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.

but that all males pose a threat to females in human society whether they have a penis or not?

Still not quite right. Because clearly not all males pose an actual threat.

Firstly you can't tell which ones will and which ones won't.

Secondly, to many women, a man doesn't have to pose a threat in order to make her feel uncomfortable.

I wouldn't want to get undressed in front of my father-in-law, for instance. No threat, just very awkward.

We can spend all night debating the reasons why, but I think it's universally understood, nonetheless.

8I wouldn't want to get undressed in front of my father-in-law, for instance. No threat, just very awkward.

We can spend all night debating the reasons why, but I think it's universally understood, nonetheless.*

Well yes. I work with some really lovely blokes & I can't imagine them posing a threat to anyone. But I'd still object strongly to sharing a changing room or shower area with them.

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.

I was reading this case yesterday:
"Today she told me that Richard Masbruch would be housed at CCWF. He would be the first male to be housed in a womens facility. Not only would he be housed there he would also be housed within her unit 514. Richard Masbruch is a Serial Rapist. During his time in Mens prison after his arrest he cut off his penis, claiming to be transgender. Due to inmates being unable to be interviewed what wasn’t revealed was that Masbruch is in fact still raping women within the facility, just now with foreign objects. He has also brutally injured some of the women within the facility."

A rare case I'm sure but, nonetheless, it happened - and it was allowed to happen in a women's prison.

@SparklyUnicornTractors that is a stunning & wonderful summary of the problem. I wonder if you have a way of getting it out into a more public domain than "oh-it's-just-Mumsnet" - could you tweet it out as it is or send it to a journalist - it needs to be read widely. May I cut & paste & keep? I may have need of such a succinct statement of the reasonable feminist argument about the proposed changes to the GRA.

yes they are coming to get us via doxxing, our employers etc; it is not paranoia

Please keep whatever you want Not , very glad it's useful to you. I freely collect particularly key sentences and paragraphs to inflict on my MP. Not that he cares, but I keep on demonstrating to him that I do.

They are basically invalidating their whole argument that a transwoman is just exactly the same as a born woman surely? Ho are we supposed to believe it if they don't even believe it themselves?

The explanation I have read is that it is triggering for transwomen to intimately encounter transwomen bodies, which is why it is ok for them to be an exception and permitted to selectively want sex with born women only. Born woman may not be granted the same entitlement, although Riley Dennis has kindly stated that if you are a born woman lesbian who has been raped you may have a short period to recover yourself and work on your fear of penises before you are expected to make yourself available to male born lesbians again.

The reason born women are not entitled to selectivity is because of their 'privilege' in being born with female biology. Or something. Essentially born women are of lower status and with different and lesser rights, and must accept this or be punished. (For further details see Lundy Bancroft's 'Why Does He Do That?')

A bit like this. I’ve seen people advocate and organise for trans only safe places - which I don’t have an issue with. Just wish women/females were afforded the same consideration.

Katelyn Burns is now retweeting stories of people's problems with 'cis' medical practitioners behaving inappropriately, as though that in some way refutes the point. A number of the examples refer to male doctors behaving inappropriately towards women. That would be the point sailing way over their head, then.

KB has to be one if the most deluded and narcissistic TW on twitter.

Katelyn Burns is now retweeting stories of people's problems with 'cis' medical practitioners behaving inappropriately

The nerve. I've read countless accounts of tims deliberately dressing up to visit their doctor (usually female) and they are blatent it's about the sexual thrill. They also love getting intimate examinations by female hcp,s.

www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?16954-Wearing-panties-to-the-doctors-office

hewearspanties.com/forum/search.php?keywords=Doctor&terms=all&author=&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

I'm really surprised we're not hearing more about this from health care proffesionals, it's such blatant abuse.

That forum is sick. Getting a thrill out of a female doctor seeing you in women's underwear. Disgusting bastards.

It's akin to flashing in the park - using others to fulfill your sexual fantasies without their consent.

Did you see the article in the Guardian by the cross dresser who likes to involve female shop assistants in his shopping for his female underwear as much as possible, and likes to give them a smirk at the counter as he pays that says (his words) 'you may not be enjoying this, but I am'.

Involving non consenting, unwilling women and intentionally making them uncomfortable is part of the thrill. This is the kind of person who would joyfully walk through the open door of self-ID. No longer just restricted to lingerie shop assistants and healthcare professionals, he could be getting a thrill in any women's changing room, ward or toilet anywhere at any time, with any women and girls present there to be his unwilling, uncomfortable props. And there will be not a thing they can do about it. Their consent = irrelevant.

How anyone can seriously believe in 2018 that this is in any way acceptable or morally right defeats me.

Bambambini: your tweet from glitchliz - she super doesn't know what "credulous" means!

Did you see the article in the Guardian by the cross dresser who likes to involve female shop assistants in his shopping for his female underwear as much as possible, and likes to give them a smirk at the counter as he pays that says (his words) 'you may not be enjoying this, but I am'.

I think they published another similar one a couple of weeks later.

Can anyone link?

This is the one about the lingerie:

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/nov/03/my-life-in-sex

I hate the Guardian with the same passion as most people on here hate the Daily Mail. At least the DM doesn't pretend to be highbrow.

I think most people on the FWR boards hate the Guardian nowadays, Funday.

Katelyn Burns reminding us that the 2nd rule of misogyny is that women saying no to men is a hate crime.

It’s the outrageous hypocrisy and cowardice with the Guardian, it’s smug superiority.

And the one who writes for the independent? Who talks about their wank circle whilst in the changing room and mistakenly lets the shop assistant see them naked.

I don't know whether the guardian and the independent are just naive. Or whether they realise they are supporting a fetish.

I haven't yet got over the disbelief that a national paper published an article celebrating sexual harassment and the use of women within a fetish. The comments on the article didn't fail to see how inappropriate it was, it's right there in black and white. You can only draw the conclusion that the paper actively supports it as 'liberation' and sexual freedom for the man involved, with the price paid by the women he uses as perfectly appropriate. It's revolting.