So Doctor “ Beth “ Upton is off to pastures new , leaving a large ongoing bill for NHS Fife

[RhannionKPSS]

Dr Upton is off to Australia it seems, after creating a toxic situation for women in NHS Fife, wonder if Dr Upton is going to be working in “ Gender Services “ down under ?

Well quite. I actually did leave my abuser fairly early on, but it wasn't easy, it still took me longer than it should have and, ultimately, I didn't do it for myself but for my DD. I had external support too. From what I understand, many (most?) Trans Widows don't have that. Quite the opposite in fact. Its very easy to say "I wouldn't put up with it" from a position of security but actually, you never know what you'll do until you're in that situation. It's like those dumb women who say "I'd kick him in the nuts" of a potential assaulter. Wanna bet?
Its victim blaming and it sucks!

Most women say they'd leave immediately. Most don't. What you think you'd do often doesn't happen in reality.

Let's keep the focus on Theodore.

So Doctor “ Beth “ Upton is off to pastures new

Sad Times.

"Trans identity" is still magical armour in Australia, he'll experience the deference he imagines is his due & his employers will scurry to shield him from his own inadequacies. Meanwhile, he'll get better pay & a better work/ life balance than he could hope for in the NHS.
I wonder if he's noticed the gentle fraying of confidence in gender clinicians down under?

AFAICT the original source for that hilariously weak sauce replacement for an argument is Julia Serano, he's the first I can find trotting it out. Reese (Ivy/McKinnon/Whatever It Is This Week) inevitably latched onto it because it fits so well with his PhD, "On Norms of Assertion; Why You Don't Need to Know What You're Talking About" & yes, gentle reader, an actual god damn university awarded him a doctorate for that & an actual god damn publisher gave him a book deal for it.

He asserts that lying is fine if you have what he considers good reasons for it eg; his "I am a biological woman" piffle, & if the context is apt. Reese is yet to encounter a context he considers inapt for such lies.

I have huge respect for the principle of the Academy but it's very hard to maintain when dross like that leads to what should be a meaningful credential.

The annoying thing about that is that there may be a valid argument for lying being forgivable/permissible in some circumstances, and there is a philosophical debate to be had about what those circumstances may be and what the lies may be and who should or should not tell them – for instance, was it ok for a midwife, rather than telling a woman who had just given birth that what she had given birth to was hopelessly not-really-baby-shaped and inside-out in places and said midwife hadn't made enormous efforts to keep it alive in the face of all odds, simply to say that she is very sorry and the baby was born dead? Can such lies be justified and how can they be justified: does the end justify the means is a debate that has been around for several centuries.

But self-justification about it being ok to tell a lie entirely for your own benefit really adds nothing to that debate.

"On Norms of Assertion; Why You Don't Need to Know What You're Talking About" & yes, gentle reader, an actual god damn university awarded him a doctorate for that & an actual god damn publisher gave him a book deal for it.

He asserts that lying is fine if you have what he considers good reasons for it eg; his "I am a biological woman" piffle, & if the context is apt. Reese is yet to encounter a context he considers inapt for such lies.

Just sounds like Trump to me.

You couldn't get a fag paper between them

And they would both be mortally offended buy the comparison, I suspect.

But for surgery (you mentioned being unconscious) you mostly can't pick an all-female team anyway. There simply aren't enough female surgeons. And even if you can pick a female surgeon, there's no guarantee that the anaesthetist and the theatre nurses and the person wheeling you back while unconscious are all going to be female. I've had surgery once, and I knew all this, and I hated it. The person wheeling me down in my bed was male, and it was just me and him going down what seemed like miles of corridors. God only knows who brought me back or what they could have done to me on that journey. But that's the nature of surgery, unfortunately. If you need it, there will almost always be males there while you're unconscious and undressed. Therefore, whether they call themselves male or female doesn't make much difference imo, since you can't usually choose an all-female surgical team.

I have lived in the USA, UK, Ireland and Australia, and the number of women in medicine in Australia is really noticeable. There are lots of them!

