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.

I would suggest that we afford HCPs some discretion to decide what is in the best interest of their patients given the resources available.

If a transman passes as a man and would feel more comfortable on the men's ward, then perhaps the HCPs can make a judgement call that it is the least problematic and/or distressing thing for them, for the patient, and for the other patients in the women's ward. A butch woman is a woman and if she wants to be on the woman's ward, that's exactly where she MUST be.

mirialis

"If you want a definition of who MUST be on the female ward, why not biological females and transwomen who don't possess a penis? We're all ok with that, right?"

Personally, I would be. But I know some would not.

As far as trans men. If they have a 'penis' I am less inclined to want them on a female ward and I guess they would be less inclined to be there. Trans men may well be on a labour ward, in which case I expect everyone would just think of them as female even if they were not able to say so.

Some clever person posted where you are allowed to refuse treatment from any HCP if you wished. I am not sure if that was on the other thread, now deleted I think, or this one. Does anyone know?

Redtoothbrush has posted it again on the related thread in FWR.

If a transman passes as a man and would feel more comfortable on the men's ward, then perhaps the HCPs can make a judgement call that it is the least problematic and/or distressing thing for them, for the patient, and for the other patients in the women's ward. A butch woman is a woman and if she wants to be on the woman's ward, that's exactly where she MUST be.

An FTM is also female, so the women would need to accept her on the female ward. I think it's quite disingenuous that you've twisted it around in this way so women objecting to an FTM is a problem which would be best solved by putting that female person on the men's ward. When that's not really what people are talking about here. What if men don't want women on their ward? Their needs should be considered.

I think in practice, a trans person on a ward would probably be allocated a side room, assuming one was available.

Just had a thought - I have always liked the Serenity prayer as have some challenging times in life, but I think maybe we need an adaption from "grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference... to...

"Grant me the serenity to accept the things we should not change (sex), the courage to change the things that we should change (made up gender roles and sexism), and the wisdom to know the difference.."

I think a transperson would be allocated a side room, should one be available. But as pointed out, a side or private room will not always be available.

An FTM is also female, so the women would need to accept her on the female ward

Yes, if that's where the patient wanted to be, if that's where the HCP's needed the patient to be, and if that's where the HCPs decided that it would cause the least problem for the other patients on the ward (i.e. no explanation or discussion with the rest of the ward required because no one would even guess). And if no clear solution and agreement could be found than reliance on chromosomal biology would of course have to trump everything because the resources simply aren't there to provide private or side rooms for everyone who could do with one.

But we've had a whole thread here about the prime importance of a patient feeling comfortable during medical treatment because without that some patients wouldn't seek life-saving treatment but now it's becoming clear that for some that does not include consideration for all patients. Because, as I've realised in the latter stages of this discussion, actually even a post-op transwoman is not acceptable on a women's ward. So it's not the penis that's the problem, it's not the danger of self-ID "non-genuine transwomen" (aka pervs and opportunists) that's the problem. It is simply transwomen who are the problem.

Of course men might not want females on the men's ward as much as women might not want males on the women's ward - I think we had this discussion very briefly when you suggested women should start giving men "a taste" by invading male spaces, which would largely mean invading gay men's spaces, which I disagreed with and didn't think would do anyone's cause any favours.

I object to self-ID. I object to the statement that "transwomen are women", even if qualified with "psychologically women". I think it's bullshit and I don't wish to see anyone's rights to be eroded because we are supposed to pretend that "reality" is anything other than what the vast majority of us perceive it to be.

But this rigid inflexibility on how best to treat people requiring medical care based on their chromosomes, this disregard for the wellbeing of all patients who are trans because some identifying as trans have been pisstakers... yes, that has pulled me right back from the brink of being "peak trans".

No, it's about respecting women's boundaries. That's all. You can't make whether a male has had surgery the criteria. It should be no males, because it's a violation of women's boundaries to have males in female sex segregated spaces. I'm not sure why you have such difficulty with that. It's a consistent and coherent position. Arguably unlike yours.

Someone has to lose out here, and you seem to think in many cases it should be women.

based on their chromosomes

You're nowhere near peak trans. You're coming out with the same ridiculous rhetoric as trans activists.

"rigid inflexibility on how best to treat people requiring medical care based on their chromosomes"

So they should be based on..... feelings?

Yes, there could be situations where the HCPs decide the the kindest and most practical solution for all patients on the wards - not just the one patient in question - is to go with feelings rather than chromosomes.

People believe that there are "genuine transexuals" who have a psychological disorder, which affects them to such an extent they have undergone gruesome surgery and hormone therapy, who just want to quietly be and who do not flounce about "performing femininity/masculinity" and making a fuss. But at the same time, there is the objection to such people automatically being given a private room - should one exist - because they might not be the most deserving.

