Have I understood this correctly?

[Shufflebumnessie]

I'm sue to attend my local hospital for an internal ultrasound (transvaginal).
The accompanying information I've recieved states 'If you have a preference of the gender identity of the person responsible for performing the examination please let us know in advance so that we may be able to accommodate your request'.

If they're going by gender identity, does that mean even if I specifically request the examination is performed by a female medical practitioner, I could still end up with a male (who claims to be female)? Or have I misunderstood?

Do you have any references that the male medical personnel were identifying as trans/as women? Not goady just interested

I recently had surgery twice on my breast with local anaesthesia (it should have been general, but that's another story). The surgeon was male, and on one of those occasions there wasn't an accompanying nurse in the room. I didn't feel entirely comfortable, of course, but I tried to assume that he was seeing just an area of human flesh like any other he sees in the course of a day - ie. that he was a professional.

It's good that you were asked for your preferences, OP.

Not for trans identifying medical personnel but are we going for the "it would never happen" argument here? Or are we heading for True Trans territory?

Not saying it would never happen, but has it?

The number of medical personnel that identify as trans women who do these procedures will also give an idea of if it will be likely to happen.

The liklihood is very low, (or even non existent, likely), giving women a higher sense of comfort when making these decisions.

We will never have a zero percent chance of these risks involved with intimate examinations. Its really horrible we have to even consider this. But we don't seem to consider disgusting people going to study for years to scrap it all on this? (i'd never excuse) but surely theres much quicker and easier ways to violate woman.

Sorry, there is a case right now of 4 NHS nurses suing their employer because a trans identifying colleague made them feel perved upon in the changing room. He wasnt taking cross sex hormones or anything, simply someone who identified as female and called himself Rose. There was a case of rape vehemently denied initially by a trans identifying patient. This is just from memory and I am not going to trawl the net for news of trans identified medical personnel committing crimes because you know what, it is simply not germane to the issue at hand. Your argument is predictable : there are so few trans personnel, the likelihood of crime is low (some woman who is an "unlikely statistic" must suck up the abuse), no one would go to so much trouble, ie medical school and/or transition to simply abuse some luckless woman or child (in other words, get over yourselves bitches).

Just the other day, there was a report in my local paper (I dont live in the UK) of a young male doctor attempting to take photos of a female colleague showering in the unisex bathrooms in the hospital. It wasnt his first offence, he had been caught doing the same in medical school in Australia. It seems to me that medicine is not such a sacred vocation that it never stops men from offfending. That you bring up such a naive argument is rather unbelievable but I understand that you are grasping at straws here.
That even with safeguards one cannot completely eliminate risk is not at all the argument for dismantling such safeguards altogether! That you want other hapless women and children to bear the risks is despicable.

Well men can, and do, go into the police force, teaching, scouting and the priesthood to violate women and children.

They don't pay as well, of course.

Nah they'd never be able to control the scope with those bloody great paws.

Apart from those mirax has off the top of her head, we've had at least two threads deleted in the last week about a case highlighted by Maya Forstater.

ManchesterLu · Yesterday 17:44
It's not being a "goady fucker" to point out that medical professionals are just that - professional.

Not sure if this is naivety or gaslighting but even female surgeons aren't safe from predatory male HCPs, even in the operating theatre.

^Female surgeons say they are being sexually harassed, assaulted and in some cases raped by colleagues, a major analysis of NHS staff has found.*

Nearly two-thirds of women surgeons who responded to the researchers said they had been the target of sexual harassment and a third had been sexually assaulted by colleagues in the past five years.

BBC News has spoken to women who were sexually assaulted in the operating theatre while surgery took place.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-66775015.amp

Do you have any references that the male medical personnel were identifying as trans/as women? Not goady just interested

What difference does it make? They are men, regardless of what they believe, or wear, or do to their bodies, or perform, or pretend.

Why aren't they dressing for their patients?
I am a very manly woman. Muscular, broad shoulders, big veiny hands, deep voice. I always dress to reassure that I am a woman. What's the point of clothes if not to communicate to the people around us?
Wearing appropriate clothes is part of being professional.

Would you like a couple of furries performing your colonoscopy? Or would you find it an inappropriate time for them to be expressing themselves?

Well made point!

So the long record of male doctors sexually assaulting their patients is just a series of unfortunate mistakes?

Is there a way to see the numbers of trans woman who are doctors and who work within the gynaecologist area?

No. And of course the person performing the scan may not be a doctor.

