The article is a classic set up.
It's centering the health care professional's (HCP) needs and wants while using transphobia and sexism to stop reasonable discussion on boundaries around personal care.
Health care is about informed consent of the patient receiving care.
The emphases on informed consent is because historically time and time again when the patient is not the central decision maker unacceptable medical malpractice develops.
From start to finish any medical treatment is about informed consent freely given by the patient to the HCP
A female doctor carrying out an examination on a male, when the male specifically requested a male doctor, is a doctor carrying out a common assault. Even in the case of a person refusing life saving treatment the doctor would have to seek a court order.
Health care is one of the areas where bring your whole self to work is not acceptable or professional and can result in sanctions We expect doctors and other HCP to treat all impartially irrespective of how horrible the patient. Why? Because we hold them to a higher professional standard which centers the patient not the HCP.
But looking at the provided text:
First "was assigned to a male practitioner" so as a new patient is given (sorry!) assigned a male doctor. Therefore the patient has give informed consent to a male doctor (or a female doctor) with no possible misunderstanding or lack of consent.
Then "I learned from a friend" so gained the information through gossip and in a health care setting that's not acceptable behaviour.
Then "doctor has transitioned .. from male to female" so from male to female not man to woman so the informed consent of a male carrying out intimate examinations is not in question.
Then "I have not yet met this doctor" firmly sets the social boundaries of acceptable behaviour which is professional relationship not a social connection. Patient has give a male doctor informed consent so at best it's just a stranger being nosy and/or rude about a personal issue.
The "what is appropriate and whether there should be any conversation about the transition" no patient starts that type of conversation about the personal life of doctor they just met particularly if the meeting is in a professional capacity. No matter what is discussed it's always inappropriate and a social taboo.
Then "if it is to determine whether I, a cis woman, am comfortable seeing a trans physician?" and Boom!!! the am I transphobic question.
We should read "if it is to determine whether I, a woman, am comfortable seeing a woman physician?"
But to adjust to the phasing in the prior paragraphs
if it is to determine whether I, a gender conforming female, am comfortable seeing a gender nonconforming male physician?"
If it's about informed consent the patient is aware of the sex of the doctor so such a discussion would not be based on sex of the HCP or professional ability just that the fact that the HCP is trans.
The am I transphobic question answered is naturally Yes.
Again "If my friend was not a patient at this practice and had not forewarned me" the gossip element in a health care setting.
Also the emotive forewarned as being inform of a possible future danger or problem yet informed consent is not an issue with an assigned male doctor, as the HCP's sex is fine the warning is about being trans.
Then "confused to see a female enter the exam room, because I would have been expecting a male doctor." Ooops we appear to have misplaced the word woman and man.
But it helps to imply sexism in rejecting a woman as a doctor. But carry on and ignore sexism, its the same old same old, a male is indistinguishable from a female at any stage of the transition process and anyway the patient gave informed consent to a male HCP.
Then "Is this transition process such a private thing that it is inappropriate to talk about it?" and Boom!! the no debate question.
Well as the prior text was used to establish the social boundaries, around a patient allowing the pratice to assign a male or female HCP, as well as any personal decisions of the HCP, so transitioning is clearly not a relevant element of the service being provided.
The no debate question answered is naturally Yes
The closer "Obviously, I am in uncharted waters." would only be true if the patient had requested a female HCP and the practice assigned a male.
The scenario has be set up to draw the reader into accepting there is no element of deception on the HCP's part and leads the reader to a predefined outcome that a female patient should not question a male doctor if they present as a woman.
The HCP has an duty of care to the patient and if there is a circumstance where the patients informed consent is in doubt to its up to the individual HCP to resolve this prior to treatment.
That's a moral and ethical question HCP bodies are ignoring with no debate resolutions.