And then they have to have an overnight stay after an operation and the HCPs have to go round to every other patient on the ward and explain "don't worry, this is a single sex ward, I hope their presence here doesn't make you feel uncomfortable but they really are biologically male/female"... I find it hard to believe that this is always going to be the kindest and most practical solution for everyone involved.

or of course there is the other solution as suggested:

I think we're going to need a third gender neutral ward for trans people. It will mean FTMs and MTFs in the same space but at least they are all fabulously trans. No horrid cis people

Yes, I'm sure all transpeople think the rest of us are all horrid.... just as much as all feminists are transphobic.

I don't mind being told my position is inconsistent, and I don't care if some of my views are the same as "transactivists" - I'm not interested in taking a side and sticking to it so firmly I lose sight of the fact that we're talking about people needing medical treatment and that everyone could do with some consideration.

In my experience taking account of the oddballs and people I wouldn't usually come across from my limited experience of the BHS albeit including admissions for two DC and elderly parents, etc, I'm pretty sure a trans sexual who is clean and quiet would be the least of my concerns.

So it's not the penis that's the problem, it's not the danger of self-ID "non-genuine transwomen" (aka pervs and opportunists) that's the problem. It is simply transwomen who are the problem.

It's not really about the penis. A penis all by itself isn't a problem. It's about the male entitlement that comes with a penis. And that male entitlement doesn't disappear if the penis disappears. Evidently. Several tranceactivists have had full surgery. It makes no difference to their misogyny.

Autogynephiles will often have full surgery. It makes no difference to the fetish. In fact often it's the ultimate goal.

That is the problem.

A penis is not a determinant of whether a man will make a woman feel uncomfortable.

It would be wonderful if men came with a label that said 'absolutely not a threat'.

But they don't.

This is not about being trans, this is about being male.

Datun - I've got a day of boring chores ahead of me, which I find to be perfect thinking time, so I am going to go away for a bit and reflect on what you've said, but - sincerely - thank you for spelling it out so clearly. I've seen a fair amount of arguments about the problem of self-ID and the uncertainty that creates for women and the nonsensical idea that transwomen are actually women in any shape or form (all of which I agree with) but never seen it so clearly stated that this quite simply boils down to all male-born humans being a threat to females because of their "entitlement".

but never seen it so clearly stated that this quite simply boils down to all male-born humans being a threat to females because of their "entitlement".

Really?

Firstly, it's not all males. But it's overwhelmingly only males.

Male violence is endemic.

Two women a week are killed by men, not women.

85,000 women are year are raped by men, not women.

The women's prison population represents only five percent of all prison inmates.

There are nearly 14,000 males in prison for sex offences. But only 126 women.

Men commit 98% all sexually violent crime and 90 percent of violent crime.

Sexual assault and rape of a woman is absolutely about entitlement. Entitlement that you can take what you want.

The MeToo campaign which highlighted the sexual harassment of women was all about entitlement.

What gives a man the idea that women bodies can be touched without their permission? And if they object they're frigid? Or a bitch? Or it's just a joke.

The argument that women are afraid of 'all men' only serves minimise the reason why very many women are entirely justified to view men 'as a class' with caution.

It's the entire basis on which sex segregation exists in the first place.

Places where women are vulnerable, naked or performing intimate care are generally protected precisely because men can represent a threat.

Not all men, but enough.

What gives a man the idea that women bodies can be touched without their permission? And if they object they're frigid? Or a bitch? Or it's just a joke.

This.

But at the same time, there is the objection to such people automatically being given a private room - should one exist - because they might not be the most deserving.

No they might not. Other people might be in greater need of sensitivity than the MTF patient. But they might be. I didn't say they should never be allocated a private room, just that it couldn't be relied on.

Autogynephiles will often have full surgery. It makes no difference to the fetish. In fact often it's the ultimate goal.

I don't think mirialis really understands this. And that less than 5% of trans people in the UK have had bottom surgery at all.

I find it hard to believe that this is always going to be the kindest and most practical solution for everyone involved.

Why would it be kinder and more practical to put an obvious man in with a ward full of women and not say anything? Or put a young TIF in a roomful of men?

Really?

Yes, really. I have seen the arguments that "genuine transexuals" who've been castrated are not the problem.

I've never seen it spelled out that the issue with transpeople is that all males - whether they have a penis or not - pose a threat to females.

You don't need to quote all the rape stats at me or talk to me about the pervasiveness of sexual harassment, thank you. I was not minimising that reality, which I have lived as much as you.

Oh FFS.
Do we have to get rude and personal to point out the bloody obvious?
So now we have to say " I want to be seen only by a qualified adult who was born a woman, with only female genitalia, and no fucker else. Full stop"

Why would it be kinder and more practical to put an obvious man in with a ward full of women and not say anything? Or put a young TIF in a roomful of men?

No, it clearly would not be kinder to put an obvious man in a ward full of women and not say anything.

less than 5% of trans people in the UK have had bottom surgery at all

so I would imagine that HCPs wouldn't even have to consider the issue for the extremely large majority of their patients.