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'.

It’s attitudes like “if you are religious you aren’t a feminist” that have entirely put me off of modern feminism. Is it not interesting how feminism can be flipped to further oppress and beat women into submission?

My very first thread on mumsnet was about how I walked away from being liberal and no longer felt feminist because my friend told me that my religion (Paganism) was transphobic because of the sacred feminine being a pregnant woman. I lost several braincells and stopped talking to her as a result. But here we are again.

I think the attack on religion and discrediting feminists because of their belief choice is absolutely bonkers. And this is coming from someone who vehemently disagrees with Abrahamic religions. My personal values completely clash with their values. But by the stars I would fight for their right to believe in them even if my beliefs will never align with theirs.

But have you considered that extreme liberalism could bring about a different kind of dystopia off left entirely unchecked?

Based on some of the people in my Twitter mentions, who try to downplay the impact of the fear and reality of pregnancy as rape sequelae and disingeniously twist my words to pretend that I think that rape only matters if you can get pregnant, that dystopia would look like mixed-sex everything, including prisons.

There would be no escape from misogynist men for women. Which is what they want. They want us to have no way to organise and no way to get free from them.

I should point out at this juncture that the quote from my post on p27 - 'if you are religious, you are not a feminist' is starting to be quoted out of context. It was part of a longer post in which I expressed bafflement at the thought processes of those who seem to believe that those who have religious beliefs should not hold them because 'religion bad'.

we will not allow you to pretend that having religious convictions or a religious background makes women Unpeople

I'm going to let two clever tweeters explain why the above tenet is really important.

leftist men: “why would i care that rich women get abused, raped, and murdered?”
conservative men: “why would i care that poor women get abused, raped, and murdered?”
twitter.com/pearlsgoth/status/1561263529629401088

Applying that to this thread:

Gender ideologists: "Why would I care that religious women self-exclude from healthcare? Why would I care that rape victims self-exclude from healthcare?"

As for the odious India Willoughby gloating that Teresa's surgery was cancelled:

When anti-feminist Marxists say bourgeois women aren’t oppressed they just mean all women. They are admitting they don’t see rape, sexual assault and wife battery as forms of political oppression which of course means they don’t care when it happens to working class women either.
twitter.com/HannahBerrelli/status/1529580248702103553

Applying that to this thread:

When anti-feminist genderists declare "TERFs" to be unpeople, they actually mean that all women are unpeople. They are admitting that they don't see denial of healthcare and the forced imposition of male HCPs as a form of political oppression[1], which means that they don't care when it happens to their female allies either.

1: Which it is. How many women who were going to ask for female-only medical staff are now deciding to stay quiet? How many will risk their health by self-excluding from healthcare? The chilling effect of this case should not be underestimated. Will I even be safe asking for a woman "and I mean the kind with a vulva" for my next cervical cancer screening?

I've not read the full thread, missed a big chunk in the middle, so forgive me if this has already been covered.

I understand the lady realised that she could not request female only surgical team, and only wished for female only aftercare, particularly for intimate care. However, with articles highlighting outcomes like this, who would blame her for vetoing male surgeons as well:

www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jan/04/women-more-likely-die-operation-male-surgeon-study#:~:text=When%20a%20female%20surgeon%20operates,when%20undergoing%20the%20same%20procedures.

I believe Princess Grace have a very skilled and respected tw surgeon on their staff. It would be interesting to know how this surgeon's outcomes measured against others of similar ability in the same field. I suspect the sample sizes would be too small for meaningful comparisons.

bd67thSaysReinstateLangCleg

Really great tweets. Thank you for finding those.

Some women don't seem to realise how dangerous it is to settle for conditional condemnation of misogyny and sexual violence towards women. If aggressive threats (e.g. threats of rape) and sexually intimidating behaviour are acceptable against other women who oppose your male allies politically, then you don't have rights either. You are simply accepting that it is your responsibility to walk on eggshells to keep their favour, and that your safety from having rape used as a tool of discipline against you should rest on whether you pick the winning side.

Thanks for explaining that. Sorry this thread is very long and I confess to not going all the way back. 😂

And you are accepting and endorsing that your male "allies" have power over you: the power to use the threat of sexual violence to control what you believe, say and do.

You can never ever be any man's equal, nor expect to be his equal, if you are OK with him using rape against "those other women who say things we don't like".

