A woman who asked for her NHS breast-screening to be carried out by a female-born clinician was pilloried as a transphobe by a hospital trust

[stumbledin]

Clare Dimyon, 54, who was raped as a teenager and is a lesbian, wrote formal letters asking to be seen by a “natal female” when she went for a mammogram on Christmas Eve last year.

She made clear that after being violated by a man when she was “little more than a child” she did not consent to intimate procedures being carried out by people born as boys.

Staff at the Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust were “visibly shocked” but sympathetic.

The mammographer signed one letter confirming she was female and another letter was placed in Dimyon’s medical records. But two weeks ago she saw her letters highlighted by the trust as examples of “unacceptable” and “highly discriminatory” communications in guidelines to support trans patients and staff.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/patient-branded-transphobic-after-asking-for-female-medic-3jh3snddt?shareToken=412f21b1846cf5dca5d036d78a8bed8a&wgu=270525_54264_15757964141189_2266477043&wgexpiry=1583572414&utm_source=planit&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_content=22278&fbclid=IwAR0mhEFWZkzwY4ohxW6Na9Q0fguFO5k6jDXsSUAhZ6YWp2DQIXC__5eDNvI

How is it possible that the medical profession have also signed up to the lal la land of gender.

Surely of any group of people they should know and respect the reality of biological sex.

And be trained to understand respecting patient's privacy and need for post traume support.

I wish it were possible to say oh well this is Brighton, but it seems the whole NHS has been captured and is now compliant with the trans agenda - at the expense of women.

Not sure if anyone asked this earlier, here or on the other thread. But it kind of seems to me that the only way you'd be able to request - and it be considered - to have a biological woman perform an intimate female-related medical procedure is by being a victim of sexual abuse. That's the focus of the article - that the situation shouldn't have been allowed because of the patient having been abused.
Do women (vulnerable or not) wanting a biological woman to treat them have to PRETEND to have been abused? To not be called transphobic?

Yes Errol, Clare was asking them to use a specific EA exception.

The reason that exception is there is to provide a way for service providers to not harass women. Harassment is unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic that violates someone's dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

Harassment is prohibited conduct, whether it's deliberate or not, and even if the unwanted conduct was done with the best of intentions.

If you treat someone badly because they have done something in relation to the Equality Act - such as request that a single sex exception is used - then you have victimised that person.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/27

BSUH have victimised Clare by including those letters in their publicly available guidance as examples of 'unacceptable' and 'highly discriminatory' correspondence.

Through their statement and their shitty non-apology they have victimised her again by once again implying she is a bigot.

I hope she sues and will be very happy to chip in.

Michelle - good post

Midcentury the Youth Hostel Association (I believe it was, please someone correct me if wrong) did for a while state that the only way female people would be permitted to opt out of mixed sex dormitories was if they personally disclosed their abuse to someone working at the hostel.

They withdrew that bit after said female people pointed out how appalling this was. Whoever advised them - as whoever is advising this trust - does not see female people as fully human. Or deserving of any kind of equality of care, compassion or consideration.

That’s what happens when you let the state provide all the healthcare. Schools will be next.

I do wonder how many people are being, or will be, dissuaded from using the NHS and state education by all this shit. Which works out great for the government, of course - the more, the better.I am actually terrified at the thought of ever having to go to hospital as it is now clear that my needs will not be respected. If I had a school-age child, I’d be extremely concerned about sending them to a state school.

Lawyers will be queuing up at this caee... absolutely disgusting.

Absolutely infuriating that women are no longer able to ask for a female HCP.
Why are the feelings of males consistently considered more important than the well-being and comfort of females?
These organisations have to be sued for breaching the law. It's the only way they will learn that women will not tolerate being treated as subhuman.

Yeah Michelle was youth hostels. You had to tell them that you had been sexually abused 🤦‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

NHS trusts are subject to the public sector equality duty.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/149

I reckon BSUH have failed their duty. This needs to go to court.

Well this is appalling. Given that there seems to have been negligence in properly protecting patient information re confidentiality, can some sort of case be filed against that NHS trust? Cause honestly, I'd rather not be in a situation where we have to fight the genderists tit for tat but that does rather appear to be where things are. Let them deal with some consequences for their blithe disregard for the law for once.

When I went for my mammogram the letter specifically said it was an all woman team in there. I did warn DH that there might be a disturbance that afternoon...

Thanks pencils as always.
I will be Writing A Letter.

My understanding of harassment under the Equality Act is that any female could now sue BSUH for harassment.

My understanding of the role of EHRC is that this is exactly the kind of case they should be taking to court on behalf of WOMEN. By failing to do so they are surely discriminating against women?

can some sort of case be filed against that NHS trust?

Yes I think it can. I think Clare has a strong case for victimisation and as long as BSUH are saying they will not use this specific exception they are also risking harassment cases from any woman affected. Also they do not appear to have met their public sector equality duty.

There's a separate type of prohibited conduct that is instructing, causing or inducing others to discriminate against, victimise or harass someone. They've probably done that too, through this guidance.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/111

Staff who are expected to abide by unlawful policies will also have a case under this section and of course, if they are treated badly if they refuse to abide or question the policy, they will have their own victimisation case as well.

For maximum power this needs to be a judicial review (the same type of case as Harry's against the college of policing).

I think this is doable but I am not even a pretend lawyer.

I suspect they'd back down quite quickly because there'll be some statutory guidance somewhere that says NHS mammographers must be female.

So there would easily be an EA exemption here whereby a male born transsexual could legally be excluded from performing a mammogram yet the trust are misinterpreting the EA and ignoring the exemptions?

Stonewall law again.

any female could now sue BSUH for harassment

Any female affected - she would have to come under BSUH care. She wouldn't need to have actually been sent a tw when she requested a female HCP, she could just have been made to feel intimidated etc. by the presence of this guidance and its promise to disrespect her wishes, or she may have opted out of screening/treatment because of it.

Afaik there aren't any racial exemptions in the EA? Or sexuality exemptions? So anyone banging on about the other protected characteristics can GTF.

Yes I am pretty sure there are racial exemptions eg. you are allowed to cast someone of a particular race in a play or film. You can also require eg. a priest is of a particular religion.

They have missed out that during a mammogram, the radiographer can need to use their body to physically squash you up against the machine whilst flattening out your breasts to ensure all breast tissue is on the film for analysis- most likely if you are petite.

To remove Woman’s right to choose in the course of breast cancer diagnosis not to have a male body pushing up against them is horrendous.

NB - REMEMBER TO CHECK YOUR BREASTS and visit the GP if indicated! My female radiographer was wonderful!!!

Should add - 1% of breast cancer cases are men - so they need to be aware too. Not common - but most men are completely unaware that it is possible.

Yes the occupational requirement exception can apply to any PC, as long as it's a genuine requirement and a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/9/part/1

Thanks birdsfoot and pencils. I stand corrected!

So Clare wrote to BSUH about a personal matter and the letter was placed on her file.

Someone took that letter from her file and published it out of context within that “best practise for trans staff” document.

So who took the letter from Clare's file and decided it was appropriate to use it in that context? How did they get hold of that letter? How did they know it existed? Who is going through patient’s files?

But there are particularly strong reasons for using an occupational requirement on the grounds of sex in cases like this because the legitimate aim is to prevent harassment, which is prohibited conduct.