Women can request a female doctor instead of a male one on the basis that they perceive men to be a threat.
This is backed up by the pattern of sexual violence against women.
This is a theoretical threat and based on perception not an actual threat that can be qualified against an individual. Even if the trust is confident that the male doctor is no threat to the patient (which is every doctor they employ otherwise they shouldn't be employed as a doctor!)
If the pattern of offending in this way is the same for transwomen as it is for men then the same therotectically applies. The risk is the same.
Now insurers and medics deal in assessing risk. If they deem one to be a legitimate risk, how can they deem the other not to be a legitimate risk?
And the point is that the medical profession recognises that the threat of a theoretical situation is valid in terms of how it can be psychologically damaging to put someone knowingly into this situation even if they confident they genuinely do pose no threat at any point.
At this point you should be asking why transcult are so desparate to be included in the crime figures for women? Doing so produces a fudge with data and figures which underplays and misleads the public about the potential risk. But that same risk still applies in reality and this pattern of behaviour is currently known about. Deliberately changing how stats are compiled in this way, when we know this information now, and there is a danger this under plays risk to patients, is a dangerous game to play if your job is essentially half about recognising risk, assessing statistics and informing patients of that risk so they can make an informed decision...