Hospital refuses to operate after woman requests all-female care

Now that PGH is in the news, I have come across a woman whose clitoris was crushed during an operation on her hip at PGH. The surgeon and hospital say it was a risk she consented to take. She says no-one ever said the loss.of sexual function was a possibility, and she would not have had the procedure if she'd known.

twitter thread

The patient’s distress at potentially having her body handled by a man is dismissed in favour of his supposed “right” to handle her. Why would a man be distressed by a female sexual violence survivor saying no to him? Wouldn’t any reasonable man try to understand this? Of course, he would, but transgender activists and the men they enable are not reasonable or honourable men.

That. In a nutshell. Bloody well said, Jean.

There is a really good article by Jean Hatchet in The Critic which sums up how I feel about this:

"The terrible realisation women need to face as a result of this case is that we are now in a world where large institutions, healthcare providers and others including our politicians, believe that men are now women and have the right to touch your body or allow you to die if you won’t let them.

Over my dead body."

thecritic.co.uk/over-my-dead-body/#

There is and never had been a need for spaces separated according to gender identity. If there was, we would need much more than 2 options.

There had been and remains need for sex segregated spaces.

People's sex is recognised at birth in every single case except very rare DSDs which are irrelevant to the trans arguments. People do not change sex.

Because, in one aspect this is like sport. In that the whole country will agree.

Not so much of a sport for those of us currently receiving treatment at PG though.

We can't fuck this one up. This needs to be the court case that nails the hospital to the wall and costs them millions, so everyone knows this can't happen again. I'm ready with my spade.

Same. I've got a truckload of spades reserved just for this.

Because, in one aspect this is like sport. In that the whole country will agree.

Enough people go into hospital, enough women, to be outraged that you can be told they will do their best to provide female care, but that could easily mean males who demand to be included in that.

Oh dear, my irony meter just exploded.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes
Montgomerie is either totally ingenuous or as thick as mince to not see the irony in what Montgomerie is saying.
Or perhaps both.
I guess though that as a male Montgomerie is used to seeing Montgomerie’s views and rights take precedence and isn’t used to having to consider others.

FFS even their apology is naval gazing fucking misogyny. I could not give a flying fuck what the health staff's fucking gender was. I don't have a gender identity so there's nothing a male can identify as which in any way aligns them with me more than every other walking talking man. People want same sex care FFS. Most people don't give a shit what someone's 'gender identity' is when it comes to healthcare, any more than they care about the rest of their fucking identities. They are so seeped in hatred for women they can't even see it. Not fit to be in any position of any power IMHO.

Montgomerie's twitter timeline is the strongest evidence yet that it is impossible to die of irony poisoning.

... who says... actually types out these words in some attempt to pretend they believe them... "you can believe what you want but don't start forcing it on others"... ?

If someone told Montgomerie this would it be highly offensive?

I don't think we've mentioned Clare Dimyon's experiences yet in this thread - but there are definitely parallels.

Clare has an MBE for services to promoting the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. She is a sexual abuse survivor.

Over three years ago she asked her NHS hospital (in Brighton) if she could have a female HCP doing her mammogram.

www.brightonandhovenews.org/2019/12/09/hospital-apologises-to-rape-victim-for-branding-her-request-for-same-sex-breast-screening-medic-as-transphobic/

Guess what happened? Did they say 'we'll see what we can do'?

Or did they publish her letter - private patient correspondence - within the NHS as an example of transphobia?

Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust published its new trans policy – and included the letter as an example of “highly discriminatory” correspondence from patients which should be referred to the hospital’s equality diversity and inclusion team.

Both her details and the fact that the letter was written in connection with an intimate procedure had been edited out.

I saw one religious woman post that realistically, she didn't think other men of her faith were going to keep part of their place of worship female-only. She thought that the way they'd balance the requirements of their faith and UK law would just be to mandate that women prayed at home and did not leave the house.

These trans activists claim to identify as women. They don't identify with women who see their worlds being made smaller and smaller.

Over the years, the other side have NOT come up with any way of allowing women of faith to be full members of society. These days they have an answer: it is that women should leave their religions, or just that those religions are wrong. I haven't seen one of them show the slightest concern about these women.

Very well said.

For a female to leave her religion -

well first she is supposed to abandon her entire history, internal life, values, beliefs and way of thinking on the spot because someone with quite fantastic arrogance who feels that they are morally superior told her to

(If all your friends jumped off a cliff would you jump too?)

Anyone reminded yet of the Native Americans, indigenous people world wide, colonisation, the apologies still being made by someone with power, from a more powerful group, who arrived and said "you poor heathens have it all wrong, stop your life right now and live it in the same way I do as I tell you, or I shall make things difficult"

Then you get into the absolute naivety to what this means to women in real terms.

I mean if you knew anything at all and gave a toss about women in these situations you'd know:

This is looking to separate a woman from her family
friends
community
networks

Where is she supposed to go? Or to live?

What are the realities for a woman living in a strongly traditional family where this could lead to her losing her children? Being harmed? I've had friends and colleagues who were strongly supervised by male relatives who expected to know where they were at all times, who with, what for, and I saw what happened to them when they got out of line.

This is the reality for some women living in the UK.

