Hospital refuses to operate after woman requests all-female care

That is the argument that will be leveraged to destroy those women's access. Right there.

That the religions are oppressive, restrictive, patriarchal.

Therefore they should not be supported or permitted to affect women.

Therefore women who choose to stick to those religions....

should be made to let male people have full and unhindered access to them or lose the service.

Please see also:

reframe your trauma for females with PTSD and who are survivors of assault and abuse specifically related to removing their boundaries from male people

and 'learn to cope' and 'get over your genital prejudices' for females who wish to be left to be homosexual in peace and have boundaries from male people.

We are terribly terribly good at oh so very sweetly and reasonably linguistically mugging the rights of females. We can make it sound so reasonable, so right, so modern, so lovely. You'd hardly think it was destroying other people's rights at all.

How ironic that the world religions most seen as oppressive and restrictive to women are now the best hope for respect.

We are also told we don’t need a specific law to protect women’s and girl’s rights for female caring staff.

Because we are told we already have the right to decline any health care professional’s services on any grounds.

Just like women have come to the thread to tell other women this isn't really a problem because the issue was the practicalities and not the staringly obvious in writing declaration of prejudice and exclusion on grounds of belief.

It's the mix of ignorance, naivety, misinformation and downright gaslighting that has been so successful to the agenda bent on destroying women's rights so far. It has leveraged and made very good use of women's values of trying not to judge, to be open minded, to be reasonable, to be kind, to see the whole picture - all positive values. Which are seen as nothing but weakness in the way that a con artist delights in seeing someone innocent. We don't have a lot of time left to wake up.

Well it's appeared a number of times on FWR threads from those supporting TQ+ politics, look for threads where the subject will lead to females trying to argue for inclusive and accessible provisions. Lily Madigan was the name of the women's officer who went on the record on social media that religion and faith should be abandoned; plenty of screenshots on record of their work and statements during their time in post.

But mostly read the articles and the statements that come out from people like Stonewall and the big influential names with your eye in for why 'faith' is a word slipping in more and more. It's an identified target in that it's been noted as something a female may be able to get protected in court to be able to hold boundaries and have needs met that some male people would really like to be able to control and prevent.

So the hospital does not - in fact - provide single sex care services to its female clients?

Just a reminder. We are also told we don’t need a specific law to protect women’s and girl’s rights for female caring staff.

Because we are told we already have the right to decline any health care professional’s services on any grounds.

This case shows the cracks in this rhetoric when applied. It doesn’t work. With the huge numbers, and rising, of women and girls with trauma resulting from male violence, rape and sex abuse and the move to gas light women and girls that males are females, this needs to be properly sorted and fast.

The sunlight is shining directly through the cracks, showing that to be another empty mantra.

I think a lot of women are already feeling terrified of having to go into hospital or a care situation because of the potential lack of female-only care. It's bad enough being so vulnerable and having to depend on female carers. But the thought that a male could be giving intimate care to you against your will is violating and traumatising.

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.

landOFconfusion

So the hospital does not - in fact - provide single sex care services to its female clients?

Despite all of the repeated claims in this thread that it can and does?

That is what you got from that thread?

That is splitting hairs.

How about ‘it (still) can but (no longer) does?

That would be a more honest parsing of that thread.

Once again the truth becomes a casualty of dishonest argument.

Seems like projection to me.

Oh dear. Once again the truth becomes a casualty of dishonest argument

how on earth are you managing to misread that link

honestly…if we play lets pretend again, do you believe that IF that article said what you seem to to think it said that potholes would have linked to it 😳

I’m pretty confident that I would get female only intimate care if I said that as a Muslim woman I wanted that. That’s been my reality for the last 40 years both in the NHS and private sector. Certainly I wouldn’t receive guarantees that everyone I came across was only female. But based on what’s happened to this woman if she’d asked for female only intimate care she may well have been refused BECAUSE HER REASON FOR ASKING WAS THAT SHE IS GENDER CRITICAL. That’s the part you are missing. @landOFconfusion

So the hospital does not - in fact - provide single sex care services to its female clients?

Despite all of the repeated claims in this thread that it can and does?

Oh dear. Once again the truth becomes a casualty of dishonest argument.

@nilsmousehammer sorry to be dumb but I haven't seen any of these faith based sex exceptions being attacked. Can you point me to where I should be looking?

It's really weird that people are getting hung up on what constitutes a reasonable request, when it's the unreasonableness and discriminatory motive for cancelling that's the problem.

This.
This is the point. It’s not about what she asked for. It’s not about whether what she asked for is reasonable.

The CEO of the hospital explicitly states, in writing, that they are cancelling the procedure because they do not share her beliefs.

That’s it.

The question is not ‘Is this request so unreasonable as to be an appropriate reason to cancel a procedure?’
But ‘Can a hospital (in this case a private business) discriminate against someone for holding a protected belief?’
If we change that belief from Gender Critical to Christian it is stark staringly obvious how wrong they are: ‘ Can we refuse to treat this person because they’re Christian?’ No

I really don’t see what’s so hard to understand here. It’s not what she asked for, it’s the reason why they cancelled the procedure- which they admitted!!

/Rant over.

if a patient asks for something you cannot provide you have to cancel the procedure because otherwise their consent is invalid.

