He was kind, respectful, gentle but his Adam's apple viewed through my legs triggered my ptsd. I had flashbacks to being raped whilst on the operating table, lost consciousness and then had a psychotic break which the psychiatrist I ended up in front of thought was linked to the flashbacks. It took me a month to accept dc1 as a baby and six months to accept him as mine. I have no ill feeling towards him, he offered to get the female on call consultant out of bed, I declined because I was afraid for my baby. However anyone who deliberately puts their validation over the damage they could do to women like me shouldn't be allowed anywhere near vulnerable women.

Dc2 was delivered in similar circumstances by a woman. The difference was immense.

Characterising women who haven't come through male sexual violence completely unscathed as 'intolerant' is punishing women for having the crime of having been abused by a man.

This a 1000x. I think some of them see it as unforgivable that we view our experiences as "abuse" or a "crime" in the first place.

This happened in Poole. A woman asked for a female practitioner to do her smear, got a trans woman. Complained, got an apology.

Not many women would complain, they'd just never go back for a smear. Some of them will possibly die.

The problem is the conflict between the trans woman's rights to do the job for which she is trained and competent in, regardless of her gender identity, and the patients right to privacy and dignity.

One counts more than the other in the NHS. And everywhere else.

Related, but different - the young man with autism who was charged with a hate crime for asking a trans policeman whether they were a boy or a girl. That is a person with a disability, a protected characteristic, behaving as per someone with autism might - asking a direct question. One matters more than the other, which is why one now has a criminal record.

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

It's victim-blaming. I didn't choose to have C-PTSD.

Characterising women who haven't come through male sexual violence completely unscathed as 'intolerant' is punishing women for having the crime of having been abused by a man.

Handwaving our loss of medical care sends a clear message to women like me: we are permanently tainted, inferior, unworthy of basic human rights - because we were subjected to unwanted contact with penises.

They really do have an incredibly overinflated idea of the enormously transformative power of their dicks, don't they?

I tried to broach this in a letter to my MP who basically said that women would not be called transphobic for not wanting a male and that the case of one in the media did not mean it would be across the board. Her refusal to budge from the tw aw line was completely disheartening.

She is a lib dem, in what was before last election, a power seat for them. Now I cannot see that I will never get any understanding of the issues with her. Because now she will be worried about being expelled for transphobia if she deviates at all.

We are also told about the unacceptability of 'outing' oneself by having to self declare highly personal, sensitive data. I agree. It is. It's unacceptable for everyone though, not just for some.

Policy such as this puts pressure on female people to have to do exactly that, to plead for their case to access a same sex service. Are we seriously going to require that female people do, as the YHA tried briefly to suggest might be a way forward until all hell broke loose, that a woman should stand at a reception desk in sight and sound of everyone around them and explain to a stranger with no training or knowledge of how that data may be handled, what their personal faith is, what their domestic abuse/coercive control situation at home is, what their rape or sexual assault history is, what disability they have?

Either we have these values as a society, or we don't. Having them for some but refusing them to others? How exactly is that going to work?

Resistance that is awful.
I must admit my male bosses were amazing. Although they obviously didn't want to know any details!
I just don't understand how people with strong religious and cultural beliefs cannot demand a female person. It is just abysmal.

plus the 'resources are scarce, someone else could have had that appointment' issue.

That's why it's important that women refuse. If they do that, the NHS will soon stop doing it. My local clinic didn't sound happy when I asked for a female gynae. There was 1 male, and I think 2-3 females in the team. I think they told me that all the females were busy, and I'd have to wait a lot longer to see them. I remember feeling like they were trying to persuade me, which I wasn't taking. It's clear to me like women just wanted to see women and that's why their female gyne were all so busy,

So sorry Norma

I had a male GP tell me when I went with a silent miscarriage, "well there was something wrong with it, you didn't want that one". I was speechless. Again, it's part of the female experience of having male people, who have absolutely no concept of an experience they have no connection to or awareness of, projecting their own perceptions all over them as 'fact'. It's a common thing in all fields for females. You cannot improve things until male people are willing to recognise and respect that being biologically female is a state of indigenous people who are the experts on themselves, and life and culture is different there, and not intrinsically faulty and in need of correcting back to the male perceived narrative.

“If a persons mental health is that fragile that it depends on ignoring the patient’s wishes to maintain that mental health, they are in the wrong job”

this

This actually worries me.