It's so easy to toss out 'oh they should leave and go to a refuge' (yeah these are the women who won't now, or approach the groups, because they're full of males living their best lives) or 'they should leave their religions and beliefs and convert to mine ' - it's let them eat caking at its finest.

Helping these women is going to take decades , the strategies in place that were helping were things like female only groups. Spaces. Swims. Ways for these females to get into spaces where they were allowed to talk and be safe and to learn about their options. TQ+ politics, childish self centredness at its worst, has hurled this back into the dark ages, because those groups have been commandeered to provide validation for male people to bathe in. And those male people have no fucks to give about the harm they did to the females who actually needed them.

It's the lazy, naive bullshit of someone who likes the feelz of saying they're a socialist left person full of love and inclusive values, but is kidding themselves. Big time. While causing a fuckton of harm.

Here's transwoman Montgomerie gaining the courage to push women of faith out of public life.

😐Thanks for that. I'll keep my eyes out.

Exactly. They can, of course, provide female only care and used to do so. They are not prepared to state in writing that this will exclude transwomen in that pool of human resource. I am convinced this will have been in the advice of SW Champions Scheme and also trans staff. Their rights of course excluding anyone who has good reason to be scared of men including those who ID as women.

Some of us have been pointing out for YEARS that allowing males into previously all-female environments (swimming pool sessions, toilets, changing rooms, etc) would prevent women of certain faiths from being able to fully participate in society.

We asked how the opposing side (those gleefully trampling on women's rights) would deal with that. I found it was the quickest way to get rid of whoever was arguing for male inclusion, because they had no answer. So I asked the question often, for that reason & because I care that all people should be able to participate in society. I was genuinely asking the other side to consider this question & come up with changes to their rigid, 'trans-trumps-all' stance.

Over the years, the other side have NOT come up with any way of allowing women of faith to be full members of society. These days they have an answer: it is that women should leave their religions, or just that those religions are wrong. I haven't seen one of them show the slightest concern about these women. This is an appalling stance & to me it's inhuman, faced as we now are with solid evidence that what we warned of has taken place: that some women self-exclude because of male intrusion in their previously all-female spaces.

Of course, this self-exclusion also happens for other women & for various reasons, but it's starkest for women of faith & I feel that by fighting for them we have the most irrefutable argument & at the same time we're showing them support & solidarity.

Yes to all of these comments! It is hugely telling that religion/religious belief which men share with women has become women’s only safe ground! I say this as a religious woman- if only women believed, it would not be a protected characteristic. That is why believing in our biological reality is not perceived as a protected characteristic (even if it is legally). I think Andrea Dworkin wrote words to the effect that every generation of women has to remind men of the need for safeguarding that arises out of male physical dominance and the epidemic of violence that ensues.

Not ranting at you Zelda I am so bloody angry now.

Safeguarding nightmares, women denied urgent and serious surgery and for what?

So male people never encounter the word no.

A more tolerant society would mean providing additional resources for TQ+ people.

There is nothing tolerant about removing female people's spaces, access, equality, rights and language in order to sacrifice it ceremonially on the altar of TQ+ political demands.

That isn't tolerance at all.

Telling women that they must bend over backwards to prevent offense or distress to a male person - which in reality means not saying no to them or expecting them to respect your boundaries - while expecting them to abandon their faith, culture, beliefs, reality, language, privacy, dignity - it's not like the male person they are supposed to be mummying plans to do anything in reciprocation is it?

People of Sherwood, you've been had .

The only media coverage is usually from deranged, unhinged conservatives banging on about transgender people in bathrooms.

Personally, left me completely cold - never listen to hateful right-wingers + don't really interact with trans people in real life or anyone in the toilets anyway really + didn't want to be a TERF (clearly akin to racist, bigot, homophobe, etc)

Lia Thomas did it for me! So obviously unfair, misogynistic and ridiculous. From there, I went to Maya Forstater, Kathleen Stock and started to see a pattern. And bathrooms are just the start of the slippery slope - we need to address this as a society if a more tolerant society means more trans people in conflict with gender/sex separate spaces.

Yes indeed.
And I'm far from religious but the irony just slaps one in the face.
Hasn't it come to something when instead of our taken for granted rights, we now have to use patriarchal religions to get back what has always been ours.
Yes I know it was only ever ours while it suited men, and now it no longer suits men we lose it.

We really should be angry, blisteringly angry that men can take away any damn thing from us. Why are more women not realising? Why have so many of us been shouting into the void since year dot? Yeah yeah I know trained from the womb to be kiiiiiind.

This, with bells on.

I don't particularly like any of the major religions, because they are all used to oppress women, so I am an unpleasant, judgemental atheist. However, the answer to "what do we do about religion x oppressing women?" has never been to push its female adherents out of public life and to claim it's for their own good.

That is what we are seeing right now, and it is disgusting.

I don't understand your reasoning. Did you even read it? Let's take some sentences from paragraph 5:

Her female relative had female only nursing after her surgery but she wanted a written guarantee for herself.

Right there, that's someone receiving female-only care. They can provide female-only care! Their former clientele aren't leaving because PGH employs male employees- they're leaving because they no longer trust PGH to be honest which employees are male!