Since there is precedent for female only care with regard to mammography, there must therefore be an acknowledgement that there are circumstances in which same sex is the appropriate option (where possible).
Given that, it leads to a conclusion that first we must acknowledge the primary need for same sex care, then worry about to resource it. It is completely the wrong idea to look at resourcing first then declare same sex care as unnecessary or untenable as a result.
It is perfectly ok to acknowledge the need, then declare that the need cannot be fully met in current conditions, due to lack of resource. This still accepts the basic tenet that same sex care is the most favourable option.
If there was a treatment for cancer, but so expensive to administer that not all could receive it. We would not simply rest with the losses of life. We would be working to overcome the cost, or reduce the price somehow.
The same should be true of patient preference.
We should always be honest about the position we are currently in, but also honest about the perfect day scenario, and be striving towards it.
The perfect scenario would be the preferred chosen option for both men and women.
If that cannot be achieved today, then it is clear that the needs of women outweigh those of men with regard to same sex care. Why? Because it is more likely that women have suffered trauma at the hands of men, or deem men to be a threat to their safety or dignity. Even religiously, it is more likely that a woman's modesty should be protected than a man's.
It is a bit of a 'no brained' really.
And if we can't even get that far today, we should at least be explaining why, and be as humble and apologetic as possible when we are asking people to give up some pretty personal misgivings.
'Sorry love, we are busy as fuck' doesn't quite cut the mustard.