Women 'risk health over trans NHS worker fear' article in tomorrow's Times Scotland edition

[PlectrumElectrum]

Only have tweet link to front page so far.

https://twitter.com/thetimesscot/status/1074802181809803267?s=21

If anyone has a share token & can link to that when article online, I'd appreciate it 🙏🏻

Rape Crisis Scotland's response on twitter was pretty much "actually when we ask women what worries them they say male HCPs doing examinations after their assault, not transwomen".

Completely ignoring the fact that transwomen are male, and will be read as male by a very frightened woman who has just been violated, and who is about to be violated again.

Thanks for this thread, Plectrum.

I wonder if these women were specifically asked “would you mind a trans woman carrying out examinations?

I expect not!

Is there any way to get it put on your health record that when you ask for a female health care practitioner you specifically mean a cisgendered female healthcare practitioner?

I'm imagining a form letter to that effect that can be taken to your GP or with you to hospital visits or to smear tests, combined with an awareness campaign. That way even women who aren't well informed about this stuff, and in particular elderly women, can make sure they are protected in this regard. I think if enough women did this then the NHS would have to take notice and set out clear policies.

Maybe people would just see a campaign like that as scaremongering though - I'm sure most people who want a female HCP wouldn't be comfortable with a trans woman, but most would probably think there's very little chance of that happening.

By 'cisgendered' do you mean biologically female?

Because 'cisgendered' is a meaningless term.

By 'cisgendered' do you mean biologically female?

Or just female would do.

Yes of course I mean biologically female. The point of using "cisgendered" in that context would be to have language that creepy fetishes intent on breaking down women's clearly stated boundaries could not deliberately distort or misinterpret.

It's unfortunately clear that just "female" won't do. This thread wouldn't be here if that was the case.

I would agree except that they are going after 'female' in the same way that they have gone after 'woman'.

In fact some of them now claim to be bio females despite being blokes. I cannot keep up with the madness.

Sorry x post and my post was in reply to Home

I mean FFS !

^ should say fetishists not fetishes obviously.

most would probably think there's very little chance of that happening.

Those few it may happen to though are too many. Particularly since the women likely to be distressed by this are vulnerable and likely to be the least able to stand up for themselves in the heat of the moment. The options are a woman enduring trauma in the name of 'inclusion' for others that excludes them, or being unable to accept care. Other vulnerable women will just quietly avoid care in the first place.

I'd very much appreciate a standard letter, maybe FPFW would help out here? It's so important that women who do feel able to stand up and say it is important that women have access a biologically female hcp if they choose to: they have the voice that more vulnerable women don't. And they need to be pointing out, very loudly, this oh so 'vulnerable' minority demanding inclusion and kindness and intersectionality are trampling the needs of other vulnerable people without giving one flying fuck for those values themselves, or for the diverse needs of the very group they insist they belong to.

Home is it not a dangerous step to adopt their ridiculous terminology though? If we accept that cisgendered is a 'thing' then how do we argue against the genderist religion itself?

It's unfortunately clear that just "female" won't do. This thread wouldn't be here if that was the case.

I don’t know if you’ve quite understood the issue.

Female does fine. The NHS knows what female means.

The issue is that they have no legal way to exclude males whose birth certificates say female (because they have a GRC).

So even if you were to write a letter saying that you only want a biological female to do your smear test, the NHS still can’t guarantee you one because it would be a criminal offence for them to exclude a transwoman with a GRC from doing your smear.

Re "cisgendered" I don't really know! In some ways I feel like we need to do the reverse of what they did - get people used to GC thinking in baby steps.

Before I peaktransed I didn't see the issue with "cisgendered" and I felt like making a point of objecting to it was silly. But I would certainly have seen the objection to a trans HCP being provided when a female HCP was suggested. And I'd probably have signed a form letter of the kind I was suggesting, especially if I understood it as a way of protecting women who might be too vulnerable/traumatised/impaired to be able to articulate an objection themselves.

Using "cisgendered" is a way of signalling "not transphobic" and that might protect you from being seen as a bigot for having this request on your records. And it might reassure some people on the fence about signing it. Plus given how TRAs claim to be "female" and even "biologically female" I don't know what other wording would be safe. But also maybe you're totally right and it's an unnecessary concession!

So even if you were to write a letter saying that you only want a biological female to do your smear test, the NHS still can’t guarantee you one because it would be a criminal offence for them to exclude a transwoman with a GRC from doing your smear.

I don't think that is the only issue, although it's certainly a significant one. Not all transwomen have a GRC and a letter like this would be protective in those cases. And the point I was making is that if enough people make a fuss about this then the NHS will have to come up with a reasonable policy about it. It might be a criminal offence to ask about a GRC, but it's at least an ethical breach to provide care that a patient has explicitly not consented to.

I understand the point. But using cisgender concedes the whole fundamental point.

And no one in the real world has a clue what it means. In the real world EVERYONE knows what the word female means. EVERYONE.

Not a male bodied person I think everyone would understand. And surely they can't dispute that language can they. CAN THEY??

Not a male bodied person I think everyone would understand. And surely they can't dispute that language can they. CAN THEY??

Oh they can and do. See e.g. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/02/guardian-editorial-response-transgender-rights-uk

In the US, there is also growing mainstream recognition that phrases such as “male-bodied” ... are outdated and offensive.

Tbf Home I understand the point that you are making but it will be a cold day in hell before I start using terms like 'cisgender'. I am more than happy to be labelled a bigot for such an offence - I am called a bigot so often on twitter that it has ceased to mean anything to me in any case.

Fair enough, I'm not even sure I'm right about "cisgendered" and there wouldn't be any point if it would put people off signing something like that.

I don't think there's any terminology that could be used that TRAs wouldn't argue with. I've seen at least one TRA saying that they're now a cisgender female since they've been transitioning for a while, and I've also seen claims of being biologically female because sex in humans is a spectrum and blah blah insert complete nonsense here. So at this point "not a transwoman" is probably the only phrasing that would be clear enough, and of course they will scream bloody murder about that.

I've seen at least one TRA saying that they're now a cisgender female

oh my god, seriously?????? I bet a lawyer would be able to come up with some waterproof terminology though.

Yes and also bio female. Complete with shenis.

A person who was born with a penis.

A person who was born with a penis

But... that's just an extra large clitoris!!