To think that women should be able to request a female doctor or nurse?

[Betti935]

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/the-female-nhs-nurse-i-asked-for-came-with-stubble-83rq9p0gg

Summary: A woman requested a female nurse to carry out her cervical smear test. When she arrived the nurse was clearly male (stubble, deep voice etc). When she questioned this, the nurse insisted that they were a woman because they were trans. The patient says she was made to feel like a bigot and in the end decided not to go ahead with the smear test.

Now in this case, the NHS Trust has apologised and said that the nurse did not handle the situation appropriately. However the government are planning to introduce into law the recommendations of the Women and Equalities Committee which include, not only allowing men to 'self-identify' as women without any medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, but also to get rid of the exemptions currently in place.

Currently, while biological males can legally 'become' women (following a diagnosis of gender dysphoria - there is already no requirement to have any hormone treatment or surgery), there are some limited exemptions in law:

“If a service provider provides single or separate sex services for women and men, or provides services differently to women and men, they should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present. However, the Act does permit the service provider to provide a different service or exclude a person from the service, who is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or who has undergone, gender reassignment. This will only be lawful where the exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.” For example, it is currently legal for a group counselling session for female rape victims to exclude biological males if female clients would be not feel able to attend and participate in the group if they were present.

If this new legislation is passed and there are no exemptions allowing for transwomen (biological males) to be treated differently from biological women, there will be no way to protect vulnerable women who don't feel able to access rape services or medical services if they can't be sure of a female-only service.

This won't be like other rights conflicts (e.g. on sexual orientation versus religion) where test cases go to court and judgements are made because women won't exist as a separate protected group from transwomen.

Surely Muslim women do not get intimately examined by tmtof s. I doubt they can make it a law- just wind up merchants ( the mtofs that is).

If transwomen are psychologically female, then why do they need to take hormones? Aren't hormones a big part of your psychology?

(Also, can we stop responding to the ploppers? It fills up the thread!)

Blink66 what would happen if there was no right to ask for a same-sex HCP isn't that everyone would suddenly be okay with seeing opposite-sex practitioners. Instead you'd get many women who wanted to see another woman for religious, cultural or personal reasons making appointments and then leaving without treatment if their doctor turned out to be a male.

That is not ethically sound, and it isn't practical either. Why not allow people who want to make a choice about this to do so? People who don't care about the sex of their doctor aren't affected by it.

I have had a male midwife perform a stretch and sweep, a male gynaecologist deal with my prolapse, and a male paramedic deal with copious vaginal bleeding. In all situations I was perfectly happy with a man, I have had prior negative experience with female HCPs so ime it doesn't feel safer to choose female only.
(In the third example I would have happily been dealt with by a vet!)

I'd still be uncomfortable with an AGP appearing male, because of the fetishisation of my biology.

Imagine if I said I identified as a transwoman (despite being an XX, period-having, child-bearing 'woman from birth'), and remaining as such my whole life.

I've never faced the challenges of transitioning, but it is hurtful to point this out because those who have transitioned have something I will never have (transition-privilege).

People who have actually transitioned are cis-trans, because they identify as transgender and also have actually transitioned or intend to.
I, on the other hand, am trans-trans, because my identification with trans mismatches what has actually happened biologically (ie. I have never transitioned).

I am therefore less privileged than "real" trans persons, and should be allowed to take up positions of representation/advocacy on behalf of trans rights, because I am the least privileged grouping of trans persons that exists.

----

I mean to me it's pretty obvious how the above is wrong and has been used to completely gaslight the disadvantaged into taking on the label of advantaged.

It's also so open to abuse it's ridiculous. Picture the above scenario with black/white, disabled/abled, and yes even trans itself could be turned back on it's head (ie. "real-trans" vs. "I just identify as trans despite being born female and living as such"), as in the above scenario.

And yet, with male/female. The world stands by and watches.

Blink66 doesn't appear to understand the concept of consent. Allowing or refusing access to one's own body is a matter of consent. The HCP does not have a right of access to anyone's body. This goes across the board for any procedure and is not discrimatory.

beyond
I'm similar. No issues with a male healthcare professional.
But like you I would be annoyed if i had requested a female professional and was given a man in a dress and was told to accept it in case his feelings were hurt.

My body. My consent for someone to touch it.

