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.

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

Yes, and I understand that. But being castrated is not a determinant of whether they are a genuine transsexual. That's the problem.

Neither is being a genuine transsexual a determinant of whether they may be misogynistic.

'Genuine transsexuals' are usually of the homosexual transsexual cohort.

So predating on women would not, presumably, be of interest to them. It doesn't stop them making women feel uncomfortable though, whether inadvertently or deliberately.

I can quite easily understand the compromise for 'genuine transsexuals'. I just disagree with it. Largely because you can't tell a genuine transsexual from an autogynephile.

And being a genuine transwomen does not stop you being misogynist.

Miranda Yardley, a genuine transsexual, has no wish to impinge on women. So he doesn't ( he's also happy with male pronouns).

Whereas Shon Faye has told women to 'enjoy their erasure'.

If there was a way of sorting transwomen who have a genuine affinity with women from those who don't, it would be great.

But castration doesn't seem to be it.

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

Why wouldn't they?

You can have a GRC and a shiny new birth certificate that says 'female' and still retain your penis. You don't even need a GRC to get your medical records changed to your preferred gender.

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.

I'm not sure what that means. You don't need any kind of surgery at all in order to get a GRC.

And you don't even need a GRC to be considered trans and be protected under equality law.

In order to get a GRC and be legally considered a woman, you currently have to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and 'live as a woman' for two years. That doesn't mean surgery of any description.

Self ID will eliminate both those criteria.

Equality law is different. You don't have to have a GRC you just have to stay out loud that you're trans.

Most transwomen retain their genitalia. And very many of them are attracted to women. There is no difference between them and any other man.

Pencils - that's not what I've been thinking about at all and you need to read the comment I made in the context of all the others. I object to the GRC, self-ID, the attempt at gas lighting us into the general delusion that people can actually change sex. I think it should be taken as read that when a person requests a female or male HCP, they mean a biologically female or male HCP and no HCP should have the arrogance to think that doesn't apply to them.

I am thinking about the question of whether HCPs can be afforded a bit of discretion when it comes to treating transpeople in hospital rather than having to say in ALL cases - doesn't matter who the patient is, what the patient is experiencing, how they are interacting with the HCPs, how other patients on the ward might feel... XX on this ward and XY on that ward and no special treatment for a private or side room.

Because that was how this part of the discussion got started - when I said that someone who wasn't there to kick up a fuss (unlike the patient a pp's relative had to deal with) would be grateful for a private room and actually there was no need to say "this person is a chaperone" unless actively needing to make the point to a patient who you suspect poses a threat to one of your staff and needs warning that you have clocked it and will not tolerate it.

Yes, I've read all the comments on the thread in the correct order including yours.

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.

Can you explain what you meant here because I've obviously missed something.

Why wouldn't they have to consider the issue?

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.

Ever heard of "Schrodinger's Rapist"? How exactly do you presume women will be able to make that judgement call?

Can you explain what you meant here because I've obviously missed something

Why wouldn't they have to consider the issue?

Because I had already said no penises on the women's ward?

What's the difference between that and "no biological males"? Why is your position which excludes all but a tiny number of these men correct, yet we're awful paranoid man haters?

So if a man has had his penis removed but looks exactly like a man, where does he go?

Because I had already said no penises on the women's ward?

Oh right, I get you. Apologies, I had forgotten you were discussing how you think things should be rather than how things are legally at the moment.

I can't see this working though. I can't see transwomen being happy with having to prove they have no penis whenever they need inpatient care.

If we're discussing how we think things should be, I think hospital wards should continue to be segregated by sex. If trans people feel their needs are not being met then it is up to them to propose alternative solutions that do not impinge on the rights of women to privacy, dignity and safety.

I don't really think in this current climate that HCPs should be told they can use their discretion on this issue. Not because they aren't capable but because I don't want to see nurses named and shamed (probably with secretly snapped photos) as 'transphobic' on social media, along with rape threats and calls for their sacking if they don't agree that 6ft 5 Barbara with a beard and penis really belongs on the gynae ward. Which will happen. Have you seen what happens to any woman who deviates from trans ideology in any way? For this issue I think there needs to be a properly inplemented policy that staff can defer to so as not to be held personally accountable.

That's an excellent point stichglitched. It's exactly what would happen. The poor woman in question is already being called "abusive" for asserting her personal boundaries to decide who touches her intimately.

This ia an interesting twitter thread on the subject, started by a TW who accused the woman patient of being abusive to the nurse who was the party who deserved an apology. mobile.twitter.com/rvedotrc/status/947466631701245954

Why is your position which excludes all but a tiny number of these men correct, yet we're awful paranoid man haters?

Who the fuck said that?

