Can we be honest about the need for affirmation?

[FortunateCookie]

I posted some of this on the misgendering thread but it was lost in amongst everything.

I asked on that thread whether refusing to affirm someone’s gender identity was a big deal or not, and many people thought it was, and that it could lead to mental health problems and possibly suicide.

If non- affirmation is so damaging then it also follows that positive affirmation would be extremely rewarding and fulfilling.

It seems obvious that this could lead to serious conflicts of interests. For example, in the case of the woman who asked for a female nurse to carry out her smear test, and was faced with a trans nurse.

Here, when the patients needs should be paramount, she instead becomes either a cause of huge distress, or a vehicle to experience the reward of validation. Either way, it is difficult to see how her needs could be centred against the pull of such a powerful motivation. Do eg hospitals, rape crisis centres recognise this dynamic?

Either it is a big deal that a trans person has their identity affirmed, in which case it should also be recognised that this can cause conflicts of interest in situations where affirmation or not is a factor (ie performing smear tests, working in a women’s refuge)

Or it’s not that big of a deal if a trans person has their identity affirmed and therefore they won’t be offended when a patient asks for a female nurse to carry out their smear.

Which is it?

I don't think you need to ask unless there's someone who performs smears that women may object to. Why shouldn't the default be that women perform smears?

Actually, there was a male doc at the birth of my second child, without my permission. I arrived pretty much ready to birth and it was largely midwife led (and yes the 'wife' bit of that word still means fucking female), but a spotty wee goat then arrived, stood in the corner, and instructed an episiotomy.

Had I not been eating the gas and air tube, I might well have objected. Especially about the episiotomy. Or I might have taken some scissors to his fucking arse.

I will never forget the conversation about sewing me up and 'making sure there were two holes'.

I think realistically, if a surgery has a TIM as a nurse or doctor, the onus is on the practice to insure patients are happy to be treated by them. It shouldn't be up to a patient to assume that the nurse/doctor maybe transgender and specify female rather than woman, for example.

How that works when colleagues aren't supposed to know their trans status if they have a GRC, I don't know.

So, there has been no argument from trans supporters so far about this. Interesting.

What is the actual policy about trans people with and without GRCs in the nhs? Is it case by case?

I think the wording needs to specify female rather than woman because "woman" will be interpreted to include TIMs. Also think it should be asked as standard any time a procedure where it might be relevant is booked (not just smears but breast exams and anything else intimate).

I question the motives of any medical practitioner who's both male and trans who actively seeks out a specialization that would lead to them routinely performing those kinds of procedures. It's a red flag.

I question the motives of any medical practitioner who's both male and trans who actively seeks out a specialization that would lead to them routinely performing those kinds of procedures. It's a red flag.

Yes.

I think realistically, if a surgery has a TIM as a nurse or doctor, the onus is on the practice to insure patients are happy to be treated by them.

YY.

I would preferred to be treated by a female.
I would consent to he treated by a man in some cicrumstances.

I would not consent to being treated by a TW.

So there are situations where you would consent to be treated by a man or woman, but not a trans woman?

That is clearly transphobic. There is no difference between that and not wanting to be treated by a black person. And of course racists also have the right to be treated by anyone they choose.

Back to black people again Super

No, being against having a smear by a black woman would be racist. Being against having a smear by a black man would be reasonable.
Being against having a smear by a black transwoman would be for entirely the same reasons as my post above.

Your grasp of logic is tenuous, at best

I thought this describes perfectly why a woman might specifically want a TIM:

I would object to a TIM doing my smear because I don't want someone who covets or envies my genitals having anything to do with them. Creepy as fuck.

SupermatchGame

It has already been pointed out how racist that comparison is. A Black woman is no more or less a woman than a white woman. You are being both racist and appropriating racism for your own ends.

Are you able to counter the point without resorting to this analogy?