I'll apply what Purgatory said to the thread topic:

If surgery cancellations and other denials of healthcare are acceptable against other women who oppose your male allies politically, then you don't have rights to healthcare either.

And you've given your male "allies" the power to decide that your opinions put you on the hospital's blacklist. The fashions in political thinking change with the wind and you could utter an opinion today that would get you cancelled with the next change of bandwagon tomorrow.

This is why human rights are for everyone, especially the most odious and reprehensible of criminals, and it's why freedom of expression is protected.

Awww! Women are telling you that you are wrong and it becomes ‘dogpiling’ and ‘performative peacocking’.

Still not engaging with the topic of the thread then? Still trying to make out you are morally superior with your misogyny and racism?

“So here is my point again: The right to hold religious beliefs does not exempt or protect those beliefs from criticism”

Just for the record, your first post on this thread was to equate the request for female only caters with racism with:

“This is no different to patients specifying that they don’t want medical staff of a particular ethnicity or religion treating them”

You then swivelled to the ridiculous because religions were harmful let’s punish those women by dismissing their needs.

Plus denying those women agency to make choices about their own religions with the posts:

“The threat to those women is their religions.”

which after telling a poster to go touch grass became:

”Looks like some posters have forgotten that religious beliefs shouldn’t be defended when they are used to cause harm to women and undermine their autonomy.”

To which we pointed out that you have taken a rather racist and polarised stance, and you swivelled to the ridiculousness that was scientology. Ridiculous because your abortion point was irrelevant to the thread and clearly an attempt to hide your misstep.

You still failed to engage with the discussion about how disastrous your approach would actually be for women who were of those religions, even if they chose to be respect their fully legal (and protected) religious practice to have their needs ignored. You just doubled down about women feministing wrong.

I don’t think any of us have failed to engage with your points. And you try to handwave your racism and misogyny away with the mild and reasonable sounding “So here is my point again: The right to hold religious beliefs does not exempt or protect those beliefs from criticism”.

No. You don’t get away with attempting a sleight of hand. Your position is indefensible.

But do crack on with the live demonstration of projection, sparple, and emotional manipulation.

“It’s so sad to see people attempting to defend the indefensible because somebody they don’t like has made a reasonable point.” Your deep prejudice against posters on this board was apparent from your first attempts to police what was and was not discussed on it.

It is not the first time either that you have claimed some kind of victimisation when your points have been shown to lack substance or merit. It is just another tactic to distract from your sparpling attempts, emotional manipulation and poorly argued points.

Your prejudice has now moved on to show your own intolerant views very clearly. And yes supercilious does capture the essence of your posts from the start very well.

And the comment about performative peacocking was particularly a good example of your projection. Brilliant stuff.

And by the way, landofconfusion before the empty attempts to tell us we are bad feminists because we have not engaged with your abortion statement, as it was pointed out to you on the thread you started, women don’t respond well to having abortion used as a political cudgel by posters.

Either to denigrate posters or to distract from the perceived intention of your original posts.

And I think many of us recognise the zeal that women are vilified for disagreeing with particular groups of people. Including those who use abortion the way you have.

That zeal is not new, nor are the activities that we anticipate accompany that enthusiasm.

It must be deflating to realise you are just more of the same.

“The right to hold religious beliefs does not exempt or protect those beliefs from criticism.“

A doctor deciding they don’t like a woman’s beliefs and cancelling life saving surgery, and potentially condemning that woman to death, is reasonable criticism of their beliefs?
It’s odd because this sounds more like “playing god”.

When you support people to choosing which women deserve to live or die based on those women’s beliefs, you must see you are in a cult, surely?

Out of interest @landOFconfusion , are you for the death penalty for murderers? Or just for women who say “no” to men?

🫢🫢🫢🫢🫢

The victim blaming that is apparent in land0f’s posts on this thread seems on par for them.

Remember, this is the poster who declared that Fred Sargeant was to blame for his violent assault because he peacefully protested a Pride procession.

Because as an original founder of Pride with concerns that Pride is no longer fit for purpose, he should not be given the respect any peaceful protester should be at an event.

Because it seems that a group of the population is absolved of their need to be respectful of anyone else and we should remember that when disagreeing with them.

It is toddler-like thinking, isn’t it?

So, no. The leap to ‘a woman’s life saving surgery should be cancelled and it her fault because of the beliefs she holds’ is only an incremental step.

