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.

Blink66 this isn't a bad law. It actually works pretty well in practice, whatever you may try and argue. Hence why the trust apologised in this instance. They knew they were in the wrong.
The needs of the patient are paramount, not the needs of the HCP, and that is the bottom line. Any HCP who doesn't understand or accept that needs to find an alternative career, be they male female or transgender.

I'm not generally fussed whether male or female HCP. Except for my coil fitting, I requested a female because the female used to be a midwife, and fitted my coil expertly last time. I turned up and it was a man, he had a tremor and was shaking while he was typing, I refused treatment and rebooked
Mostly I was cross because I specifically asked for a female, what if my religion hadn't allowed me to be seen by a man?

CatchMyName

Seriously if I have an issue and your the best qualified person, I couldn't care less about your sex. If I am lucky enough to be offered treatment and consent, that should be the end of it.

(As others have said, it might concern me if you are a man declaring to be a woman - as it would concern me their ability to think is almost as poor as those who believe in a mythical being - and i realise that is being a GF, but the rest is not)

I personally would not like a TIM to do the examination, but I don't think I should have the right to refuse a person who is a male; and hence whether or not the male is a TIM is probably not that relevant.

The ability to keep me alive and to cut open my body is far far more intrusive than an examination. I do have some sympathy with the MH argument, but I would treat that as a MH problem that needs addressing (and could lead to an exception to prevent worsening the illness) rather than the a choice.

In 50 years time people will be laughing at the old fashioned views of seeing anyone being able to choose anything based on their ability to produce sperm or eggs. Time to get with the program, as you'll otherwise be very upset for a very long time.

You think that in 50 years time, we'll all be pansexual? Or all asexual?

Because otherwise, I can't conceive of a society where no embarrassed young straight man worried about testicular cancer wants a man to check, not an attractive female hcp, and where all straight women don't find it more embarrassing to undress in front of a strange man.

Also, the reality is that there will always need to be situations where a HCP isn't allowed to treat a particular patient, specifically if they have some kind of relationship. And so if for some reason I wasn't going to be provided with an alternative clinician if I didn't want a transwoman doing my internal exams, I'd just have to come up with a list of other reasons until I got someone acceptable to me.

I'd say this is nothing to do with Dr Male being a male of course, but I'm pretty sure I had a one night stand with him a while ago so it wouldn't be appropriate. Or a fight on the nightbus the other week, perhaps.

In all cases it's completely appropriate to say you cannot disciminate against a provider purely due to their sex

No. When it comes to sexed anatomy it is acceptable to say you have a preference of the sexed anatomy of the person examining/treating you, whether you be male or female.

You can try to divert this by talking about race and accusing us of perpetuating the idea of "lady brains" all you like but no one is buying it.

Amazing how whenever people discuss should things change - existing legislation is brought out. The whole point of the discussion is to change those laws - as they are bad laws.

The discussion is about a woman who requested a female HCP to do her smear test and instead got a TIM with no GRC. The Trust apologised and stated this was due to clerical error. They are not proposing to remove the right to request a same sex HCP.

If you want to discuss removing the sex based exceptions in the Equality Act, or wholesale removing the PSED or NHS health equality policies, or whatever other strange notion you have in your goady head, fill your boots. Nobody else here is discussing that though, so maybe start another thread? Good luck with that.

ARGH. I was discussing this thread with DH and he really doesn't get it - keeps using words like 'sexual apartheid' to describe women's wish for single sex spaces. He also keeps saying that if you substitute the word 'black' for trans, then we'd realise how bigoted we're being.

Gah. Cogent arguments to explain why he's wrong would be welcome please, as I don't seem to be able to break through....

noeffingidea

The trust apologised because it was wrong according to the current law - if the law was different it wouldn't have been wrong from their view.

I agree with you regarding need - but this is a choice, not a need. Where choices discriminate, and I realise that we won't agree, they are wrong. If the choice is really a need, then I have some sympathy, but then this is a problem that needs solving to recognise the choice is indeed wrong.

