Hospital refuses to operate after woman requests all-female care

[Imnobody4]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11316141/Hospital-bans-sex-assault-victim-op-female-care-request.html

I feel quite sick at this.

She was stunned then to receive an email from the hospital's chief executive Maxine Estop Green telling her the operation was off.

She told her the hospital 'did not share her beliefs' and she should make alternative arrangements for her surgery.

The message added the hospital was committed to protecting staff from what it described as 'unacceptable distress'.

Emma urged them to reconsider, adding in a further message she thought they had misunderstood her requests, which she said were entirely within the law.

The hospital said it would offer a private room but would NOT facilitate her requests for single-sex care after her operation.

It also mentioned her comment about pronouns and said it had a responsibility to protect staff from 'discrimination and harassment'.

I just keep coming back to a hospital proudly announcing that protecting their staff from "unacceptable distress" is more important than life-saving care for a patient.

Especially when the distress they're talking about is (hypothetically) everyone having to temporarily suspend the pretence that they believe that someone in the workplace is the opposite sex to the one they are in reality, and take that into account when allocating work. Or possibly the distress of knowing that there's a patient in the building who believes the Wrong Things (and having to accept they can't barge into any room they like for funsies, though that ought to be the case anyway!).

I've never worked in a hospital. I suspect that staff are exposed to quite distressing experiences all the time, including being abused and assaulted by patients. And of course employers should do all they can to minimise that. But in other circumstances I imagine cancelling an operation to protect staff would only happen in circumstances of direct harassment or assault?

I can just imagine how well "I'd like to have aftercare only done by cunty type people" would go down in an email to anyone let alone a hospital, sent by a lawyer too.

I love the idea of letters to hospitals demanding care from "cunty" type people. We could then have a highly entertaining legal argument regarding what is meant by that and that the patient wasn't requesting surly care from mean women! But I'm feeling pretty grumpy today thanks to very poor sleep and the fact that my DH used all the hot water in his shower last night so I couldn't have a shower this morning as the water was freezing. Im trying hard not to do or say anything that might justifiably attract accusations of being the wrong sort of C word woman!

Have you read the thread? It isn't about her being a silly woman and expecting all people involved to be female. She requested female staff for her intimate care after the op. She was supposed to have complex colorectal surgery (possibly due to her sexual assault) so she likely needed someone to clean her after defecating. That personcould easily be a female. For clarity she said she did not want a man who says he is a female. That should be perfectly reasonable request. However the gender identity ideology does not allow for this. Men's needs are put above women to ensure the ideology can have ultimate power and control.
She was refused surgery because she did not believe in gender identity ideology.

This, exactly.

That was to containsnuts, the thread is moving quick!

There is that quote somewhere from a TW GP in an interview where they were explaining how prior to transition some of their female patients would not permit an intimate exam. And how after transition some of them now will permit the GP to have that intimate contact and trust with their body and how very lovely that feels to the GP.

I'm afraid we are kidding ourselves that intimate access and difference in trust is not a sought after, desired experience by some transitioners in healthcare, so it is hardly surprising that pressure to provide it and now flat out coercion to provide it, has become part of the burden of being born biologically female.

That a male transitioned person does not want to hear 'no' or encounter a female person's lack of belief in their difference to another biological male is not a reason to coerce her either into consenting to something she is not willing to, or refusing her care. Which in this case, is likely to mean she now has to have a much greater and riskier surgery or may even be life threatening.

This is being done to a female in order to protect a male person's ego .

Some truly excellent replies from Datun.

The salient point here is that the hospital broke the law, very clearly. In fact, they actually wrote a letter detailing the precise way in which they were breaking the law, much as Nottingham City Council did with Julie Bindel. We should perhaps be grateful that they are that stupid.

