Hospital refuses to operate after woman requests all-female care

there is another transwoman working in a secure women only mental health unit in Sussex whose name escapes me.

Rachel Dios, who was on a panel about "sexual safety" on locked mental health wards.

No matter how much you're paying, I can't see a surgeon at a private hospital doing a bed bath, or helping a patient to undress to use the toilet at 3am.

I saw a post from a woman on Twitter who said that her husband retrained as a nurse the moment he transitioned.

And as well as Mridul Wadhwa at Edinburgh Rape Crisis who is legally male and pursued a change in career to work specifically with women who are survivors of male sexual violence, there is another transwoman working in a secure women only mental health unit in Sussex whose name escapes me.

I don't believe these are coincidences.

Like hell no-one would know - if that was the case there would be none of this pronoun nonsense.

Even on this thread people's experience varies widely.

And it may well be different with private health. I had the same surgeon both privately and on the NHS on separate occasions. He was vastly more attentive and friendly when I was paying for his time.

Unsurprisingly.

Superb and so on point as ever @Datun, THIS is what going along with ideology MEANS, all the TWAW chanters and BeKinders this is what you are supporting.

Absolutely not my experience at the Princess Grace hospital - more 1 on 1 contact with tbe surgeon than any other member of tbe healthcare team

"A patient hardly sees their surgeon."

This is correct.

I had a minor op once. In the operating room you won't see the surgeon at all, it will just be the anaesthetist and a nurse. The surgeon will enter after you have gone to sleep, and when you wake up it will be in the recovery room.
You will see them in the waiting area before the op and maybe after, which is a large area with lots of other patients and staff.

This is the clearest, most concise way I have seen to describe the behaviour of the unknown member of staff who just happened to barge into a room with a closed door on a colleague doing pre-operation assessment checks, and then made eye-contact with the patient instead of retreating as discreetly as possible.

Right up to the point where this individual even acknowledges that the women the individual is examining may not even realise they're a male.

I can't believe they even wrote it down. They are so wrapped up in their own weirdness and validation, they don't even see these women as human beings.

Women are just props and extras, as the much missed AngryAttackKittens once put it, in "The Amazing Story of Me".

I think both parties could have handled it better. The legalese letters were probably a red flag to the hospital but they shouldn't have cancelled the operation without speaking to the patient. I presume their lack of willingness to do so was the desire to have it documented in writing, rather than over the phone.

Why would they want to have it documented in writing that they were breaking the law?

They said:
"We do not share your beliefs and are not able to adhere to your requests and we have therefore decided we will not proceed with your surgery."

This is clearly discrimination on the grounds of belief.

Yes. It's never about how many women will provide validation, it's about targeting those who won't.

They said no because they dont hold the same values. Or the patient does wrongthink. Not because they couldn't provide for her, because they dont like her thoughts/beliefs call it what you will.

If they said no because we cant guarantee women (cunty type) then se wouldnt be here.

She told her the hospital 'did not share her beliefs' and she should make alternative arrangements for her surgery.

This is beyond a disgrace.

A lot of my patients were quite conservative — many female patients wore long clothes, or the hijab — but they allowed me to examine them despite my change.

christ. See a boundary, walk straight through it, and then celebrate that afterwards

Ugh. Who the fuck wants to imagine their doctor crying tears of joy because they've been allowed to examine them intimately.

It's like a fucking porn film.

Right up to the point where this individual even acknowledges that the women the individual is examining may not even realise they're a male.

I can't believe they even wrote it down. They are so wrapped up in their own weirdness and validation, they don't even see these women as human beings.

Re: the questionnaire, I don't think she was saying she'd refuse to use other people's preferred pronouns, was she, just that she wouldn't use them for herself or engage with questions that used the word 'gender' incorrectly?
I wonder if the questionnaire was supposed to be confidential, as they often are?
Any time I get asked to fill in a form and there's a question like 'what's your gender: male/female/prefer not to say', I write (if possible) 'My sex is female'. I do so assuming that it won't have any consequences for me, medical or otherwise, but now I have to wonder about that.