I’m still catching up but had to comment now to say that is not correct. Consenting for a procedure/intervention is about explicit consent to that procedure. It’s not about the hospital saying they can only provide X or Y and if the patient doesn’t agree they can’t have the procedure. It is a dialogue in which the patient and doctor discuss the intervention planned, the possible complications and ideally the rate at which those complications happen. They will also discuss and ask for specific consent for potential serious complications during the procedure in which the surgeon may need to make a decision about what to do during the procedure. It is therefore common for consent forms to say x procedure and in the event of y complication z procedure may need to be undertaken. The patient should have time for questions and hopefully at the end will sign the consent form to say they want to go ahead.

At no point is there a discussion about the circumstances outside the procedure and immediate after care (such as needing to be catheterised, post op analgesia, ITU care).

Faith and culture aren't acceptable reasons for females to present boundaries to male wishes either.

I think it was a TW Labour women's officer who announced that if a woman's culture or belief meant they had sex based boundaries it was their fault for following the faith and they needed to abandon it (and presumably their families and friends and social circle as you do overnight) in order to be able to enable male people freely.

Also note the increasing focus on faith from the political lobby: they have spied it as a barrier protecting females and thwarting male total freedom, and are gunning for it.

There is not one of the eight other protected characteristics respected or valued - as indeed anyone born female is not respected and valued. Unless of course they are wholly centred on furthering the freedoms and nurturing of male wishes.

Which will mean increasing numbers of females from vulnerable populations will just not put themselves in harms way and stop presenting for health care. It will have become inaccessible to them.

My mother would have jeopardised her health and self-discharge rather than have a male member of staff do anything more personal than put a cast on her arm. She would wait for a female member of staff to do it. Which was fine back then, because no-one would ever have dreamed of gaslighting her over a staff-member's sex, and she was told when a female worker was available.

But in today's environment, if she was unfortunate enough to be lied to, as the recommendations in that Annex B NHS document suggested, she simply would have refused to engage with health care again. Unless the pain got to a level she couldn't ignore.

The contempt for women and their reality is so strong, that if I said as a Muslim woman that I wanted single sex care due to religious restrictions I think they would try to accommodate me. But if a woman has suffered sexual trauma and requires single sex care her views are considered irrational/bigoted/hysterical etc.

What is the purpose of typing so much nonsense?

What do they even think they’re accomplishing? What cause or goal are they advancing? Do they believe they’re persuading anyone of anything - if so who, and what? Is it argument for argument’s sake?

this thread is a very strange reading experience.

Privacy and consent are becoming the province of females wealthy enough to afford it.

yes it is rather stark when you see it, isn’t it ?

Well now @PurgatoryOfPotholes , isn't that the most interesting Twitter thread you've posted there.

How long will any institution, a hospital anything else, keep up their TWAW nonsense when financial reality bites?

This is shocking in a number of ways, but evidences two things that really upset me:

Muslim women are disappearing from health care because of this need of males to never encounter boundaries from females

Privacy and consent are becoming the province of females wealthy enough to afford it.

Which will leave the rest of the female population two options - have no boundaries, males do whatever they fuck they want and you'd better shut up and smile, or if you're not lucky enough to be able to cope with that? You get no health care. You may get however police threats (and Starmer's talking about making it a lot worse than that) if you dare to say anything. Or if you turn up, find you're faced with an untenable situation and try to refuse. Which will mean increasing numbers of females from vulnerable populations will just not put themselves in harms way and stop presenting for health care. It will have become inaccessible to them.

What do all the lovely, kind, leftie socialist inclusive diversity badge wearing champions of the poor think of that?

😀

More than that, she was incredibly apologetic, as well! It didn't even feel as if I was obliged to say "yes, of course he can come in".

And in the NHS you kind of expect 72 different trades needing to come in because, well, NHS and underfunding.
Private hospitals not so much.

thread from twitter

As we wait for news about the female patient who was discriminated against by Princes Grace Hospital for asking for female post-of nursing care, we've been wondering whether the rules are different for Muslim female patients. I just spoke in confidence with someone who knows
🧵

PGH is a private London hospital and as such, they get quite a few Female patients from wealthy Middle Eastern countries. However, this hospital refuses to give a written guarantee that female patients who have longer stay will receive female-only intimate care they asked for.

The very wealthy patients bring their own personal care assistants and nurses hired in as extra - ostensibly for confidentiality but really to guarantee female only care.
The less wealthy now go to other countries because since the GRA they don’t trust what "female only" means.

TWAW ideology at the hospital has driven much of their "Gulf business" away. A while ago, a wealthy Muslim female patient had surgery in Cairo. When asked why she left London and it’s fancy clinics, she said because PGH wouldn’t put in writing guarantee of female only care.

PGH said they would only aim for it and compromise via chaperone if time dependent. Her female relative had female only nursing after her surgery but she wanted a written guarantee for herself.

Several other female family members travel to Beirut and to UAE to get actual female only guarantees for intimate care. None of these women believe that men who have F on their documents become female.

Previously, as many as 50% of the PGH patients were Arab (from Gulf or London). Now it's less that 20%. Although NHS work could account for some of this, it is felt that the GRA has significantly contributed to the reason wealthy Muslim women self-exclude from this establishment.

twitter thread

Proper lolled, scared the poor dog sat next to me.
Thank fuck we still have humour.