To think men should not be allowed to be gynaecologists

[CaragianettE]

Just that, really. Saw one last week. He was trying to be helpful, but I really really really don’t want to discuss ‘do you get clots’ ‘do you experience flooding’ ‘do you find intercourse painful’ with a strange man. Yes it would be awkward with a strange woman too, but at least I know she likely has some lived experience of what we are talking about. TBH I also question men’s motives for choosing this job, not just the licence to look at strange women’s vaginas, but I think there’s something deep in the male psyche that just loves laying down the law to women about their reproductive systems. It’s a job for a woman, and while I know men were allowed to train for it in the past, I think they should now be phased out.

I want the best gynaecologist and could care less if they're male or female.
Phasing out male gynaecologists is an absolutely absurd suggestion.

All births are special, don’t get me wrong - I meant more compared to other areas of medicine. So, for example, if you are a paediatric A&E doctor for example, you will statistically spend a lot of your time seeing “worried well”, who would perhaps have been better off at the gp or even just at home watching cbeebies with some Calpol. If you are an obstetrician then you only see more acute cases.

One of my concerns with restricting access to any medical specialism to men is that you may get fewer pioneering surgeons who dedicate their lives to it and invent new better ways to do things. That’s not because women can’t be good surgeons- but you are narrowing a pool of talent where a tiny number of people have the ability and drive to advance the field. And possibly you still get a drop off in female surgeons when they have children.

I mentioned upthread that there are 3 surgeons in the country who do the type of breast reconstruction I’m having, all male. If they had been prevented from going into that specialism there might well be none or the techniques used would be less advanced. I imagine the same applies to specialised or particularly difficult areas of gynaecology.

I tend to think preference for female medical staff is the preserve of those who haven’t had really serious medical issues. Once you do, there are so many people who might examine you or be observing or ask you about periods, sex etc that it would just be totally infeasible to require all staff be female. Mammographers have to be female, for example, but I was probably seen by 15+ medical staff just while being diagnosed with cancer, many of whom were male. So if you just have a scan and are fine you might just see a woman but more than that it would be logistically very difficult to have female only care in most hospitals.

They don't charge a fortune compared with similarly qualified and experienced people.

They often work in the evenings, and always on top of their NHS hours, which I'm sure put off a lot of women.

So should women not be allowed to work in men's health?
Should it be mandatory that teachers have children?

So all the women who aren’t bothered can be seen by a man and those who need to see a woman have less of a wait

That’s not how percentages work. If 75% of the entire NHS are female that includes all areas. Some areas of the NHS are heavily female. Med secs/admin, midwives, paeds nursing - if you think that gynaecologists should be more female led to represent the percentage, does that mean we should get rid of some of our female midwives so we can make sure 25% of them are men?

I can sympathise. I have a lovely male gynaecologist, but I still feel very vulnerable when he wants to have a look.

I recently had surgery with a different gynaecologist and he was so awful I will never let him near me again. Totally dismissive of my concerns, my views, my pain. He left me sobbing before I had my procedure with his attitude alone. Massively overinflated ego and threatening manor. I told him I wanted a hysterectomy and he scoffed that I wont get one- and he knows because he's on the panel.

What about specific issues with
that field? Should a gynae have experienced whatever your issue is for themselves?

What about oncology - should we require people to have had specific forms of cancer before they can become an oncologist?

Plenty of people are great at their jobs without having to have experienced it for themselves

I'm not sure what your comment has to do with mine.

I phrased it wrong but I meant that rape victims would have access to women gynaes easier if those of us who weren’t bothered either way saw the male ones.

You are definitely NOT being unreasonable.

I imagine too many women end up having poorer health outcomes, because trauma caused by males means they aren't comfortable being treated by males, and avoid healthcare or end up waiting longer for treatment.

In the UK the majority of doctors are now women (just), so whilst i don't think existing male gynaecologist should be removed from their jobs i do think going forward there is no need for new male gynaecologist.

I find it questionable why any male who has respect for women (including ones with history of sexual assault) and a degree of introspection would take on the role. Which poses the question, what is the motivation of male doctors (and student midwives) choosing the profession?

If they are passionate about the birth process then they can become paediatricians specialising in NICU, if the genitourinary system floats their boat then they can specialise in urology.

Fair enough. I'm not sure it works that way in practice though – as I believe a pp said, there were no female gynaecologists in her area so she had to see a male.

I agree with the majority that there's no reason to disallow people of either sex to specialise in any discipline with the caveat that, because male and female patients should be able to state a preference for the sex of their urology and gynaecology specialists, that specialist posts may (possibly) be artificially regulated by sex in order to reflect any patient preferences. (The only type of discrimination that I would find acceptable in the NHS). I was expecting most people here to respond "unreasonable" because that was one of the options offered for the thread. But we got weird, bloody silly, ridiculous, ridiculous!, absolutely ridiculous. Why? You are responding to someone expressing her substantial difficulty talking to a male medical professional about intimate problems together with, or maybe because of, her fear that he may be a sexual predator or a power-hungry misogynist. Not to mention the lack of critical thinking behind her extreme solution. My wish for the outraged here is that if you ever need a specialist, they will see your psychological problems alongside the physical and will react kindly. (Even if you do come up with odd insults like "handmaiden")

Actually, as hormones are constantly in flux, bloods alone cannot confirm perimenopause or even menopause as they're just a snapshot of the time the blood was drawn. HRT is supposed to prescribe based on symptoms. I say this from experience as I went in to perimenopause in my early 40s, saw many GPS who scoffed at me. In the end, I went private and yes, despite high oestrogen levels, I wasn't producing progesterone as I wasn't ovulating, the latter of which was obvious give my FSH levels. But, most GPs do not know how to read female hormone blood panels anyway.

