Hospital refuses to operate after woman requests all-female care

I feel like my cousin Bunbury would have something to say about this.
I'm enraged though, and also gobsmacked at how unprofessional they are to state that they cancelled it because of her beliefs not matching the hospital's beliefs.

Again - unless they screen all patients' beliefs to match them up to a list of 'allowed' and 'not allowed' ones then they are very clearly being discriminatory.

For goodness' sake, it doesn't matter. This discussion of how much same-sex care is practical etc etc is a complete red herring. She made a completely legal and reasonable request, and the hospital not only refused it (which might have been equally reasonable on their side, depending on logistics and staffing) but they refused to treat her at all because she had made it. Or rather because of the perceived 'values' underlying it - which as others have pointed out, are protected by the Equality Act.

They are fucking idiots to specify it was because of her 'values', because that (IANAL) looks like a clear admission of discrimination. I cannot see how this could not be illegal.

This. It is illegal to discriminate against people on the grounds of their gender critical beliefs, just as it would be illegal to pull an operation because someone was trans.

they will want access to traumatised women because they are being denied it.

Quite.

Any male hcp who sees a female patient's refusal of consent as an intolerable boundary they have to break and control for their own needs?

Should not be anywhere near that job or in any profession providing care. Any hcp worth their salt cares about their patient and is capable of putting the patient's needs first, plus knows and cares about things like faith, belief, trauma, culture, diversity, accessibility, those sort of really basic things.

Those who believe that females who won't validate male people by providing intimate access should be denied health care as punishment also have absolutely no place in a caring workforce. This is a fundamental capacity issue.

I don't know how to do links, but on Twitter there is a petition about this.

Karalmid, you clearly believe in compelled speech. That's your choice. Many of us don't for the exact same reasons as the person who was refused care in this hospital.

Ultimately you think that the right of a male to be perceived as a woman is more important than the woman receiving care.

Otherwise what is the point of your posts?

anyone requiring a non-consenting female to validate a male with her body to assure him of his gender identity

This is what we are looking at here. This woman is required to validate a man or crucial health care will be denied.

Has been denied.

Because she said no.

She literally says "my patient records showed that I refused to use pronouns".

What do you think a pronoun is? Please tell me how anyone can speak English without using pronouns. She is making a nonsense statement.

You either know nothing about this issue or you're being fatuous because you think it's terribly clever and amusing. I know what a pronoun is. Tell the next trans person you meet that "their" pronoun is actually "I", I dare you.

Oh come on, that's disingenuousness on crap, what is the point of this?

She quite obviously means she will not use pronouns she does not believe in or agree with for someone she perceives as one sex but who would like her to use their chosen language for them.

...aaand everyone else got there before me and said it better. 😃

I don't think there are any grounds for this really to go any further and the woman has a male surgeon - that's far more intimate and she will be far more vulnerable whilst under a GA then any of the care provided afterwards.

I used to be a theatre nurse, and the big difference is that there is a whole team of people in there, and never once did I see an all male team in a theatre. When I had treatment a few years ago, I said I wanted female only for pre and post op, due to PTSD. I specified that the theatre personnel didn’t matter to me for the above reason, and also that I wouldn’t be aware, therefore wouldn’t suffer any triggering experiences.

The surgeons and anaesthetic team went out of their way to ensure a female only presence in theatre regardless, I felt extremely safe.

For context, I didn’t have my breast lump (which turned out to be a tumour) investigated for nearly a year after I’d noticed because of the dread of being vulnerable and exposed. I got lucky that it was treatable.

It’s frightening to me to think of how future hospital treatment could go - one thing I know about predatory men, however they identify, is that they will want access to traumatised women because they are being denied it.

But it depends on exactly what this woman is requesting. All nursing AND ancillary staff was mentioned. So could a male or trans staff member bring them toast? Can a transwoman nurse check on her or give medication?
My ex was male and would still provide some care for female muslim patients within reason. Was this woman requesting segregation beyond that required by the most religious patients?

For goodness' sake, it doesn't matter. This discussion of how much same-sex care is practical etc etc is a complete red herring. She made a completely legal and reasonable request, and the hospital not only refused it (which might have been equally reasonable on their side, depending on logistics and staffing) but they refused to treat her at all because she had made it. Or rather because of the perceived 'values' underlying it - which as others have pointed out, are protected by the Equality Act.

They are fucking idiots to specify it was because of her 'values', because that (IANAL) looks like a clear admission of discrimination. I cannot see how this could not be illegal.

She literally says "my patient records showed that I refused to use pronouns".

What do you think a pronoun is? Please tell me how anyone can speak English without using pronouns. She is making a nonsense statement.