What has stopped me being "peak trans" this morning is the need to step back and think about the argument - that I didn't realise was there - that all born-male humans, whether they have a penis or not, pose a threat to women. What stopped me being "peak trans" yesterday evening was the idea that patients who are trans should not get the kind of consideration this thread has consistently talked about, that is, HCPs doing what they can, within the limitations of resources and taking all patients into account, to have patients comfortable enough in an exposed and vulnerable setting to ensure they seek necessary treatment.

I have never said you are an awful man hater, and telling me that I have does sound a tiny bit paranoid.

I'm thinking about the issue. I'm trying to debate it. I have - sincerely - thanked datun for spelling out the (presumably "radfem"?) position to me without flanneling. I've not flounced and accused people of attacking me because they disagree with me as so often happens and I'm not accusing anyone of being a man-hater.

Stitched - yes I had been thinking that in fact it's a minefield these days and thus more dangerous for the HCPs than anyone else.

mirialis

I think it was this which gave what might be the wrong impression

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".

The 'all males'. And entitlement in quotes.

It is a feminist viewpoint that men are socialised to have entitlement.

Hence sexual harassment, rape, man spreading, catcalling, gender pay gap, talking over you in meetings, wife work, FGM, girl brides, porn, prostitution, etc.

It's the very basis of feminism that women are disadvantaged which could not happen without a male sense of entitlement.

On the dangers posed by male entitlement - there's a thread running in feminism at the moment, about a man who has killed 3 wives. The first two offences were judged to be manslaughter. He has finally been done for murder for the killing of wife number 3. Do you think he'd really have been given the benefit of the doubt that many times without a culture which somehow tacitly still thinks of attacks on men's intimate partners as mere "domestics"?

Or the rape case where the accused got off by using the defence that he tripped and fell penis first into his drunk-to-unconsciousness victim? Could that have happened in a culture which didn't tacitly think that women are really sexual playthings for men, in a perpetual state of assumed consent unless they fight the man off?

We live in a culture where women's boundaries - from the small, such as wanting not to be called "honey" by some twit doing the social media feed for Virgin Trains, through to the major, like wanting not to be raped or murdered - have to be constantly defended against the assumption that these boundaries do not matter at all.

Only a small number of men rape, and an even smaller number murder. But all men benefit from a society which is set up to take men more seriously than women as a default position, and set up to dismiss women's attempts to assert boundaries as "hysteria" and "not being nice enough."

A man walks into a job interview - the default assumption is that he wants the job, wants to do well in it, wants to progress. A woman walks into a job interview - does she want what the man wants, or is she filling in time till she has children, or does she want what the man wants and children (which he is allowed to have without even thinking about it twice) but the reality is that because her partner won't pick up the slack at home, once the children arrive she'll get passed over for promotion 'cos she can't stay till 8.00pm working on that deadline that suddenly got sprung on her yesterday?

You say peak trans as if it's a moment you're planning to reach when you can reject all parts of the trans side of the debate.

I think most people mean it in terms of having been absolutely fine with and wholly supportive of trans rights and thinking fgs live and let live/ this is the same as gay marriage/ get with the 21st century, and then reached the point of seeing the agenda and the multiple issues in the picture and moving from 'yay, equality' to 'hang on a minute, this isn't equality and I have issues with some of this'.

Every inch of this is thoroughly complex, multi sided issues, there are not clear answers, all I want is that nationally this is debated, fully, openly, with representative voices from women as much as from trans people, and the decisions reached are transparent, fair and properly balanced ones. I'm not ok with the GRA being the first rights act in history that actively removed rights from others instead of just granting equal rights to a disadvantaged group. I don't want anyone to 'lose'.

What I do keep thinking - keeping in mind that the hospital wards issue is just another small piece of a much large puzzle of attitudes towards women, women's rights, women's consent, women's bodily autonomy and the underlying misogyny that is still so built into society - is what is the status quo compared to the proposed change.

The status quo is that women can expect the NHS to provide single sex wards for the reasons the NHS themselves state, of privacy, dignity and safety. Mixed wards were an experiment not liked or wanted by patients (and yes one person may have been fine with it, but in issues of consent 'no' trumps 'yes') and all political parties were committed to erasing.

The middle ground status quo is in the form of the 2004 legislation that people with a GRC - Miranda Yardley terms this group as transsexual which is a useful way to differentiate, so a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and having gone through a process of verifying and documenting this commitment- being generally treated as the sex they have gone through the process of legally changing to, with exemptions allowed if the provider can demonstrate the necessity. So some flexibility here.

The proposed change is that anyone can identify as a woman with no process to go through and no gender dysphoria involved - literally 'I feel like a woman' does it; no providers may have exemptions for biological womens' spaces and provisions no matter what the reason so no gate keeping of any kind permitted, and a drastic change for biological women in those hospital wards who have their right to single sex provision removed.

It's a drastic change, significantly disadvantaging one of the two groups involved, and the disadvantaged group forms the massive majority of people who will be affected. So my feelings are no, the proposed change is not acceptable in its current form. That means things remain the same rather than increasing disadvantage or removing provision for the other group.