It is quite remarkable to see the claims of victimhood this poster then makes when their posts are analysed and criticised.

As I have said upthread, we know the group of people who think this way. Who have an over inflated confidence in their arguments that lack any solid foundation, who claim victimhood when women disagree, who weaponise abortion for their own purposes, who victim blame and who cannot see the racism and misogyny in their own arguments.

Once you see it, the motivations for posting becomes clear and the twisting, pivoting and swivels are unsurprising.

Oh! I also forgot the lectures on feminism and womaning too.

Because we know who fully believe they are better at feministing and womaning than us, don’t we?

On the racism point, does anyone know what is the legal position if a patient racistly requests a care team of all white / all British/ all Indian etc? I've said previously that years ago, I was told to just ignore it in customer service.

I imagine a healthcare professional would treat the human in front of them, racist piece of sh*t or not.

I do remember seeing internet posts from healthcare workers years ago stating “I will still provide health care to you (even if you are racist) because that’s what I do” (I can’t link to any of this but I guess people have seen things like this before.

it used to be something health practitioners prided themselves on (and Tbf it probably still is) We’re into very unstable ground if health care can be refused for beliefs you don’t agree with. (I appreciate safety is paramount and violent actions are different)

That is because you are a reasonable and respectful person.

Not one of a special group who wants dispensation to get away with punishing women for wrong think.

Whut?

Criticise all you want, fill yer boots mate. And if they choose to, the religious women you are so deprecating of can argue back. I'm not one of them.

Still even if they gave up their religion tomorrow (the men wont let them, but that's another thread) where do they go and how will this prevent them needing women only (cunty type) care?

It's not solely religion that makes us women want no men in our, prisons, wards, sports etc. You do realise that "fact"

Right, shows up the misogyny in fine detail.

Brilliant.

Some absolutely outstanding posts late last night and this morning from posters. This is why I hang out here; smart women with the ability to express and share reasoning and articulate all this.

It also articulates so well what worries me most about identity politics:

that once you make it ok to dehumanise any humans because of a characteristic you don't like, once you make it ok to non-person other humans you feel inferior to you -

you are left with nothing more than the hope that you manage to stay in with the in crowd. And it's only a matter of time before you are depersoned yourself.

Embracing the whole 'it's ok to treat people I don't like in this way cos I'm superior' is an immature, if not downright childish and highly regressive way of thinking, and makes you no different to slavers, colonialists, all the things that gender ideologists spend so much time ranting about the evils of but really do not understand .

There is no point ranting about the evils of slavery and throwing statues in harbours and having kittens because there's a painting in a public building of a person who's aunt's sister's wife's hamster once was involved in the slave trade when you hold the view that women who politically don't agree with you and won't do what you say should lose their health care, have less civil rights, be raped, be murdered.

The slavers felt and behaved exactly the same: they just chose skin colour as the determiner of who got raped and who got to laugh about it.

There was a bloody world war in the 40s to put all of these awful, childish, 'my team are ok' traditions behind us. Possibly if those who spit on anyone two minutes past the age of 25 as old and past it and white and cis and multiple other terms of dehumanising others actually managed to get out of their own self fascination long enough to listen to one of those people with a bit of life experience they might realise the absolute idiocy of all this.

Some absolutely outstanding posts late last night and this morning from posters.

Yes, including yours nils.

The almost impossible lengths that some men will go to to force women into unconsenting touching, is extraordinary.

And of course their misogyny seeps out. They literally can't help it. It's their driving force.

Aided and abetted by their racism and ageism, of course. There are no tools they will not employ in order to dominate women.

They never seem to realise, either, that there are no arguments which justify it. So the ones they use keep failing under scrutiny.

I know this sentiment gets trotted out as a bit of an insult, but I'm genuine - it's a bloody awful way to live your life. Really pathetic.

Creating excuses for religions that abuse and limit the lives of women is not feminism.
Saying feminists support religion is like saying feminists hate prostituted women because they criticise protstitution. Its the same false argument.

Religious women have as much right to participate in society as anyone else. They might need some adjustment to enable them to do so. So what? how does that hurt you?
landOFconfusion; if you really want to help women leave a situation, you have to give them a place to go. Come up with better solutions, because telling women to leave their entire family and culture for no other reason than because you say so isn't going to cut it.