They didn't refuse her because they struggled to comply with her request. They refused her because they disagreed with her belief system.

It seems pretty clear than legal bods on Twitter are convinced the way the hospital acted is discrimination. I suspect Maxine whatshername will be out of a job pretty sharpish

Apparently she hasn't been in it very long.

So could a male or trans staff member bring them toast? Can a transwoman nurse check on her or give medication?

Was the expectation that she would respond differently/accept different care from a TW than from any other male member of staff?

That's the one and only sticking point.

If the answer is yes, then the punishment is for being a heretic. Not for unmeetable expectations due to staffing issues.

Females have the right to perceive a male as a male the same as any other male, regardless about how that male feels internally about their identity or wishes to be perceived. The male's wishes do not outweigh hers. The male's perceptions do not trump hers. And anyone requiring a non-consenting female to validate a male with her body to assure him of his gender identity as the price of receiving care?

Has a major problem between their ears.

But, particularly given HCA is US-owned, I wonder if they were concerned about potential legal action resulting from any issues arising during her stay?

Well, now they’ve got pending legal action resulting to her non-stay instead!

If an American company is worried about a legal issue arising in a foreign country where their business operates, they should obviously approach a qualified legal expert in that country.

Either they didn’t, which would suggest they weren’t actually worried about potential legal action.

Or they did, and ignored the advice given because UK Equalities law conflicts with their corporate beliefs.

Or they approached an expert in Stonewall Law, rather than actual law.

Or they approached an expert in American state or federal law, which even if it did support their position (and I’m not convinced it would without being tested in court) is obviously irrelevant.

None of the above are a good look for the company, who you would expect to have a shit hot team of lawyers on the payroll, or at the very least, on speed dial.

Maybe they’ve had some Equity Diversity and Inclusivity ‘training’? Have Mermaids been in with the genderjellybabies slide?

No, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect female staff to provide intimate care. As I say, I suspect that they already do.

But it depends on exactly what this woman is requesting. All nursing AND ancillary staff was mentioned. So could a male or trans staff member bring them toast? Can a transwoman nurse check on her or give medication?

My ex was male and would still provide some care for female muslim patients within reason. Was this woman requesting segregation beyond that required by the most religious patients?

The issue is they have cancelled the surgery which is not due to anyone who is identifying as trans; it was a management decision.

It's a management decision that discriminated against her on the basis of her protected belief. They said they were cancelling it because they don't share her belief. A legally protected belief.

It's not about a specific person, apart from the one who barged in and made eye contact. Which rattled her enough for her to request that female only meant female only.

She was making a request, that many women make, but she was very specific that her request should not be subjected to gender ideology.

I don't think there are any grounds for this really to go any further

There are. She can sue on the basis of discrimination.

She has become very ill as a result of this operation being cancelled. I'm not familiar with her condition, but there is legal speculation on Twitter that if she dies, the hospital could be sued for manslaughter.

It seems pretty clear than legal bods on Twitter are convinced the way the hospital acted is discrimination. I suspect Maxine whatshername will be out of a job pretty sharpish

This.

They are specific about why they are refusing her care: it's with regard to her perceived prejudice.

If she had wanted female only care but been prepared to make an exception for male people who would like her to validate their belief that they are women by providing access to her body, that would have been fine. It's her not believing that a male person turns into something other than male when they internally self identify that has revolted them.

They are punishing her for refusing to validate a male person's illusion with her body.

And they've said so.

She has them on toast. The payout should be a hefty one.

Which ethnicity or religion do you believe is proven to carry out nearly all sexual assaults?
One sex carries out nearly all sexual assualts (and all rapes). One sex kills the other at a rate of 2-3 a week in this country.
Which religion or ethnicity do you believe is 'no different'?

I am very interested to know if this was an NHS funded contracted out op. If this is the case the trust is involved and there are issues relating to cover tracts the trust has with the hospital I would expect the surgeons to be fuming.
I hope she is an NHS patient as she has more chance of recourse. You can't do an FOI to a private hospital but she could absolutely do an FOI to the trust and probably a Subject access request to obtain her notes and generally make enquiries to get to the bottom of who made the decision and who they consulted with (such as the surgeons) and how this happened.

If she is funded via insurance I'm not sure she would get much help from them but still it is another organisation the hospital contracts with.

But, particularly given HCA is US-owned, I wonder if they were concerned about potential legal action resulting from any issues arising during her stay?

Yes I think that's plausible, but it doesn't sound like they considered the full legal ramifications more broadly. Perhaps they weren't aware of the Forstater case.

Have just read some of this thread, but the combination of a) stupidity b) gaslighting c) misogyny by our TRA chums is off the scale, even by their usual standards.

Isn't it just?