Hospital refuses to operate after woman requests all-female care

@containsnuts complicated shouldn't mean cancelling an operation. You'd think someone would have the brains to work something out. Sounds very much like this lady was discriminated against on the basis she didn't agree with all the pronouns and gender bollocks that is currently floating about. And for good reason too. Mixed areas where people are extremely vulnerable are a risk to females.

I'm afraid we are kidding ourselves that intimate access and difference in trust is not a sought after, desired experience by some transitioners in healthcare, so it is hardly surprising that pressure to provide it and now flat out coercion to provide it, has become part of the burden of being born biologically female.

This.

The trans political lobby are quite upfront about what TWAW means. It means in all and every circumstance.

And their intention to implement 'strategic litigation' to set precedent for this, is well documented.

What that means for women, is that a man, any man, every man, any predator and all predators, wield the utmost power over any and all women, particularly when they are at their most vulnerable.

Look where all this is playing out.

Rape refuges, prisons where the women can't escape, sport which relies on physical prowess, changing rooms where women disrobe, places that support midwifery, breastfeeding, miscarriage, etc.

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.

And now the very intimate care of a woman made vulnerable, if not helpless, by her surgery.

It appears to me that the woman was not even making a political point. She went out of her way to say her husband's firm is a stonewall champion.

She merely does not believe in the ideology, and was frightened by what could have easily been a deliberate attempt to intimidate her.

Fucking hell, her surgery was treating a life-threatening condition, involving a bloody robot, for God sake, and a team of top-notch specialists. She would've been beside herself with worry anyway.

I hope she nails them to the wall.

It's not difficult. You tell the patient, we will do our best to accommodate your request but in a life-saving emergency it may not be possible.

Of course they know fine well who their staff are.

It’s not complicated at all, the hospital can say ‘we’ll do our best, we might not be able to guarantee it in an emergency or where patient safety is compromised.’

I'm not. I've said throughout that she has the right to express her views in whatever way she wants. As she did.

Yes, and you add that given how she expressed these views, she is at least partly responsible for the hospital discriminating against her. That if she'd been nicer, maybe they would have been nicer too. That's victim blaming. You keep doubling down on it.

Try reading either the article, the emails, or this thread.

The hospital discriminated against her - they sent her an email stating that they wouldn't operate because of (what they assume to be) her beliefs.

There is that quote somewhere from a TW GP in an interview where they were explaining how prior to transition some of their female patients would not permit an intimate exam. And how after transition some of them now will permit the GP to have that intimate contact and trust with their body and how very lovely that feels to the GP.

This person made a point of saying how they were Muslim women.

Oh for pete's sake.

This patient requests only biologically female nursing care and staff unless negotiated with her before hand.

You put that on the notes, you explain it at hand over. Anyone not biologically female then continuing to put themselves forward to treat this patient is intentionally deceiving and breaching consent. And I don't care about that being 'outing', that member of staff has chosen to go into a field of work in which their sex will matter to some patients, and where they have a duty of care, it is not all about them.

This whole 'you'll never know' is a lot of bollocks: the reason it came about was because this patient encountered a male member of staff presenting as female, and this is why the hospital have punished her. For wanting her medical care to meet her needs, and not for her body and care to be used to meet a member of staff's needs.

But the people organising might not know that a staff member is trans or that they identify in a particular way that goes against the wishes of the patient then what do they do when the patient is already in ICU? Go against their consent? Leave them to die? It's complicated for everyone so they've just said 'no'.

Yes, you ARE victim-blaming, @red4321 . You're saying she should have used a nicer tone and then maybe she might not have been punished.

I'm not. I've said throughout that she has the right to express her views in whatever way she wants. As she did.

Do I think a different approach might have resulted in a different outcome? Possibly. Her consultant should also have been more actively engaged on her behalf given that he's the conduit between the patient and hospital.

The only positive outcome here was that she (a) had her surgery and (b) felt safe with the appropriate provision of medical staff after her surgery. Unfortunately that hasn't happened, at the expense of her health.

Some truly excellent replies from Datun.

The salient point here is that the hospital broke the law, very clearly. In fact, they actually wrote a letter detailing the precise way in which they were breaking the law, much as Nottingham City Council did with Julie Bindel. We should perhaps be grateful that they are that stupid.

But the other salient point - and I think this is really important to remember - is that the belief they found so offensive is an entirely rational and sensible one. The woman wasn't a racist or a homophobe - though of course even if she was, they still shouldn't have denied her treatment. The belief she held that the hospital found so offensive was that men can't be women. That it's not possible to change sex. The view they are defending - that a man can be a woman if he says he is - is insane. Literally insane. When we debate the limits of freedom of speech and clash of rights and so on, don't let's lose sight of that.

There is that quote somewhere from a TW GP in an interview where they were explaining how prior to transition some of their female patients would not permit an intimate exam. And how after transition some of them now will permit the GP to have that intimate contact and trust with their body and how very lovely that feels to the GP.

I'm afraid we are kidding ourselves that intimate access and difference in trust is not a sought after, desired experience by some transitioners in healthcare, so it is hardly surprising that pressure to provide it and now flat out coercion to provide it, has become part of the burden of being born biologically female.

That a male transitioned person does not want to hear 'no' or encounter a female person's lack of belief in their difference to another biological male is not a reason to coerce her either into consenting to something she is not willing to, or refusing her care. Which in this case, is likely to mean she now has to have a much greater and riskier surgery or may even be life threatening.

This is being done to a female in order to protect a male person's ego .

That was to containsnuts, the thread is moving quick!

This, exactly.