There are medical differences between men and women and this area is still being researched.

www.medpagetoday.com/cardiology/hypertension/44240

sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/treating-men-and-women-differently-sex-differences-in-the-basis-of-disease/

Male GPS tend to prescribe activity restrictions differently for men and women

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953696004054

And women are more likely to survive a heart attack if treated by a female doctor

www.healthline.com/health-news/women-more-likely-survive-heart-attack-doctor-is-female

To some extent I am afraid that I think that anyone insisting to their doctor that they are the opposite biological sex will have to live with potential consequences of this statements.

However, given that there appears to be evidence for a bias in treatment of women from male doctors compared to female doctors (In addition to anecdotal evidence that female issues like menopause etc is taken less seriously) I think it is outrageous that biological males can claim to be female doctors.

(This is a side point to the fact many previous posters eloquently have put about female reluctance to discuss certain issues with males. And religious aspects.)

Of course shared experience, including that of shared anatomy, is entirely relevant. It is dishonest to argue that it has no relevance or even to minimise the degree of relevance.

My experience with doctors is littered with arrogant male doctors who had no understanding or even just empathy for females with menstruation and pregnancy issues. Even recently, I had a very painful and extended experience having a Pap smear with two female nurses due to retroverted uterus and menopausal muscles etc. It would have been so much worse with a male- there probably be no chance of getting that test done.

No. I think that the British medical board will experience a great deal of push back if it denies women the legal right to request their choice of health professional for intimate care. (and men)

If a person's mental health is that fragile it depends on ignoring a patient's wishes to maintain that mental health, they are in the wrong job and need to be responsible for their choices (in this instance, the choice to deny their sex over their gender identity).

This would inevitably lead to some female people no longer being willing to access essential life care.

Proponents of this politics would say that this was justified consequences for non compliance/intolerance, but would not be able to explain their own intolerance or inequality of standards in recognising the feelings, needs, diversity and inclusion of both parties.

It always raises questions too regarding professional ethics. It is expected that a medical professional puts the needs of their patient first, would be trained and aware in the specific vulnerabilities and needs particularly in diversity of the women they treat, and would always wish to act in the way most likely to ensure the woman had the healthcare they needed. To require a patient to meet a healthcare provider's needs when they have come in a state of vulnerability for help, and consent, dignity and quite possibly intimate touch is involved, is moving against normal policy in many, many ways and is crossing plenty of lines.

A decision is eventually going to have to be made. Either all health care providers who qualify for a role such as this accept that they can and must follow policy and professional expectations regardless of their individual personal characteristics or feelings: no one characteristic can be a reason why this is not possible for all of them.

Or if that one characteristic is so important and of such impact to the person that this is not possible or reasonable to expect of any professional with it, then it would have to be questioned whether people with that characteristic had an insuperable barrier to working in roles such as this.

Look what happens when you express concerns to a health board
twitter.com/cupwomenspledge/status/1307638001309229057?s=21

Thank you Earth. They really were wankers.
The female was amazing and said she would always make sure she saw me for any further appointments.

According to the NHS, which lists ''gender'' insread of sex on a topic of this very issue that I raised about a week or twk ago, you may not be able to choose to see a female GP anymore.

The best way to deal with it is either getting into contact with your local heath board so they know that women care about the issue. Also, if you are ever uncomfortable in an appointment, just say it and leave. You don't have to tell them why or get into an argument. If enough women do that, the receptionists will soon figure out what's going on and start booking women in to see women when they ask for it.

A few years ago I had a late missed miscarriage. Following a labour, surgery and blood transfusion I was emotionally and physically wrecked. When I went to my GP I saw 2 males doctors the first couple if couple of times. They signed me off work but basically told me to pull myself together. Next time I went I saw an amazing female gp. What a difference that made. Someone who could understand the trauma.
It is awful someone could ask for a female gp for gynaecological problems and get someone with male anatomy instead who understands none of these problems.

A healthcare professional's gender identity is irrelevant to me. It's as irrelevant as their favourite holiday destination or how they take their tea.

From them I need the best medical care they can provide, based on what is available and what is required. For intimate care, sex is important, and as the best care they provide includes considering my comfort that is part of it. A big part as it happens.

According to my Labour MP, when I asked what should happen if I ask for a woman doctor and a male doctor wants the job - it was never an issue they've come across, so ...?

It's almost as though women can think ahead if the consequences are important to them, and men who don't care are surprised when other men take advantage.