Hospital refuses to operate after woman requests all-female care

I wasn't initially going to engage with the derail but I cannot let this logical fallacy and smear against feminists who support single-sex spaces slide.

Creating excuses for religions that abuse and limit the lives of women is not feminism.

Creating single-sex spaces and services is not "creating excuses for religions". It enables women living under the oppression of religious patriarchy to, amongst other things,

• access healthcare without the controlling menfolk telling them "no, you get to die of cancer because we won't let you see a male doctor"
• use swimming pools without the controlling menfolk saying "you don't get to swim and be fit because we don't want you in a bathing costume around strange men"
• get away from the controlling menfolk and talk to other women without being overheard by men and be able to start organising against FGM, DV, and other atrocities
• secretly obtain contraceptives that the controlling menfolk would not allow them to have if said menfolk were sitting in on the consultation as "chaperones" because the doctor or nurse is male

"Honour killing" murders happen even in this country when the controlling menfolk decide that a woman has "brought shame on the family" and mixing with strange men is a very rapid way for a woman to "bring shame on the family". How is removing single-sex services, with the effect of forcing women to choose between accessing healthcare and risking murder, a "feminist" act?

The right to criticise religious beliefs is irrelevant to the topic of this thread

yup

"It’s so sad to see people attempting to defend the indefensible because somebody they don’t like has made a reasonable point".

Oh no - now it's emotional blackmail. 😁
Haven't a clue who you are - merely going by your words on this thread. You promote a colonialist and offensive view of women's rights to religious belief. You are fully entitled to that view - and women on here are fully entitled to analyse and reject your opinions. Given your lack of knowledge presume you're not from the UK so just to enlighten you:
For all our many faults, our laws uphold people's rights to religious belief - and religious belief is one of our protected characteristics. Suggesting (as you have done) that women of faith are not allowed the dignity and respect afforded by same sex intimate care is seen as pretty repellent - as you've discovered.

Maybe an online forum like pistonheads would be more to your taste rather than a board of predominantly women?

So here is my point again: The right to hold religious beliefs does not exempt or protect those beliefs from criticism.

This is a thread about a woman being discriminated against by a hospital because of her legally-protected (as of Forstater v CGD) gender critical beliefs. The right to criticise religious beliefs is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. Please stop derailing.

Nothing against you at all, pet. It's just that your 'reasonable point' has been multiply debunked. Try reading the posts again on the past two pages.

I see my original point has - once again - been overwhelmed by the usual dogpiling of forum users who are determined to outdo each other with their performative peacocking.

So here is my point again: The right to hold religious beliefs does not exempt or protect those beliefs from criticism.

The apparent willingness of some posters here to write blank cheques protecting all religious beliefs provides a chilling insight into how imagined dystopias like the world im Margaret Attwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale might come about. Creating excuses for religions that abuse and limit the lives of women is not feminism.

It’s so sad to see people attempting to defend the indefensible because somebody they don’t like has made a reasonable point.

If a woman who was a victim of the scientology cult requested female-only medical care; partly as a result of the trauma she suffered, and partly because pretty much any human has at least some need for privacy from the other sex; should she be allowed to have it (subject to resources) or should she be refused treatment on the grounds that the hospital disagreed with her views?

I’ve just read the whole thread and I hope this is something many women stumble onto. It’s a real eye opener.
The position of females not being allowed female only care because it upsets some males is horrendous but the racism and misogyny used to back this assertion is something else.
I’d actually like to thank @landOFconfusion because you make it so easy to see which side stands for what. You cut through all the feelings of discomfort created by a lifetime of “be kind” and “prioritise male feelings”.

It boils down to:

“Women, fuck off and let the men get on with what they want. Religious women, fuck off even more.”

You are going to peak so many women, @landOFconfusion . Thank you.

It's almost as if they hate women isn't it BorgQueen? So ironic.

The TRA ploppers are doing exactly the same thing on threads like this that ‘Steph’ (of Steph’s place) has done on twitter today, trolling and goading Women to try and put us in our place and also because they can.

You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the arse.

It's a deep rooted contempt of and hatred for women that always rises to the surface.

Yep.

It cannot be twisted away. It is right there and easy to see by everyone despite others thinking it is not there at all.

Plus ca change.

It is if you cannot believe that females have the right to practice a legal religious belief of their choice, and if they do, their needs are to be dismissed and not supported.

They always out themselves - not just by the sneering or bad faith posts or inability to follow an argument or desperate derailing. It's a deep rooted contempt of and hatred for women that always rises to the surface.

It is definitely a belief of entitlement and superiority that females may only have prescribed beliefs or be forced into Better Ways by Better People.

Hi General Custer!

I may not agree with what you believe. (I really, really don't agree.) The fundamental difference is believing that I don't have some highly weird and creepy right to control you and make you Be Like Me. I can respect you having autonomy and engaging in whatever beliefs you want, you do you.

I like shpadoinkle.

I've just seen the phrase 'flinging shit about like a demented chimp' on another thread and that has to be a high contender too.

Oops.

Too much multi tasking

It is if you cannot believe that females have the right to practice a legal religious belief of their choice, and if they do, their needs are to be dismissed and not supported.

I vote “shpadoinkle”

If you are religious, you are not a feminist.

It is even more bizarre.

It is if you believe that females have the right to practice a legal religious belief of their choice, their needs are to be dismissed and not supported.

Because feminism!

It is quite clear that some posters who post here are not even trying to be feminists while vilifying feminists.

Misogyny is hard to disguise isn't it.

I'm not having it anymore. This case has tipped me over the edge. What a load of absolute bollocks TRAs like @landOFconfusion spout. It's nasty, racist, misogynist bollocks. I bet your mum is so ashamed of you.

The argument from certain posters has now just become baffling. The bizarre train of thought seems to be running like this -

Women should not be allowed to request single sex intimate care.

If the woman who is making the request is doing so because of her religious beliefs, the request shouldn't be considered because 'religion bad'.

If you are religious, you are not a feminist.

Scientology.

Interspersed with deeply cringy phrases like 'go outside and touch some grass'.

I notice that the word 'sophism' though has been picked up and parroted back by the Twitterati

What new word shall we teach them this week while we make the bets on how long it takes to be parroted back?

I'm putting forward 'supercilious'. I don't think we've modelled that one yet.

I see we're still not engaging with the actual debate, just playing Poke The Females. While supporting male supremacism.

You do you, mate.

No. Facts are not dangerous things.

tbf in some parts of the world which no doubt include the land of confusion, facts are literal violence. Facts are killing people left, right and centre, by some accounts. No wonder certain posters steer well clear of them, like sheep avoiding an electric fence.

By the way, just because you post on a feminist board, doesn't make you a feminist.

Fact.

If you call your statement a 'fact', it doesn't become a 'fact', a relevant 'fact' or even a relevant 'statement of opinion' for the topic you are posting on.

Fact.

I suspect no 'lady brain' involved in creation of whatever it is you believe was a relevant fact.

HTH. Go touch grass or whatever it was that you said.

Like the religious belief that the male who goes by the name "Sharon" has some kind of inner womanly essence that means that they should be fine to provide intimate care on a female patient despite that patient having requested care from female staff only.

Ah. Scientology.

A belief system it’s notoriously easy to leave.

anyway, what does our Lady Scientologist do if she won’t leave and she needs intimate care? I don’t agree with her beliefs, Heck, I don’t agree with most religious beliefs, as I’m basically about The Church of the Sub Genius- what do these women, whose views you don’t respect or like do?