Have you read the thread? It isn't about her being a silly woman and expecting all people involved to be female. She requested female staff for her intimate care after the op. She was supposed to have complex colorectal surgery (possibly due to her sexual assault) so she likely needed someone to clean her after defecating. That personcould easily be a female. For clarity she said she did not want a man who says he is a female. That should be perfectly reasonable request. However the gender identity ideology does not allow for this. Men's needs are put above women to ensure the ideology can have ultimate power and control.
She was refused surgery because she did not believe in gender identity ideology.

I can just imagine how well "I'd like to have aftercare only done by cunty type people" would go down in an email to anyone let alone a hospital, sent by a lawyer too.

I love the idea of letters to hospitals demanding care from "cunty" type people. We could then have a highly entertaining legal argument regarding what is meant by that and that the patient wasn't requesting surly care from mean women! But I'm feeling pretty grumpy today thanks to very poor sleep and the fact that my DH used all the hot water in his shower last night so I couldn't have a shower this morning as the water was freezing. Im trying hard not to do or say anything that might justifiably attract accusations of being the wrong sort of C word woman!

I just keep coming back to a hospital proudly announcing that protecting their staff from "unacceptable distress" is more important than life-saving care for a patient.

Especially when the distress they're talking about is (hypothetically) everyone having to temporarily suspend the pretence that they believe that someone in the workplace is the opposite sex to the one they are in reality, and take that into account when allocating work. Or possibly the distress of knowing that there's a patient in the building who believes the Wrong Things (and having to accept they can't barge into any room they like for funsies, though that ought to be the case anyway!).

I've never worked in a hospital. I suspect that staff are exposed to quite distressing experiences all the time, including being abused and assaulted by patients. And of course employers should do all they can to minimise that. But in other circumstances I imagine cancelling an operation to protect staff would only happen in circumstances of direct harassment or assault?

No, that is not why they have refused her surgery.

They have not said they cannot meet her need for female only nursing, they have not said it is a practical difficulty or attempted to negotiate with her for ways around this that may work for both them and her.

This is purely and simply because she would not make an exception for and enable the pretense that a male nurse is a female if they wish it, and permit them privileged intimate access to her that she would not permit to a non TQ+ male. That is the unacceptable request they will not meet.

Read the thread. Read the evidence. They've been very blunt about it. It's no good identifying as it being something reasonable, rational, palatable: it isn't.

She has every right to state her preference for female only staff but the hospital can't guarantee that will be the case - only that they will try where it's safe and practical to do so. What if someone went off sick and the only cover was male? She hasn't given her consent to that so the hospital can't perform her surgery.

This is scary, not only the responses on here, but that this has happened because of her belief that men cannot be women.

And that people who don't respect that, will go miles out of their way to supply you with a male against your consent.

This ideology seeks out the most inappropriate places for men to be. Women's prisons, rape refuges, female sport, breastfeeding workshops, lesbian dating sites.

This woman was having major surgery, from all accounts highly technical, and she would be incapacitated in a very vulnerable way afterwards.

Exactly the kind of testing ground that the ideology seeks out.

Don't forget she put in a dignity complaint and this was ignored or not dealt with. So she was a good little woman and did follow some of the rules.
This is scary, not only the responses on here, but that this has happened because of her belief that men cannot be women. The power imbalance is tipped in favour of men who say they are women. We should all be concerned.

Or she could have written a shorter email stating that (a) she was unhappy at being barged in on and (b) she'd like female only medical care after the operation and arranging a meeting to discuss the options

How short do you think this email could be exactly?
Female only no longer means cunty type women. Female now means anyone who thinks they are one. So the only way these days to ensure everyone knows what you mean is use "cunty type women" or wang on about pronouns. Even saying born female doesn't work anymore.
I can just imagine how well "I'd like to have aftercare only done by cunty type people" would go down in an email to anyone let alone a hospital, sent by a lawyer too.

And then we get to why the hell should she send shorter emails, check her tone etc. She is entitled to send anything or nothing and any length in between.

And what meeting can you possibly arrange with hours to go before surgery happens? How will you feel if the meeting goes really badly and then there you are in surgery in a hospital where a whole lot of people seemingly dont like you. Do you think she even wants the operation there any more?

She was requesting her rights within the law. Nothing that she asked for was in any way extraordinary. And she had just experienced a male barging in on her, which was terrifying.

Not just any male, a male individual who was an adherent to the ideology that she was expressly concerned about.

Some very clearly divide the world into two groups of people

(1) the people who have to be treated extremely carefully and never subject to any sort of "microaggression", or questioned about anything and must have "their truth" fully respected, and whose every transgression of law or ethics can be justified

and

(2) the ones who if anything happens to them, no matter how illegal or unethical, almost certainly did something to deserve it, and and can be endlessly lectured about how they should do things differently.

Sadly for her, it appears the woman here is part of group 2. Maybe someone can explain to me how this group 1 versus group 2 determination is made?

How can she get promoted to the "no microaggressions" group? Because I think she might have had just a few. Maybe.

She has the right to say whatever she chooses. But she's the one that's lost out. They're not an NHS hospital, they can decline treatment (as they did) although I agree that their response was cack-handed.

it's not cack handedness. It's an open and loud display of power.

Was it cackhanded when a tw lied to get the position of running a rape crisis centre and told the women they need to reframe their trauma to adhere to trans ideology?

Is it cackhanded when rapists are put in women's prisons so they can assault the women?

Or when male individuals are allowed to decimate women's sport.

This is not cack handedness. This is a wholesale attack on women's rights.

And yes, telling her if only she had changed her tone, compromised a bit, not been quite as assertive, she wouldn't have been punished, is absolutely victim blaming.

Christ. What next? if only she'd said sorry?