But the other salient point - and I think this is really important to remember - is that the belief they found so offensive is an entirely rational and sensible one. The woman wasn't a racist or a homophobe - though of course even if she was, they still shouldn't have denied her treatment. The belief she held that the hospital found so offensive was that men can't be women. That it's not possible to change sex. The view they are defending - that a man can be a woman if he says he is - is insane. Literally insane. When we debate the limits of freedom of speech and clash of rights and so on, don't let's lose sight of that.

Yes, you ARE victim-blaming, @red4321 . You're saying she should have used a nicer tone and then maybe she might not have been punished.

I'm not. I've said throughout that she has the right to express her views in whatever way she wants. As she did.

Do I think a different approach might have resulted in a different outcome? Possibly. Her consultant should also have been more actively engaged on her behalf given that he's the conduit between the patient and hospital.

The only positive outcome here was that she (a) had her surgery and (b) felt safe with the appropriate provision of medical staff after her surgery. Unfortunately that hasn't happened, at the expense of her health.

But the people organising might not know that a staff member is trans or that they identify in a particular way that goes against the wishes of the patient then what do they do when the patient is already in ICU? Go against their consent? Leave them to die? It's complicated for everyone so they've just said 'no'.

Oh for pete's sake.

This patient requests only biologically female nursing care and staff unless negotiated with her before hand.

You put that on the notes, you explain it at hand over. Anyone not biologically female then continuing to put themselves forward to treat this patient is intentionally deceiving and breaching consent. And I don't care about that being 'outing', that member of staff has chosen to go into a field of work in which their sex will matter to some patients, and where they have a duty of care, it is not all about them.

This whole 'you'll never know' is a lot of bollocks: the reason it came about was because this patient encountered a male member of staff presenting as female, and this is why the hospital have punished her. For wanting her medical care to meet her needs, and not for her body and care to be used to meet a member of staff's needs.

There is that quote somewhere from a TW GP in an interview where they were explaining how prior to transition some of their female patients would not permit an intimate exam. And how after transition some of them now will permit the GP to have that intimate contact and trust with their body and how very lovely that feels to the GP.

This person made a point of saying how they were Muslim women.

Try reading either the article, the emails, or this thread.

The hospital discriminated against her - they sent her an email stating that they wouldn't operate because of (what they assume to be) her beliefs.

I'm not. I've said throughout that she has the right to express her views in whatever way she wants. As she did.

Yes, and you add that given how she expressed these views, she is at least partly responsible for the hospital discriminating against her. That if she'd been nicer, maybe they would have been nicer too. That's victim blaming. You keep doubling down on it.

It’s not complicated at all, the hospital can say ‘we’ll do our best, we might not be able to guarantee it in an emergency or where patient safety is compromised.’

It's not difficult. You tell the patient, we will do our best to accommodate your request but in a life-saving emergency it may not be possible.

Of course they know fine well who their staff are.

I'm afraid we are kidding ourselves that intimate access and difference in trust is not a sought after, desired experience by some transitioners in healthcare, so it is hardly surprising that pressure to provide it and now flat out coercion to provide it, has become part of the burden of being born biologically female.

This.

The trans political lobby are quite upfront about what TWAW means. It means in all and every circumstance.

And their intention to implement 'strategic litigation' to set precedent for this, is well documented.

What that means for women, is that a man, any man, every man, any predator and all predators, wield the utmost power over any and all women, particularly when they are at their most vulnerable.

Look where all this is playing out.

Rape refuges, prisons where the women can't escape, sport which relies on physical prowess, changing rooms where women disrobe, places that support midwifery, breastfeeding, miscarriage, etc.

Situations that, by their very nature, unequivocally exclude men, are the places that are most targeted. Because if you force women to accept the pretence that TWAW in those places, everywhere else falls into line.

And now the very intimate care of a woman made vulnerable, if not helpless, by her surgery.

It appears to me that the woman was not even making a political point. She went out of her way to say her husband's firm is a stonewall champion.

She merely does not believe in the ideology, and was frightened by what could have easily been a deliberate attempt to intimidate her.