The flexibility that the middle ground/GRA allowed is rapidly being erased by self identification, which has been the choice of the trans community itself. It will not allow a case by case basis, it simply demands that anyone with any appearance and without consideration of their intentions, must be granted full access to women's spaces irrespective of the effect on women's privacy and dignity. And irrespective of the fact - evidenced fact - that some of the people who will exercise that right actively mean harm to those women in that situation.

Many women are realising that their flexibility and willingness to support and listen has just been the thin end of a very big wedge, and has been interpreted as weakness, have had to switch from 'conditional support' to 'I cannot support this ideology'. I've reached that point and I'm sad about it, but the trans movement and trans community have to take ownership of the consequences of their choices and actions. It's not women's responsibility to compensate and fix it for them.

stitchglitched

This is exactly the situation that my relative, who is a junior doctor, described. A TIM demanded to be on the women's 6 bed ward. Was offered a private room. Refused. Only for the senior doc taking no shit and having some knowledge of the equality laws were they able to insist on the private room. Otherwise the fucker would have forced himself into a women's ward without the consent of any of the women, or indeed the medical staff.

He then proceeded to demand that he be examined by a female doc. This was agreed but the docs insisted on a chaperone. He made an almighty fuss about that and it was only that they refused to treat him unless there was a chaperone that he relented.

Can I point out that my relative is a young woman, considered, kind, and the very type of person you would hope to be a doctor. (She is also very beautiful.) The other junior docs on the ward round were also young women. It was a senior male doctor who protected them from this predatory behaviour as they did not know enough about the legislation to refuse him, so thank God for the older doc.

This is not stuff you read in the paper, this is a fine, hardworking, dedicated and ethical young woman being exposed to predatory behaviour and having no idea if legally she can refuse him.

It's fucking obscene

By the way, this is by no means the only case of TIMs demanding access to female wards. It happens regularly, according to my relative. She highlighted this one because of the chaperone refusal issue.

WHY would someone refuse a chaperone?

I said all males because... you mean all males don't you? Not that all males WILL harm females but that all males pose a threat to females in human society whether they have a penis or not? And "entitlement" was in quotes because it is a concept, rather than a known object and something that is open to interpretation and I want to think about in relation to the treatment of transpeople in general.

Prickly, I was aware of that horrific murder at the time - and now the horrendous background that was not public - and had passed that man a few times in the street. And I'm very aware of all the subsequent points in your post. Again, it is a reality that I too have lived as a woman and am not blind to.

For the avoidance of about, I do not think anyone is saying all men are evil.

And more outrage at this woman’s awful treatment of the bullied nurse from a well known transactivist journalist.

They’ve started a thread for transfolk to reveal the awful treatment they’ve received from cis HCPs (though surely they should then have sympathy for the woman patient) not realising that probably most woman have similar claims about poor treatment/care they’ve also received throughout their lives.

That tweet says it all doesn't it.

The woman had no right to feel uncomfortable and less right to express it. Her job was to shut up and put the transwoman first. Because poor transwoman.

No one else matters or counts for anything.

It's actually toxic masculinity that is far more likely to harm males experiencing gender dysphoria. Rape, murder, abuse of all kinds - perpetrated by men.

I know it was pages back, but I wanted just to repeat this point made so clearly & succinctly by @mathanxiety

It's ironic - we're told that male facilities (lavatories, changing rooms) are too dangerous for men who don't conform to stereotypical masculine codes (although Hope, a Telford transexual has an ongoing Twitter feed showing that she has no problem using male facilities).

So instead of trying to make masculine/men's spaces 'inclusive' women have to include non-women. And if we question this, we're told we're bigots.

That's awful Assigned. I was thinking about this issue earlier, in relation to Travis the TopShop guy (can't remember his full name). All of this is really just the epitome of male entitlement. Travis wanted something, it didn't occur to him that it wasn't his to take, or that it might impact negatively on others. It was just 'me want, me get' and when he wasn't pandered to he immediately took to twitter to order them to 'sort it out', so confident was he in his entitlement. I can't imagine a trans identified female behaving as you have described on a male ward, it really is a male issue.

Katelyn Burns is an awful misogynistic narcissist who thinks women shouldn't mention our period pain because it upsets MTF trans people.

I said all males because... you mean all males don't you? Not that all males WILL harm females but that all males pose a threat to females in human society whether they have a penis or not? And "entitlement" was in quotes because it is a concept, rather than a known object and something that is open to interpretation and I want to think about in relation to the treatment of transpeople in general.

Exactly. And that slightly dismissive attitude about people's expressed view about males as a class, coupled with your pearl clutching when I said that no biological males at all should be on the women's ward, is why I said what I did. Happy to see you don't actually think that. Apologies for assuming that you did.