I think the real issue here is a person (whatever their sex/gender/appearance) coming into an exam room without permission and leaving a patient exposed to an open corridor.
I find it interesting, in light of this, that the hospital thought it appropriate/wise to put down in writing that they were cancelling her surgery on the basis of not sharing her beliefs.
I will watch developments with great interest. I think they've messed with the wrong person.

It's complicated for everyone so they've just said 'no'.

They specifically said it was against their "values". That's why they said they had cancelled it.

Ah thank you, my apologies, Morton and not Whittle. My mistake. I may be thinking of Whittle referring to Morton's words.

Situations that, by their very nature, unequivocally exclude men, are the places that are most targeted. Because if you force women to accept the pretence that TWAW in those places, everywhere else falls into line.

S Whittle, TM and one of the foremost leaders and maneuverers in the planned destruction of women's rights has put this on record as having been an intentional, planned strategy in achieving said destruction.

This is what James Morton, one of the people responsible for the Scottish prison transgender policy said:

We strategized that by working intensively with the Scottish Prison Service to support them to include trans women as women on a self-declaration basis within very challenging circumstances, we would be able to ensure that all other public services should be able to do likewise.

www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/opaque-and-overdue-scottish-prison-service-trans-prisoner-policy-review

After the positive experience on my first day back to work, I remembered having tears in my eyes during my drive home. I was overwhelmed with emotions, and they were tears of happiness. I could not recall the last time I felt this happy.

And now we see the creeping boundaries move from 'it's a wonderful experience for me when a female patient provides me with this validation by permitting access to her body and accepts me as a woman and not a male' to 'female patients who do not consent to provide this to me must be punished and refused healthcare'.

Kamilla Kamarrudin.

it was my patients who took me by surprise the most. No one was hostile towards me. Some thought I was the wife of Dr Kamaruddin, me, their doctor, and a lot of them thought that I was a new GP. The new patients did not ask any questions at all because they either thought I was a female GP or it did not bother them at all that I was a transgender doctor.

A lot of my patients were quite conservative — many female patients wore long clothes, or the hijab — but they allowed me to examine them despite my change. In fact, after my transition, they even allowed me to perform more intimate examinations that they did not let me to do when I was a male GP. Every single one of them refused my offer of a chaperone even when they knew that I am transgender. After the positive experience on my first day back to work, I remembered having tears in my eyes during my drive home. I was overwhelmed with emotions, and they were tears of happiness. I could not recall the last time I felt this happy.

bjgp.org/content/67/660/313

Yes, if complicated was a valid reason for cancelling an operation where would that leave people with disabilities, religious requirements…anything that might need extra thought?

Not to mention that TQ+ people and their often highly individualised situations would be top of the list in 'complicated'.

Are we talking about complicated situations or just females who won't validate males?

Situations that, by their very nature, unequivocally exclude men, are the places that are most targeted. Because if you force women to accept the pretence that TWAW in those places, everywhere else falls into line.

S Whittle, TM and one of the foremost leaders and maneuverers in the planned destruction of women's rights has put this on record as having been an intentional, planned strategy in achieving said destruction.

Males are welcome to enact their beliefs and chosen identities.
Females are welcome to participate if they choose to.
Females are equally entitled to refuse consent to participate.

That we are now very seriously coercing and consequencing women for not consenting to enable males is absolutely indefensible. It's appalling.

Yes, if complicated was a valid reason for cancelling an operation where would that leave people with disabilities, religious requirements…anything that might need extra thought?

A lot of this ties in with the cotton ceiling and also some of the issues with "sex by deception" and whether a (trans) person should disclose their trust sex to an intimate partner.

I think there have been some court cases around this and it is an ongoing topic of discussion.