As has already been stated on this thread (in fact what the whole thread is about) is the matter of transwomen seeking affirmation from their patients and how this compromises patient care. That is not an issue with female or male HCPs who aren’t trans.

A further issue is, as someone put upthread, the particular relationship that a transwoman has with the female body. This is also not an issue that a HCP who isn’t trans will have.

And it goes without saying that neither of these are issues that Black people will have either I they are not trans.

Not want

Why the fuck do people keep equating black women with men? Black women are women!

The race analogy doesn’t hold. A black female HCP is a woman. Rejecting her on the grounds of race would be racist.
A black male HCP could be refused on the grounds of being a man. That’s not racist.

There is a degree of vulnerability when having intimate procedures. The TIM creates a situation where the patient is put under pressure to consent so as not to appear transphobic. It also suggests a dynamic that is more to do with the TIMs need for validation than the safety, wellbeing or consent of the patient.

The Transwoman is a man. Please read the post by the practicing doctor above - she reiterated the need to put patient consent above all other factors. This is simply good clinical practice. Any patient can object to /remove consent for her doing an exam for any reason and she will comply.

It’s the same in the trials I run. Consent is ongoing and can be withdrawn for any reason at any time and legally must not compromise the care of the patient

FortunateCookie - A further issue is, as someone put upthread, the particular relationship that a transwoman has with the female body. This is also not an issue that a HCP who isn’t trans will have.

Can we please stop insinuating that all trans people have a ‘disturbed’ relationship with what other people’s bodies?! Sweet jeebers. It’s insulting. And frankly wrong.

We generally have a complex relationship with our OWN bodies. This does not mean we drool uncontrollably over other people’s. Cripes.

Can a patient object to having a trans person perform an intimate exam? Yes of course.

Should we, as a society, deal with the fact that this objection should not be viewed as being transphobic in and of its self? Yes we should.

Does that give most of the posters on this thread the freedom to spread vitriol and unbridled hate?! Hell. No.

A trans woman working as a nurse is not coercive or sinister or creepy or anything else of that nature that has been said over the pages of this thread. They are simply pursuing a career in something thar they are passionate about - helping people.

You don't get to tell women what they may and may not be creeped out by, Nat.

Every time I read Supermatchgame or one of the other TRAs trying to eradicate our rights to consent as they have done on this thread, they demonstrate just how dangerous some people in this movement are to women and children. Anyone who does not respect someone's right to consent / maintain boundaries about undressing, nudity, personal touching, intimate care etc is a danger to others. They should not be allowed anywhere near people in vulnerable situations, (especially in Health).

Can we please stop insinuating that all trans people have a ‘disturbed’ relationship with what other people’s bodies?! Sweet jeebers. It’s insulting. And frankly wrong.

It is a disorder to identify as transgender.
It is listed as a mental disorder.

STOP trying to negotiate women's right to say no.
STOP telling women we have to use the euphemisms you prefer instead of the correct terms.

And posters on these forums don’t get to pass judgement and demonise all trans people either.

Which is not what anyone was doing. If you can't prevent your knee from jerking that's your issue to deal with, not ours.

A trans woman working as a nurse is not coercive or sinister or creepy or anything else of that nature that has been said over the pages of this thread.

Your disregard for documented cases where transgender identified males are all those things is telling.

We are talking about our experiences and our feeling using our words.

Stop telling women how to speak and telling us how we should feel.

NATALT

What do you propose to do about the ones who are, NatLuc, besides claim they do not exist?

Gender Dysphoria is a mental illness. That doesn’t automatically make trans people a threat.

I have not negotiated women’s right to say no. I have agreed completely that women (or anyone) have the right to refuse treatment if they feel uncomfortable. I am WITH you on this. All I was expressing is that the level of insults on this thread was terrible.

So much for wanting respectful and open discussion.

If a transperson gives a shit about helping people they will stay the fuck away from jobs where their psychological disorder and confusing presentation to remedy it will potentially freak out people at their most vulnerable.