Fucking hell, her surgery was treating a life-threatening condition, involving a bloody robot, for God sake, and a team of top-notch specialists. She would've been beside herself with worry anyway.

I hope she nails them to the wall.

@containsnuts complicated shouldn't mean cancelling an operation. You'd think someone would have the brains to work something out. Sounds very much like this lady was discriminated against on the basis she didn't agree with all the pronouns and gender bollocks that is currently floating about. And for good reason too. Mixed areas where people are extremely vulnerable are a risk to females.

A lot of this ties in with the cotton ceiling and also some of the issues with "sex by deception" and whether a (trans) person should disclose their trust sex to an intimate partner.

I think there have been some court cases around this and it is an ongoing topic of discussion.

Yes, if complicated was a valid reason for cancelling an operation where would that leave people with disabilities, religious requirements…anything that might need extra thought?

Yes, if complicated was a valid reason for cancelling an operation where would that leave people with disabilities, religious requirements…anything that might need extra thought?

Not to mention that TQ+ people and their often highly individualised situations would be top of the list in 'complicated'.

Are we talking about complicated situations or just females who won't validate males?

Situations that, by their very nature, unequivocally exclude men, are the places that are most targeted. Because if you force women to accept the pretence that TWAW in those places, everywhere else falls into line.

S Whittle, TM and one of the foremost leaders and maneuverers in the planned destruction of women's rights has put this on record as having been an intentional, planned strategy in achieving said destruction.

Males are welcome to enact their beliefs and chosen identities.
Females are welcome to participate if they choose to.
Females are equally entitled to refuse consent to participate.

That we are now very seriously coercing and consequencing women for not consenting to enable males is absolutely indefensible. It's appalling.

Kamilla Kamarrudin.

it was my patients who took me by surprise the most. No one was hostile towards me. Some thought I was the wife of Dr Kamaruddin, me, their doctor, and a lot of them thought that I was a new GP. The new patients did not ask any questions at all because they either thought I was a female GP or it did not bother them at all that I was a transgender doctor.

A lot of my patients were quite conservative — many female patients wore long clothes, or the hijab — but they allowed me to examine them despite my change. In fact, after my transition, they even allowed me to perform more intimate examinations that they did not let me to do when I was a male GP. Every single one of them refused my offer of a chaperone even when they knew that I am transgender. After the positive experience on my first day back to work, I remembered having tears in my eyes during my drive home. I was overwhelmed with emotions, and they were tears of happiness. I could not recall the last time I felt this happy.

bjgp.org/content/67/660/313

After the positive experience on my first day back to work, I remembered having tears in my eyes during my drive home. I was overwhelmed with emotions, and they were tears of happiness. I could not recall the last time I felt this happy.

And now we see the creeping boundaries move from 'it's a wonderful experience for me when a female patient provides me with this validation by permitting access to her body and accepts me as a woman and not a male' to 'female patients who do not consent to provide this to me must be punished and refused healthcare'.

Situations that, by their very nature, unequivocally exclude men, are the places that are most targeted. Because if you force women to accept the pretence that TWAW in those places, everywhere else falls into line.

S Whittle, TM and one of the foremost leaders and maneuverers in the planned destruction of women's rights has put this on record as having been an intentional, planned strategy in achieving said destruction.

This is what James Morton, one of the people responsible for the Scottish prison transgender policy said:

We strategized that by working intensively with the Scottish Prison Service to support them to include trans women as women on a self-declaration basis within very challenging circumstances, we would be able to ensure that all other public services should be able to do likewise.

www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/opaque-and-overdue-scottish-prison-service-trans-prisoner-policy-review

Ah thank you, my apologies, Morton and not Whittle. My mistake. I may be thinking of Whittle referring to Morton's words.

It's complicated for everyone so they've just said 'no'.

They specifically said it was against their "values". That's why they said they had cancelled it.