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.

Betsy that article is shocking, not suprising, but shocking.

and those threads...

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

'A sly smile', I recon a smirk of WTAF am I doing with my life! Or maybe it didn't happen at all!

I've never worried about what I wear to the bloody doctors! The only time I was remotely concerned was when a very misogynistic ad came on for matching underwear. It was something like "A little uncoordinated" suggesting if a woman were run over by a bus her main area of concern would be her underwear! It actually showed a bus careering towards the women, if I remember rightly! Yes, I know it is meant to be funny but I found it offensive and complained.

Anyway, I digress. I wonder what the correct thing to do if one sees a man in his feminine undies would be? I don't work in the kind of industry where that's likely to happen. I think if I did I would want to adopt the facial expression that gave them the least pleasure, maybe, "I can't arsed with your tomfoolery face!"

if I did I would want to adopt the facial expression that gave them the least pleasure, maybe,

I was thinking this. What on earth could you do? Almost any reaction is an acknowledgment, which is the goal.

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

That's it.

Datun no reaction at all. But, as I say, I work in an environment where no one needs to be in their pants, thankfully!

That crossdresser site!

I'm not one for trigger warnings but ffs please do it with that shit

It’s very clear that TIMs don’t want access to women’s spaces so much as access to women in women’s spaces. It’s not enough that they get to use a neutral space or even a women’s space when women are not there. What they want is the participation of women in their fantasies.

What they want is the participation of women in their fantasies.

With that participation being unwilling . From the shoutiest, angriest TRAs who want women displaced, intimidated, erased, and in some cases actively bleeding and providing them with a victim, (please see Turfisaslur if this seems an exaggeration), to the smirking bugger in lace frilly knickers under his suit, who wants to see you blush or look uncomfortable. Its the same damn impulse. Women's bodies are there for the use of penis havers, women have no right to any feelings or boundaries about it.

Fuck. That.

Exactly, Flora and Sparkly. I just wish more people saw it.

I think once you learn about autogynephilia you can't unlearn it. It suddenly all becomes clear. And thanks Datun for the information -
you lifted the veil from my eyes. I knew the trans agenda was off but I didn't know why. Now I can totally see it for what it is and it makes so much sense. Probably especially for women who are used to the fact that male sexuality is obviously the most important thing in the world.

Sadly so many people have no idea about it. My really nice, thoughtful male friend said he thought we had to treat trans women as women because otherwise it was like the awful people who said Barack Obama was too black or not black enough because he's mixed race. I hardly knew where to start with that one - so far off the mark. I think I peak trans-ed his wife though so she can carry on disabusing him of his nice but wrong ideas.

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

So, to some, is making any unwelcome comment about a named TRA's public actions ...

Backingvocals

I think once you learn about autogynephilia you can't unlearn it. It suddenly all becomes clear.

It certainly does. It becomes blindingly obvious. There isn't woman alive who's not fully aware of how sex motivates men.

Then suddenly, all the talk of clothes and make up, which between women would seem entirely innocent, takes on a completely different complexion.

What makes it doubly infuriating is that they can then claim but this is what women do. Hence transwomen are women as the most vital part of the trans rhetoric.

So that perv who tweet a film of himself with an anal dildo wearing a basque and exposing his penis, felt able to say I don't know what you're talking about! Women have sexuality, why shouldn't I do this?

And he could probably call on a number of women who might do that. The difference is they are not autogynephiles fetishing women.

It's worth noting that if you call them out, the misogyny and motivation erupts instantly.

The conversation has moved on so won't go back to what I was originally going to post beyond saying, yes, elements about the discussion relating to the treatment of trans patients who have to go to hospital does still have me "clutching my pearls".

I'm honestly not being a goady fucker but I looked at that cross-dresser thread about what pants to wear to the doctors (and actually I unfortunately have had to have a lot of gynaecological exams and I do think about what I'm going to wear depending on whether it's going to be an exam or just a conversation and have got it wrong and now just assume there's always the chance of an examination) and the OP gets pulled up by a couple of other posters who says they think he did it on purpose and a number of the other posters are either saying that HCPs - male and female - are not phased about the underwear a patient is wearing (so do not expect any reaction), or saying they would not wear "inappropriate" underwear to the doctors. For sure you have a few posters who enjoy the "thrill" of their secret preference for women's underwear being revealed but this seems directed at both male and female HCPs.

I know posters here have linked to some really disturbing stuff in the past (though I'm not a regular MN user so is been quite a while since I've seen it but I do remember being disturbed by whatever it was) and I'm really not denying it's out there, but that particular thread on its own just didn't seem to warrant the level of disgust. Maybe that's why more people don't "see it" - because in isolation, those men who like to wear women's underwear don't seem too disturbing. The behaviour towards a pp's HCP relative described on this thread was, without doubt, appalling - I'm not trying to minimise that at all by the way and it's clear there needs to be protection for HCPs.