Also, topical oestrogen (a form of HRT that is an add-on, rather than in standard HRT itself) does help prevent UTIs. This is because the space between the urethra opening and vagina is small, and declining oestrogen cause the tissue to retract making UTIs more common (as bacteria is spread more easily). Also, due to unbalanced hormones, many women suffer from vaginal atrophy without even knowing it, so topical oestrogen is a real benefit. Gosh, I wish I would have known about topical oestrogen when I was in was younger as it would have helped my sex life enormously.

Unfortunately, medicine is inherently biased towards men. Women's endocrine systems in particular are a mystery as they're so under researched due to the simple fact that they're a lot more complicated than men's. Men's hormones run on a 24 hour a day cycle, women's on a monthly, But there's no such thing as a standard month as some women have really short cycles, other long, and many have irregular periods. Am convinced that it's because of these reasons, they just don't research it. It's something that can't be medicalised in a one size fits all pill. HRT is highly specific and often prescribed incorrectly anyway. Am not surprised your periods returned once you stopped taking it. For those under 40, you've reached menopause if you've not had a period for two calendar years - 24 months. Being given HRT you don't need can easily muck your periods up further or even stop them.

Anyway, am sorry you've had such a terrible time with all this. It's grossly unfair, and so dreadful for you 💐

As a midwife I personally and professionally know all the gynae consultants at my local hospital. When I had a gynae problem I picked my consultant. I picked the best one who happened to be a man. My choice. I fully support others to only say they want a female doctor.

I sympathise with OP.

I came across an American blog some years ago called, "Why men become gynaecologists". There were excerpts from male gynaecologists on their perspectives, and they included confessions of sexual attraction to patients and misogyny.

According to a 2024 study published by the JAMA Network in the National Institute of Health, gynaecology is the second highest litigated discipline. It also has the highest rates of sexual misconduct allegations made by staff (particularly of trainees despite 61.7% of the workforce now being female) and the highest rate of malpractice claims and formal complaints filed by patients.

This is albeit an American study and I am aware that the NHS has also been highlighted for promoting a culture of medical misogyny throughout all areas of reproductive care (which also include female-led disciplines like midwifery) but it's notable that in a discipline dominated by women, it has the highest rates of sexual misconduct allegations.

These are not spurious claims or just my "opinion". These are findings published in a medical journal. I think that if female trainees are finding themselves the subject of sexual harassment by senior male gynaecologists, it tells us something about the mindset of some of the men practicing in that field.

Not all male gynaecologists will be abusers. Some may be caring, empathetic and provide a good service but I think it's ridiculous to suggest that men who work in this profession are somehow "immune" to seeing vaginas on a day to day basis.

I recall seeing an online blog where men shared their views on this topic. Most of them agreed they were sceptical of claims that male gynaecologists would never get turned on when examining a fully or partially naked woman. There is also an undeniable power dynamic here. A woman in this situation is vulnerable.

I accept they are not experts but they know more about male biology than we do. While male gynaecologists may indeed be professional, to quote one of those commenting, "medical training cannot and will not "undo" centuries of biological evolution". I wouldn't necessarily believe they get turned on all the time, but I think it is highly unlikely to suggest that they NEVER get turned on and are somehow professionally "immune".

As for discrimination, some professions can be exempted from equality laws if the circumstances can justify the need for it. I'm not going to engage in a debate around that but I would definitely never choose a male gynaecologist.

This has crossed my mind.

My first smear test, many moons ago, was carried out by a male GP. It wasn't til afterwards that I thought to myself I can actually request a female for future gynae examinations. That's my preference.

Mind you, the nurse at my local practice told me she hated doing them, and I dont blame her😂

I think sometimes we (women generally) are so worried about setting the clock back in terms of equal opportunities for females we can end up enthusiastically endorsing gender parity in all areas even when it's not in our interests.

I think we'd do much better to recognize our own physical vulnerabilities (and understand that doesn't make us weak) and name the problem - i.e men's propensity to be big fucking opportunistic pervs and/or misogynists - and order society accordingly to better serve our needs in terms of comfort, dignity and safety.
And that might actually mean that yeah there are some professions/roles that have to be female only and men just need to suck that up and better police their own abusive tendencies.

A male gynaecologist saved my life after several female gynaecologists had spent hours being perplexed by what was wrong. He got to the bottom of it within 5 minutes and had he not done so it could’ve been much, much worse.

No chaperone? According to the General Medical Council and the Care Quality Commission, he is potentially in breach of guidelines if he didn't offer you a choice to have one present!

I finally went for a smear a few weeks ago with a female nurse. She told me she was locking the door, she asked
me several times before and after she did that if I wanted a chaperone.

So that consultant was very wrong

It will be a sad world if men were banned from having an interest in female health

and personally I had much better experience with male consultants than with females.

Of course we should not "allow" or "not allow" anyone to do anything based on sex/ gender or race./ religion and colour. Most ridiculous and backward idea you can think of.