The same as racism? Help me out please.

[talkingdeadscot]

So, after yet another discussion last night, my DH said that my insistence that I would not allow a TW to perform an intimate examination at the doctors on me as akin to racism. I don't think it is but I can't articulate why. Why is my refusal to accept TWAW as discriminatory as racism? He says it's because I'm denying a minority exists and has rights. I said I'd also refuse a man but apparently TWAW so that's not the same even if I personally refuse to accept that TWAW (which I do)

Help!

Don't think its at all the same.

However I do think its a little sad that so many women think a male doctor will be sexually excited at the sight of a woman's vagina during treatment.

Its nothing to do with sexual attraction though. We just would prefer someone who has the same body as us.

Why do we have to validate the ideal I a maker man being part of the "trusted few " my body isn't a prop for them to demonstrate their purity

A male/man

I would be very suspicious about the true intentions of a male who transitioned, and then put themselves in a position which involved them carrying out intimate examinations on females.

I'm not sure about this argument. It does seem dangerously close to questioning why biological men choose to be gynaecologists/obstetricians.

A male gynaecologist performing as a male gynaecologist is different in that they aren't misleading you about who they are.

Although the lack of a chaperone for a TW doctor is very worrying.

I think I would ask him the following:

• Does he accept that there is a class of people with XX chromosomes?

• Does he acknowledge that 20% of people with XX chromosomes have experienced some type of sexual assault? It is 5 times as common for an XX person to be assaulted as an XY person (source: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/sexualoffencesinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017)

• Does he accept that 98.2% of prosecutions for sexual offences are brought against XY people? (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214970/sexual-offending-overview-jan-2013.pdf)

• I couldn't find a UK source for this but in Sao Paolo in Brazil the vast majority of assaults in a doctor-patient relationship are committed by male XY doctors (96.6%) on female XX patients (90.3%) (source: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2780524/). Does he accept that the majority of such assaults in the U.K. are likely to follow a similar pattern? If not, why not?

• If he accepts the above, why is he denying the existence of XX chromosome people and their right to choose to only intimate medical procedures from other XX people for their own safety?

I'd suggest taking the emotive man/woman labels out of the conversation, strip it back to basics and see what he thinks. I think many men are so drunk on the dogma they are losing sight of the fact that we exist as our own biological sex class and they are not empathetic enough to understand our (unfortunate) vulnerability. The cheek of him accusing you of thinking transwomen exist whilst he's denying your existence

^ "to only receive intimate" that should have said.

I've said befire it just create issues fir drs too. Because a female patient identifying as a man would you would assume require a female chaperone. But if a male Dr requested a male Dr as a chaperone as per their request you effectively have 2 male drs examine a female patient and would drs touch that situation with a barge pole I mean its their career on the line if an allegation is made

@Perfect28

Instinct. Right. C'mon lots of us aren't obviously male or female. Especially if we didn't use gender 'markers' - haircuts, make up, perfume, jewelery, clothing. Yes, there are some who look obviously male or female without these things, and there are plenty of people who don't. There's an entire spectrum. The point is, you might not always know.

inews.co.uk/news/health/nhs-woman-transgender-nurse-smear-test-114009

I think it was pretty clear in this case.

And would be in the vast majority of others, too.

Away with your “spectrum” nonsense.

I don't have any advice, OP but I'm sorry you're having to have this argument. I'd be horribly upset if my DP said something like that.

@talkingdeadscot

So, after yet another discussion last night, my DH said that my insistence that I would not allow a TW to perform an intimate examination at the doctors on me as akin to racism. I don't think it is but I can't articulate why. Why is my refusal to accept TWAW as discriminatory as racism? He says it's because I'm denying a minority exists and has rights. I said I'd also refuse a man but apparently TWAW so that's not the same even if I personally refuse to accept that TWAW (which I do)

Help!

Out of interest what would you do in childbirth? The entirety of my surgical team was male except for one nurse who was in charge of counting instruments etc so nothing was left inside me. It wasn’t even a choice as to whether I wanted male or female doctors as it was a life or death emergency. It was only much later that I realised the nurse was a tw and at that point I was just grateful baby and I were alive

The question of whether the an exemption permitting sex-based discrimination is equivalent to an exemption permitting racially-based discrimination depends on whether there is a legitimate reason for the exemption.

Yes. And there are more legitimate reasons for discriminating on the basis of sex than there are on race.

Between races, there isn't a 50% difference in upper body strength, a 10 times different propensity to violence and a particular ability for one race to get the other race pregnant. This is not remotely the same as the male/female difference.

As Jane Clare Jones has pointed out - a lot of the smooth-brained "be nice" people don't seem to be grasp that it is possible for two groups to actually be different and still have equal rights, and the difference may mean particular legislation to respect the difference. Instead they try to deny the difference.

Great suggestions on here. But here’s an idea, OP - when you are done with thinking about how to refute your DH’s ridiculous false equivalence, what about turning your attention to how it feels for you to realise that your DH is so racist and misogynist?

What about setting some minimal standards for you that he must reach if he still wants to be considered your life partner?

OK, I know this is your RL marriage we’re talking about, but I am so sick of this narrative that we are the ones transgressing against progressive values when it’s the absolute opposite. Where’s your power in your relationship? How do you turn this around and say it’s his views that are unacceptable to you?

Not saying this is straightforward, but it’s just an angle worth thinking about. It seems to me like he’s not nearly as worried about upsetting you with his opinions as you are about upsetting him with yours. Is he searching online for advice on how to defend his views? I’ll bet he isn’t. Why is that?

The point is, you might not always know.