I also think the information on autogynephilia is just really confusing. I googled it and found this post, which I just scanned over to see what it was about and will read properly in a bit - would be interested to know what you make of it though.

www.philpercs.com/2016/02/autogynephilia-a-critique-and-personal-narrative.html

Mirialis

It's using people, particularly women for whom it's harassing and intimidating, as props in your self indulgent sexual fetishism. That really doesn't come across for you?

That's the 'well it's only a bit/possibly just fake news/not all of them' argument.

Which is debatable in itself, considering the very large number of men suddenly identifying as trans with no gender dysphoria in their past, and the fact that the TRA lobbying is being led by groups consisting wholly of these men.

But even if it was just a few/not all of them/there's a few weirdos everywhere/it's prissy to mind etc - I'm afraid I don't care. For me the bottom line is if accepting this legislation means accepting some women will have to deal with some weirdos making them uncomfortable and enjoying new sexual rights, then no, it's not ok.

That's essentially saying you don't mind if some women and girls suffer because after all, it'll probably only be a few. Ish. Hopefully.

And before anyone eats me for the choice of words, 'weirdo' as a word to refer to a man enjoying making women sexually uncomfortable and invaded on purpose is a very mild choice compared to the many things he could be called.

mirialis

I have skim read that link. Because I believe I've read it before.

He is attempting to sanitise autogynephilia. For very good reasons.

Blanchard himself does not seem to overly judge the fetish. He has never come at it from a woman or feminist point of view, for instance.

He doesn't really see the fact that it even being possible to fetishise womanhood, is misogynistic. Particularly as the fetish will take the form of subordination.

Neither does the man writing that narrative. Because he's a man.

I'm sure there are all sorts of personalities who have AGP. Some decent people, some bad people. Statistically, narcissism is quite prevalent. Which I'm sure doesn't help.

Grayson Perry is a self-confessed autogynephile. The crucial difference is he doesn't claim to be a woman. He seems like a fairly analytical guy and doesn't impose his fetish on others.

I have an issue with AGP because it's damaging to women. However I have the same issue with BDSM.

But I can put that to one side, as long as men with AGP do not demand that they are women and therefore the fetish becomes not a fetish, but 'what women do'.

It's a lot easier to get a handle on this if you see it in real life, instead of an abstract concept. The link below is written by women whose partners are AGP.

These are strangers on an anonymous Internet forum. But their narratives are strikingly similar.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3101834-trans-widows-escape-committee

Yes, it's astonishing how little you care about "a few" women unwillingly forced to participate in someone else's fetishistic sexual fantasy, yet are still clutching your pearls about one hypothetical depenised males's feelings that you prioritise over women (when you don't care half as much about the vast majority of bepenised MTF trans people ).

Sparkly - whatever I make of the blog post when I get a chance to actually sit and read it, I don't want the legislation the change!

datun - only had the chance to skim your post too at the minute but the bit that stood out, yes, as an abstract concept it's confusing so will take a look at your post and link.

But I can put that to one side, as long as men with AGP do not demand that they are women and therefore the fetish becomes not a fetish, but 'what women do'.

YY. And I don't particularly want it normalised so that men feel they can flaunt it around, particularly when they have access to women's spaces. It is sexual fetishism. Like most people would find it inappropriate if a BDSM Dom walked his submissive partner around Tesco on a leash.

mirialis

Ok. Take wine and a blood pressure cuff before you go in!

Ereshkigal - I get that it is frustrating for you but, while I might not be the brightest spark on the planet I'm also not stupid. And if I'm not "seeing it" the way that you are, I can get why other not-completely-dim people aren't seeing it and I am at least trying and have explained I'm thinking and trying even when you, er, dismiss me as dismissive and pearl-clutching. I think others, or me at other times, might well have just left the thread and had done with it. I know women don't need to be "nice" but when it comes to this topic you are trying to get people to "see" something that seems like a nasty point of view at times and I can't just accept something I don't understand.

I don't know whether the guardian and the independent are just naive. Or whether they realise they are supporting a fetish.
I should imagine that they have the same share of pornsick weasels as the rest of the population and view themselves as supporting men.

Obviously you don't have to accept my point of view, mirialis. I explained how many women, myself included would see being an unwilling participant in someone else's sexual fetish. Quite clearly I think. If you don't see it the same way that's really up to you. But I think you'd be in the minority.

I dont really understand what the problem is here. Why are we so precious about thr gender of a qualiified medical practicioner carrying out a medical procedure? The nurse isn't interested in anything other than the examination...isn't it time stopped being so prudish? We dont hear many men complaining about being treated by a female Doctor/Nurse and if we did they would no doubt be called sexist!