To think that for medical reasons it is important that transgender people are correctly sexed

[MenstruatorExtraordinaire]

Saw this doctor on This Morning being called a bigot by Piers Morgan

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7227479/Doctor-sues-government-sacked-trans-views.html

Religious views aside, I think he raises an important point.

I've seen several cases recently where transgender people have been incorrectly identified by medical staff leading to their death/serious injury or the death of a baby.

Surely the solution is to retain their correct sex on medical records, birth certificate etc with a TG marker.

So AIBU to think that for medical reasons alone it is important that transgender people are correctly sexed?

I know transwomen and transmen who if I didn't know they were trans I wouldn't know because they look like, pass as, and present as their gender.

Again. Using words you can't define.

What do you mean by gender, when you say present as their gender?

If you can’t tell you aren’t looking. Or believing their hype. Or your radar is broken. There’s always something - even when someone tried to ‘blend in’ (ie not dressing like Cupid Stunt - whoever thought people would ever seriously really look like that and say they were women?)

Biology is nothing to do with gender.

Most people here have no issue with people considering themselves whatever gender they wish, or presenting however they like. It’s when that becomes conflated with sex that it becomes an issue.

You can’t say that sex and gender are completely different things and then say male bodies (of whatever gender) can enter women’s sports, prisons etc (areas that have been segregated because of differing biology, not gender).

Why is it not "rude" or "bad manners" to demand that other people take part in your fantasy of being the opposite sex to what you actually are?

I don't expect others to take part in my fantasies against their will, and I certainly don't think they should be forced to on pain of losing their job.

I do think medicine should be secular. My doctors religious views should have no impact on the treatment I receive. However, the medical profession has been shoved up a shitty creek without paddles as society tries, ever more frantically, to appease certain groups. I'm so tired of appeasement.

They rarely pass. Tw don't. You only need to look at their hands, feet, hips, gait, neck, ears. Maybe half your brain has been removed and stuck in a robot for you to be able to think otherwise. Did you see the tv interview with Posie and India Willoughby? Atva distance IW might pass but next to Posie there was no way. It was hilarious how IW took their hands off the table when Posie put her's there because it was glaringly obvious that they were not the hands of a woman. Same with the overly affected feminine mannerisms of some tw.

It was hilarious how IW took their hands off the table when Posie put her's there I remember wanting Posie to take her hands away until IW forgot and then to pop her hands back up again... just to make it really obvious. Daft game, but it would have amused me

I've not rtft but as a radiographer/sonographer I feel it is hugely important that medical staff know.

Females when having an x-ray of their abdomen or pelvis have to rule out pregnancy. We have to ask when their last period was and if it was within a 28 day window we are good to go. If not a pregnancy test or a reason as to why they're not pregnant ( the coil, no intercourse etc) has to be recorded.

Colleagues of mine have undertaken examinations on Male patients only to find out after that they're female with female reproductive organs.
It won't be long until there is a massive litigation case along the lines of irradiating a foetus when the radiographer in question would have had no clue.

"It won't be long until there is a massive litigation case along the lines of irradiating a foetus when the radiographer in question would have had no clue."

Can an individual radiographer be held responsible for the patient withholding information? If they're not told, then they won't know. They may suspect that someone is presenting as the opposite of their biological sex, but if that information isn't confirmed clearly, how can you be sure that the treatment or examination method chosen is safe for that individual?

On the one hand, we're being told we HAVE to accept that what people say is true, it's reality, they're a woman or man if they SAY that they're a woman or man. On the other hand, if we do that and act accordingly, and it's NOT correct for the biological body, are we saying that it's still the medical professional's fault if it goes wrong?

What about personal responsibility?

They are welcome to the c word. Actual women don't need a prefix.

They are welcome to the c word. Actual women don't need a prefix.

I agree.

What I'm getting at is a scenario in hospital, say, where you can't tell someone's sex, so you have to ask what is their configuration? Because you can't ask are they male or female? Which would lead to only anatomical terms being applied to differentiate the sexes.

But if women are reduced to being called egg holders or cervix havers it won't be enough.

Because as soon as people start applying that to all women, the word will have to be appropriated.

And yes, of course I disagree that women should be called anything other than women.

It makes my head hurt.

Of course an adult can choose to take risks. But when a baby dies we need to look at what went wrong.

The 'c word' literally means 'same'. i.e. an assigned female at birth person who's medical sex matches their female gender identity.

The 't word' means 'different', i.e.. an assigned male at birth person who's medical sex does not match their female gender identity.

Both are women. Both are real, gender, female. One is medically female, one is medically male.

The 'c' word is useful to distinguish in situations like this if you are talking about AFAB or AMAB people with a female gender and you need to distinguish. Simple. You only need the c-prefix in that situation. Otherwise they are both simply women.

I honestly do not understand why you can't get that gender & sex are different and can not match.

btw: Mods - I fully expect this and all other posts mentioning the 'c-word' to be deleted as you ban the full 'c-word' and this is just getting round this ban in a sneaky manner.

Sigh.

"What I'm getting at is a scenario in hospital, say, where you can't tell someone's sex, so you have to ask what is their configuration? Because you can't ask are they male or female? Which would lead to only anatomical terms being applied to differentiate the sexes. "

You ask their gender (male/female/other) and their assigned sex (male/female).

Simple. These do not need to match. One is gender (mental). One is biology (physical). You treat them based on their biology, you call them by name/pronouns relevant to their gender.

What objection do you have to that?

Erm because a) some people are completely delusional and tell you their biology is female when it isn't and b) if there's a mismatch between gender feelz and biology that's disclosing the person's trans status which is breaching confidence and c) some people come into hospital unconscious but with ID and on the system. Those people may have asked to have their "gender" changed on the system. If they can do that the doctors can't care for them appropriately.

"Both are women. Both are real, gender, female. One is medically female, one is medically male."

You honestly believe that, don't you?? One is a male who would rather be female. The other is a female.

@lougle yes, I do.

One is gender female who has biology defined as female.
One is gender female who has biology defined as male.

You seem to think I'm saying:

One is biologically sex female who has female medically defined anatomy.
One is biologically sex female who has male medically defined anatomy.

I'm not. That's silly.

Also, no one's trying to erase anything. I have found an excellent article, but I can't post it as the URL has the 'c word' in.

In this case it does look like the dr was being a bigot, by refusing to address a patient with their preferred pronouns.

I find it very difficult to say things that I know or believe to be untrue. I am autistic which I think is relevant to this. I'd find a way to side step using pronouns where it is possible. I would never want to intentionally offend or hurt anyone. But could I call someone I know to be male "she"? I don't think I could. Anyway, in conversation when talking directly to someone I don't think that I ever call them "he/she", I say "you" or their name. It's only if talking about someone that I would refer to them as he or she.

So what does "gender, female" mean then?

We have so many 'protected characteristics' now, that this sort of thing is bound to happen when one person's rights conflict with another person's rights. So we have females v. transgender, religion v. females/transgender/gay, etc. And everyone claims that their 'protected characteristic' is more important than your 'protected characteristic'. Where will it end?

It seems that the only people who are always in the wrong are white, male, heterosexual atheists!

The problem is sex and gender are conflated as meaning the same thing (they don't now), and woman can refer to a gender OR a sex. It's like saying an orange is orange. It's a colour AND a fruit. Woman is a sex AND a gender.

I'm not conflating them.
People who want their medical records to say "female" when they are male are conflating them.

How would you deal with my three issues above?