Good God Rainbowsandsparkles - you really don't need to come on to every thread about HCPs and express your all-consuming hatred for Nurses. We get it. This thread is NOT about that.

A transwoman is a transwoman, not a woman. I may not object to personal examinations by a transwoman clearly acknowledging they are trans but that would be my CHOICE. And I would be extremely displeased with a self-identifying 'woman' telling me they are female when they are not.

And I would complain as far as I could about that.

Religion is just a shared belief - it adds nothing to the argument, if religion is discriminatory, then those beliefs are wrong and all those who follow them should be called out just the same.

So following Islam or Judaism now to name two is no longer a right, you want that axed from the Equality Act? Because you do realise that this simplistic rubbish means that a massive proportion of women who already have very little voice would just not be allowed to access health care? And serves them right because you find their faith 'silly'?

As for your 'traumatised women get over it', you remind me of the lovely Riley Dennis, who kindly informed lesbians that they must agree to have sex with male bodied people who self identify as lesbian, because to do otherwise is appallingly discriminatory. If you happened to have been raped or traumatised you get a brief stay of execution but are expected to get over it, get your knickers off and present yourself asap because you're morally wrong and hurting TIM feelings. Really upsetting for them when women have a sexual orientation that is so nastily excluding and they act like they're entitled to refuse sex.

I hope to goodness you're male as it's alarming to see female posters so utterly indoctrinated with misogyny that they come out with appalling, women hating statements like this. I wonder if these are the same poor posters who insist that MiLs must be allowed to trample all over DILs and indulged under all circumstances, that penis portions are rational, that men shouldn't have to do housework and so on - because 'nice girls' don't say or do things that make others uncomfortable. And standing up for women is something that makes some men uncomfortable, and by extension their women, so good girls don't do that. Only ugly, bra burning, militant, nasty women that men don't like do that. I certainly grew up with that message. That doesn't make it right.

Agree that in the article quoted in the OP the clinic was disingenuous to claim that the nurse was a woman. But I work in healthcare and sometimes there's just not enough staff in the NHS to go around, even before requests based on gender. In an ideal world all women would get to choose to be seen by female Drs and nurses but I've been in situations before where a female patient has requested this and there simply hasn't been one available. The NHS is chronically understaffed and sometimes the choice is between a male HCP or waiting an additional 6 weeks for a referral to a different clinic / hospital. The problem definitely isn't solved by clinics pretending their male staff are female, but I'm not sure how it can be solved without tackling the wider problems of staff recruitment and retention.

YABU - You should expect someone qualified to do the job, and have no choice in the characteristics of the person.

This is a view that used to be voiced a lot on MN, in the context of male midwives. On the same MN where users would remind people they were allowed to refuse care later from any female midwife who had previously made them uncomfortable at booking-in. There would be lots of talk of the deletrious effects on childbirth of having someone you didn't trust in the delivery suite. But heaven forbid you refuse a male midwife, because that would make you sexist.

Personally, I say now what I said then: patients always have the right to say, "no, I don't want that member of staff touching or seeing my genitals". If a patient agrees to examination by some particular members of staff, that does not oblige her to let anyone else take a look. Needing intimate procedures is an ordeal for many of us, and we used to think that it was the job of the healthcare sector to make it less of an ordeal.

What next? Straight women being accused of being sexist for not wanting to shag women? Oh wait, it already happens to lesbians...

where are all these kind, gentle, super competent female nurses please?
There's one in my GP practice, the one who took my last smear test. It took seconds and I barely felt it. PS my cervix isn't in the exact position it should be, either.

There are some great female nurses at my surgery.

Believing that transwomen are women is a religious belief. Any woman pointing out biological fact is committing new heresy.

AnotherDunroamin - three quarters of NHS nurses are female so I don't know where you work that a request for a female nurse would result in a 6 week wait.

Any medical professional displaying illogical, non-science based opinions during my appointment will not be seen again.

The specialist that told me I had "adrenal fatigue" got short shrift and a complaint.

A male saying they are actually female would get the same.

guardianfree

I realise that – and which is why the law evolves. As I understand it, this is going to be removed, which is a good thing.

AstraiaLibert

In many public services, if you refuse once you don’t get a second go. I’d simply charge them the cost of the appointment and not allow another to be booked. Sorry, if you were to allow this choice – then we must allow all men to say they will only accept male surgeons, dentists, lawyers, judges etc. It’s time to recognise that people who want to choose based on sex are simply wrong and on the wrong side of history.