Quite - you can do something against someone's wishes without them knowing. Does that make it okay? Borrowing someone's things while they're away? Voyeurism fine as long as it's not noticed? Stealing if it's not spotted? Assault if they're unconscious and you don't leave any physical marks?

Personally my moral framework would tend to respect someone's wishes and not argue "well, you can't ask me not to do this - you might not spot it if I did".

@SusannaSpider

I would be very suspicious about the true intentions of a male who transitioned, and then put themselves in a position which involved them carrying out intimate examinations on females.

I'm not sure about this argument. It does seem dangerously close to questioning why biological men choose to be gynaecologists/obstetricians.

There is nothing wrong with questioning people's motives and intentions to do something when that something involves access to vulnerable individuals or to individuals in a vulnerable position.

A DBS check represents a wholesale questioning of people's motives and intentions for safeguarding reasons. We all accept it because it does offer some protection against those with ill intent.

As there have unfortunately been sexual predators who have chosen gynaecology or pedeatrics in order to have access to potential victims, this is therefore always a legitimate question.

What is not legitimate is to claim that all males who chose to work in OBGYN are sexual predators.

And the original question is about whether a male who chooses to work in OBGYN may be making a claim to a trans identity to gain easier access to victims. As this reasoning has been shown in a number of predators, it is not unreasonable to take this possibility into consideration.

I don't accept male HCPs in this situation, unless there are no female ones available, not even at a later point. Or unless it's an emergency. I would expect a chaperone in that case. If a male HCP who identifies as trans is accompanied by a chaperone, I would have no preference what kind of male HCP examines me. If I cannot have a chaperone with a male HCP who identifies as trans, then I would decline to be examined. As I would decline to be examined by any other male without a chaperone.

Grumpy
Out of interest what would you do in childbirth? The entirety of my surgical team was male except for one nurse who was in charge of counting instruments etc so nothing was left inside me. It wasn’t even a choice as to whether I wanted male or female doctors as it was a life or death emergency. It was only much later that I realised the nurse was a tw and at that point I was just grateful baby and I were alive
What made you realise?
How could you tell?

@NecessaryScene1

The point is, you might not always know.

Quite - you can do something against someone's wishes without them knowing. Does that make it okay? Borrowing someone's things while they're away? Voyeurism fine as long as it's not noticed? Stealing if it's not spotted? Assault if they're unconscious and you don't leave any physical marks?

Personally my moral framework would tend to respect someone's wishes and not argue "well, you can't ask me not to do this - you might not spot it if I did".

Well said.

However I do think its a little sad that so many women think a male doctor will be sexually excited at the sight of a woman's vagina during treatment.

There are many, many different reasons why a female person may be willing to consent only to care from a female hcp in a situation. Her reasons are her business. Many will include trauma, disability, culture, faith, beliefs, and there will be others.

Judgemental sneering at a woman's only reasons being this implied prissiness and silly beliefs about males just adds to the gynephobic derision of female people not being able to make sensible choices about their own bodies and their own care, and their feelings not being worthy of respect.

If a male person has transitioned and now expects female people to accept them as same sex and permit intimate care on those terms whether or not they perceive them as female or willingly consent, then yes, it is justified to wonder about that professional's ethics and ability to place their patient's needs above their own, and therefore to wonder about their motivations to wish to do this specific work.

To be honest, if a black woman felt uncomfortable with me - a white woman - performing an intimate examination on her on the basis of my race, I might feel saddened by that in a 'state of the world' way, but I can imagine many different reasons why that may be the case that would be deserving of my sympathy and none of which would be a judgement on me personally.

The very idea that I would huff and puff about it or try to socially pressure her into pushing her discomfort aside in order to accommodate my feelings is abhorrent. Medical treatment is about the well-being of the patient, not the medic.

I would be very suspicious about the true intentions of a male who transitioned, and then put themselves in a position which involved them carrying out intimate examinations on females.

I'm not sure about this argument. It does seem dangerously close to questioning why biological men choose to be gynaecologists/obstetricians.

Unfortunately it can't just be set aside that to some transitioning male born people the validation of being accepted in their gender role to do something that only a female is 'allowed' to do is a very desirable, important thing. Which is very understandable, and I have sympathy for it, but it does create the motivation this thread is about: that a female who has requested a female hcp should not be faced with a male person because that male person would really like to be accepted as a woman and allowed to do this job.

Which requires intimate access to this female person's body.

Women should never be in a position of being required to validate anyone's gender identity with their body without their full, knowing and willing consent. This is a very different situation to a man deciding he wants to be a gynecologist or a midwife, and it doesn't help to pretend otherwise.

I really hate the views in this thread, I hate your self righteousness and closed mindedness. Most of all though I hate the person who calls spectrums a nonsense. We know that sexuality exists on a spectrum, why not sex and gender too? You don't get to decide how I feel about myself. I'm glad that the views that most of you share are shamed in places other than mumsnet. OP I'm glad your daughter is more open minded than yourself.

Anyone has the right to individually request a different HCP etc, so do what you want in practice. Hypothetically doing so on this basis, regardless of the individual is crap. As crap as saying you wouldn't want a lesbian to do it in case she got turned on.

Michelle Thank you for explaining it better than me.

We know that sexuality exists on a spectrum, why not sex and gender too?

Sex isn't on a spectrum because it evolved for sexual reproduction. Mammals are dimorphic, it's basic inescapable biology. To be sure some people have DSDs, aka intersex conditions, but this does not make a 'spectrum',

Gender - sure, it's not a mere one-dimensional spectrum, it's a multidimensional set of many possible characteristics which can be (artificially, culturally specifically) classified as more 'feminine' or 'masculine'. Leading to the possibility of as many 'genders' as there are people.