If some of the static views on here prevailed during the last century nothing would have changed - in fact the welfare state and NHS wouldn't have come into existence and women wouldn't be able to vote; as that wasn't the current law at the time - it required people who had a different vision of the future and changed the law (and it's not the one we got :-))

but I would treat that as a MH problem that needs addressing (and could lead to an exception to prevent worsening the illness) rather than the a choice.

It has been addressed. The NHS respect me and my choice for Female HCP when i have a smear or internal exam.
They understand that supporting my choice is part of my treatment and has a positive impact on my PTSD.

You sound do smug and rightious. You sound like a man.

People like you do not deserve my time. You disgust me.

I shall leave this thread to the men and the handmaidens.

To all you lovely posters

Well, I'd rather have a problem with anyone I haven't seen before doing a smear or anything gynaecology-related on me, to be honest.
My gynaecologist is male and I feel comfortable with him because I know him and if he doesn't suit me anymore I can change. My midwife is female and I feel comfortable with her too because I had seen her at least three times before she touched me.

I'd feel worse if someone else was there as well that I didn't know. Smears and other things like that, unless in real emergencies, are private things for the patient and doctor's eyes only, not for anyone else's, IMO.

Contessa

Ask him to imagine being an awkward teenage boy at a urinal. Then the girl he most fancies walks in. Accompanied by three friends, while he's at his most undignified, shaking urine off his penis.

@guardianfree good point. Although much of the potential 'pressure' is via internet posters/bloggers telling their story which amazingly chimes with the child/teenager. Because what other reason might a teenage girl feel uncomfortable in her own body!

@Blink66 as long as men are responsible for the vast majority of crime especially violent crime, and especially sexual crime, women will be scared of them and seek to protect themselves. That is not to say all men are responsible for crime or are to be feared.

Your views appear so right on and cool, women get with the programme, forget how you feel, how do men feel!

Sorry but you are simply wrong and as you see LOTS of other women and men have not yet submitted to the gaslighting.

And I say this as a woman who has had intimate procedures done by male doctors but recognises other people's right to choose!

ARGH. I was discussing this thread with DH and he really doesn't get it - keeps using words like 'sexual apartheid' to describe women's wish for single sex spaces. He also keeps saying that if you substitute the word 'black' for trans, then we'd realise how bigoted we're being.

Gah. Cogent arguments to explain why he's wrong would be welcome please, as I don't seem to be able to break through....

Ask him if he'd accept a 6'3" person with stubble and a fully-functioning penis as a sexual partner. When he says no, tell him he's being transphobic and bigoted.

If that seems like a ridiculous proposition, there are HUNDREDS of posts in the Twittersphere where Lesbians are being told exactly that for stating that they won't consider dating people with penises.

PencilsInSpace

The thread title is 'To think that women should be able to request a female doctor or nurse?'.

This invites viewpoints. My viewpoint is it is unreasonable, and hence as this is not currently the law it needs to be changed.

You seem not to be aware that this is the topic under discussion.

Blink66
this is a choice, not a need.
No, it's a need. The patient is considered to be a whole person, therefore their mental and emotional health, which includes factors such as desire for privacy and respect for their boundaries regarding their own bodies are taken into account. It's called a hierarchy of needs. And just fyi, that includes a patients religious beliefs, that you dismissed so casually a few posts ago.
You obviously know virtually nothing about health care, so I'm not sure why you're continuing to argue about it. Your posts really come across as being rather ignorant and ill informed.

Yes it is a discussion and you are entitled to your opinion @Blink66.

Some of the things you have said have come across as both callous and examples of misogyny.

Lots of women have had very negative encounters with males. That can make this topic very 'difficult' so to speak.

Women have certain rights in law for our protection. Please, please do not join those who would seek to erode them.

It's a need.

Blink's idea of refusing treatment when a person doesn't want it from the initial provider offered is, as well as being disgusting, laughably impractical as well. I mean really, how do you think this is actually going to work?