I think it will be miniscule, if that. Not something for anyone to worry about.

But clearly people are worried. So writing letters in a way that increases that worry is a problem. It may not happen often but it does happen, and people do worry.

There are easier ways to assault women.

Of course there are. And yet - as posted above - assault by surgeons is rife. There are easier ways to abuse children than by become a priest, scout leader or teacher - but plenty of people have choosen that route. There are easier ways to become famous than by training as an astronaut and spending months on the international space station, but people do it. It's a facile argument.

But that one trans woman can affect every woman he meets in that role. Maybe he even worked to get into that role because he can do this to women.

How many women upset by this is too many?

How will we know with any certainty when crimes like this against women are reported as by women?
I could trawl through many lists to find crimes by medical personnel but if it states woman on woman, aside from women dont typically commit these crimes, I'll never know unless I go to the court on the day.

The likelihood may or may not be low, but it seems ok with you as long as it's some other woman who is treated this way? I mean nice for you and all, but those women wont be thinking of you while they're being assaulted eh.

Theres not much comfort to me when it's my daughter in this situation, but ymmv

In a healthcare setting i want a professional, and in the past i have mostly had male OB/GYN but the odd female doctor. I am ok with this, and when it has been a male OB/GYN for a check-up there has always been a chaperone who is a female.

So in theory a transwoman nurse or OB/GYN wouldn't bother me. Except that given what i have seen online, i wonder if they are just doing it for kicks. So that kind of puts me off and i would definitely be asking for a chaperone.

What a mess it all is.

The number of medical personnel that identify as trans women who do these procedures will also give an idea of if it will be likely to happen.

If the numbers are not worth worrying about, then surely it's best to just rule out the possibility by being very clear that it's sex, not gender identity?

By your logic the chances of this inconveniencing any transwoman who's desperate to slip past an unsuspecting female patient's "female carer" requirement is negligible, so we can just forget about it. Right?

I'm not going to buy any "don't worry it won't happen" from anyone who is clearly deliberately making policy to allow it to happen.

Far too much logic in there, Necessary 😄

There are stats that trans women offend at similar/higher rates than men. (Which makes sense given they are.)

'By my logic' I never said it wouldn't happen, I was just interested in any stats which haven't been provided yet 😊

I did try to make it clear i'm on neither side as I respect every opinion no matter my own , I fully understand your point of view and would never try to silence that.

Men will always try to interfere with womens' business, I just don't personally believe them identifying as trans in the medical field is a major issue we have to worry about. It would be easier for them if they stuck identifying as male. They've done it for centuries successfully.

@Bodeganights I guess it also bring up the question of how many woman on woman crimes are reported within the NHS (not that I agree these crimes should be reported as committed by woman as I believe it's important we know whether these are committed by trans women).

I think you misunderstand that I'm on the opposite side to you. Or perhaps I misunderstand you. I'm very feminist, pro woman. We deserve places we believe are our own, without male interference. But I also try to be rational and realistic.

There's no real evidence of threat to the OP or the wider female community within medical facilities. If someone could give me that evidence i'd happily change my mind.

Men can be bad people, women can be bad people and trans people can be bad people. Every sector of us humans has the potential to be bad. But it doesn't make us all bad people.

PP have suggested requesting a cis woman/biological woman. Certain TW are claiming they are cis/bio after hormones/surgical procedures. I think only way to be 100% sure is to request a person assigned female at birth (I know it should be observed female at birth but we are where we are on that one)
edited for spelling and missing text

They are like moths to a flame! It is not at all uncommon for these males to seek out female spaces or predominantly female spaces, for validation of their gender identity and for other reasons. Female sports teams, female sororities, the Women’s Institute. Even the Girl Guides has been targeted by obvious autogynephile adult males.

So a female-identifying male seeking out a job role that involves working with women in an intimate capacity is not beyond the realms of possibility. In the case of Mridul Wadhwa, the current Chief Executive of Edinburgh Rape Crisis, the jobs (this one and prior ones) applied for were roles restricted to women for obvious reasons. Wadhwa is legally and biologically male.

There doesn't need to be a threat, for there to be an assault for it to be wrong for a woman who has requested a woman to get a man.

They might have religious, cultural or personal reason for not wanting a man to touch them/ see them in a state of undress. They might want someone who has the understanding that comes with having had the same/ similar procedures or having the same biology. They could hope that smaller hands, a lighter touch etc will make things less painful or just want a bit of sisterly solidarity.

If you request a woman you should get a woman.