The right to be discriminatory is unethical – and affects others. Your right to choose not to use the medical service only impacts yourself, there is really no contest.

noeffingidea

I do understand consent – no one is forcing you to use the service. But the service should not be tailor made – consent or don’t consent; you have the choice – but not the choice of who you see.

Would you also support people refusing someone based on skin colour because of consent? If not, why not?

SparklyUnicornTractors

Faith is really just a set of beliefs – no more or less rights than any other set of beliefs. Of course if a god is involved it does highlight some other issues, but I’m okay with people believing that as long as it doesn’t affect others.

It’s really not on wishing someone was the other sex – you do realise that women can think for themselves? You are promoting directly that male and female brains are different and must think differently – I’m ready to accept that women are not so restricted, and live my life accordingly. I never want a man to be able to say no to having a female professional – but you clearly are. It works both ways!

In this case the Trust apologised and stated there had been an administrative error. That's because this nurse self-ID'd as a woman and did not have a Gender Recognition Certificate.

As I said earlier, there is an exception in the Equality act that allows for people to be excluded from certain employment roles on the grounds of a protected characteristic, where this is a genuine occupational requirement, without this being discrimination. This includes the right to exclude a trans person from a single sex role even where they have a GRC.

It is not at all clear to me how this exception could be used if a TIM with a GRC applied for a job as a nurse (or women's rape counsellor, women's refuge worker, personal carer ...) and chose not to disclose they were trans (however obvious it was to anybody with eyes).

Under the GRA it is a criminal offence to disclose someone's trans history where that knowledge has been gained in an official capacity. Even the prison service are not permitted to ask to see a GRC. They can request a birth certificate, which the holder of a GRC can get changed to their new legal gender.

There is currently a proposal that the gender recognition act be reformed.

At the moment, in order to legally change your gender you need a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and two years' worth of documents in your new name.

Under the new proposals you would just have to sign a form.

The UK consultation on changes to the GRA has been delayed but the Scottish consultation is open (to everybody, not only those in Scotland).

Men are legally allowed to choose a male practitioner, afaik? As they should be. Can anyone confirm?

Brava to this comment:

"Women with PTSD are 'whining', but men's gender identity must be respected and validated even at the expense of vulnerable women. How can this be anything other than good old fashioned misogyny. Yet the woman haters typing this shit actually believe they are the progressive ones"

Great thread, and thanks for not reporting the ridiculous posts as they make the lurkers see the idiocy of the defenders of this ideology

Yes they are, Beyond. NHS Choices:

Many people find rectal examinations embarrassing, and your GP will be fully aware of this. Some people may also be sensitive about having a rectal examination for religious or cultural reasons.

Therefore, you may prefer a rectal examination to be carried out by a GP of the same sex, or you may want to have a friend or relative present during the examination. Let your GP know in advance if you have any particular preferences.

IMightMentionGriddlebone

I understand where you are coming from – but cannot agree, as the consequences rapidly become ridiculous.

Personally, I say now what I said then: patientsalwayshave the right to say, "no, I don't want that member of staff touching or seeing my genitals"

In most situations this is true – but not always. Forced hospitalization, prison, border security etc. I am not clear that this is right – but for a voluntary patient, cannot disagree,

However, equally, as a consequence the health provider has a right to say – we respect your choice, and when your ready to choose otherwise we’d welcome you back. However, you don’t get to choose who does treat you.

If it had been allowed thirty years ago for people to choose their own team in operating theatres, do you think we would have overcome the prejudice against female medical professionals at the top of the professions? No – so, unfortunately whilst you do have a right to say no (in general) – you don’t have a right to hand pick your team based on your own discriminatory feelings.

Even if the request could be accommodated, to advance female equality the choice must be refused.

BeyondAssignation

I realise this - and this whole thread is about this choice being removed.

A very good thing for equality imho - we should embrace it - and it's nothing to do with gender choices.

Blink66 do you understand the concepts of a)bodily automony and b)respect for the patient? They lie at the foundation of health care, and anyone who doesn't understand that has no place working as a HCP.

So consent now means anything that Blink66 agrees with

It's quite scary to read comments that have so little regard or care for individuals

based on your own discriminatory feelings.

Are you saying my choice for female only HCP is discriminatory?