I've already pointed out that it would be simple enough to come up with reasons why Dr Male or Nurse Trans shouldn't be treating you- just make up some tenuous connection. And that it would be placing HCPs in a rather difficult position if they were having to provide treatment to people who were visibly upset about it and clearly didn't want them to do it. Especially as some of these people will then go on to tell the regulatory bodies about it.

But then we also have the issue of what happens when people refuse procedures and then get more ill because of it. So I decline a male GP to look at the boil on my groin or whatever. It gets worse, bigger or more painful or infected, and I come in again- am I still barred from treatment because I wouldn't have a man earlier? You might say that it would now be a different matter because it's gone septic, but of course you won't know that until I'm examined. If you refuse me again, what happens when I ring an ambulance? Or even go in person to A and E, given that we don't have a system where every NHS HCP can access everyone's medical notes.

If you think this is the way things should be going, tell us how it's going to work.

Italiangreyhound

as long as men are responsible for the vast majority of crime especially violent crime, and especially sexual crime, women will be scared of them and seek to protect themselves. That is not to say all men are responsible for crime or are to be feared.

I think you've made an honest appraisal here. As a society though we've decided that people need to be seen as individuals rather than groups dependant upon characteristics they are born with.

By saying women are safer if protected from men, however, does say that all men are to be more feared than women by women - you can't get away from that - Bayes rule.

Women who believe in equality for their own gender need to reject this thinking of judging a group and look at individuals, otherwise they should also accept that whenever a statistic is slightly negative (even if by chance) regarding women, then it can be used to beat us as well, and not treat us as individuals.

In my life I have also found that the individuals who have protected me the most are also men - but I don't think that's true of all men, but if I thought the way you suggest then I should also trust all men to protect me more than women. Sounds silly when put that way, because it is.

I want to have my menstrual disorders discussed and treated by a woman because she has experienced periods.

A transwoman or a man hasn't

Blink - so you think that someone who does not want a strange man to touch their genitals should accept this as they want healthcare?

In no other situation would that be okay but in this case you think it's fine?

What is 'fine' about this situation but not 'fine' with others?

I'm really interested why you think it's unacceptable in other cases but not when it's about health?

What's more acceptable about a strange man that you don't want to touch your genitals, touching your genitals? Is it because you might have a health problem (or likely not in terms of smear tests)? Is that more okay? Is it that they have NMC or GMC registration? Do we stop not wanting strange men to touch our genitals if they have a qualification? Is it that it is in a 'medical' environment?

Have you not seen all the posts by women abused by male Drs/HCPs?

The publicised cases of Drs being struck off for sexually assaulting patients or having 'relationships' with vulnerable patients? The Dr that was allowed to keep his registration after fucking a sex worker during his shift on a maternity ward and being a confessed porn addict? The Dr I know personally who is in prison after taking a female patient to a hotel and giving her cocaine?

What EXACTLY is it that you think is unreasonable about a woman not wanting a strange man to touch their genitals even if they have some kind of qualification?

The proposal in Miller's report (as referred to in the OP) was not to get rid of the single sex occupational requirement or the single sex service exceptions. It was to retain these but to get rid of the exception that permits excluding a trans person with a GRC from such a single sex occupation or service.

So you'd still be able to request a female HCP but might get a TIM. You could still have women only services, groups, spaces etc. but you couldn't exclude TIMs.

The proposal to do away with sex based exceptions altogether is something else entirely which only you appear to be discussing. It may have been implied by the title alone but most people read further than that.

If you are indeed advocating the end of all single-sex services, spaces etc. then that is at least consistent but I can't see you'd have many takers.

IsaSchmisa

How would it work today if I chose not to have treatment from white members of staff, whether GP's, Paramedics, Ambulance Staff, Porters, etc. because of my personal beliefs?

Just do the same.

I am advocating getting rid of the exception - as per the title.