In Australia, the majority of doctors in these specialities are women:

• General Practice (GP)
• Endocrinology
• Geriatric Medicine
• Paediatrics & Child Health
• Pathology
• Obstetrics and Gynaecology (85% of new trainees in RANZCOG reported as female)
• Dermatology

In Australia, a female patient has the right to request a 'female doctor' for cultural, religious, or personal reasons.

There, lawfully, Upton would be a 'woman doctor', but the wording specifically says 'female'. I doubt that's a coincidence.

I'd say Dr Upton would be rarely be called upon to examine a woman who requested a 'female' doctor, should the move to Australia occur, given the number of female women doctors and the wording of the patient's rights.

Also the Women's hospital in Melbourne was one of the first hospitals in the world to be entirely staffed by women doctors and surgeons, and that was in the late 19th century, so the idea of women (or girls) having access to a female doctor is very firmly entrenched.

(Stats via google AI, patient's rights via Royal Women's hospital).

There is a massive difference between getting the next doctor (etc) on call /on the rota and having an agreement in place that the doctor provide will be a woman when the hospital know they will allow a man who claims to be a woman access to a womans body and thereafter lie and claim he is a woman.

That man has engaged in (medical) assault as he and the hospital know there is no permission.

OK, but would any hospital actually provide that guarantee? I really don't think there are enough female hospital doctors for that.

It's different when it's a GP, since there are more female GPs and you are usually scheduling in advance.

But even at the GP level, it's hard to imagine turning down a medical appointment with the likes of Upton if, say, you have a bad throat infection and probably need antibiotics, but Upton is the only doctor available for the next week.

You appear to be missing the point.

He said he would assault a woman who asked for same sex health care.

He said he would expect another member of staff to bring him to the woman requesting SSHC so that he could assault the woman.

No hospital or GP should allow a male member of staff to be unsupervised or in a position of any authority when he openly stated he would engage in a criminal act.

The whole reason there are Medical Regulators is to have ethical medics.

Then obligation on the Employer is to only employ staff who are trustworthy that the obligation to safeguard always remains with the NHS. The Employer (management) are the one placing a woman at risk of assault. The employment contract will not cover assault. Other staff are obliged to raise concerns both from a professional standard pov and a contract expectation.

No hospital staff should be allowed lie when it comes to consent because the obligation is to obtain informed consent.

As before there is a massive difference between
• saying you will get the next doctor of either sex or
• being told there is only a male doctor and
• providing a male doctor while claiming he is a woman/female.

But even at the GP level, it's hard to imagine turning down a medical appointment with the likes of Upton if, say, you have a bad throat infection and probably need antibiotics, but Upton is the only doctor available for the next week.

You may not be able to imagine it, but if a patient has said they only want to be treated by women and the hospital ignores that, then the patient has not given consent to their treatment.

Consent must be informed.

There are many difficult ethical situations where a patient and doctor will disagree, but the solution is not to lie to the patient.

Can you not acknowledge the difference between being seen by a male doctor when there is no one else available and that fact being openly acknowledged with the alternative of being gaslit by being told “yes you can have a female doctor” and Upton being brought to you?

Women are not stupid, we understand that there may not be a female doctor available (in which case we may ask for a chaperone) and we certainly know that we may not have female only surgical teams. But we do have rights and we are not support animals provided for the purpose of validation for blokes like Upton. He stated under oath that if a woman requested a female doctor he would expect a nurse to bring him to the patient and then it would be up to the patient herself to object. And I’m pretty sure that he inferred that any objection could only be for bigoted reasons.

This man is no loss to the NHS.

There is also the problem of having 2 medic standing in a treatment area effectively saying here is your only health care option.

The woman in need of specific medical care is being bullied and threatened (more so if she is alone) without a word being spoken. She would have to be stupid not to realise she is not going to get support from other senior staff as this would only happened because of the culture of the whole staff.

He stated under oath that if a woman requested a female doctor he would expect a nurse to bring him to the patient and then it would be up to the patient herself to object.

In this situation the hospital are acknowledging that the sex of the practitioner is relevant, and then lying to the patient.

And then the patient is expected to trust these people to provide medical care?

The head of the ED wanted the long term female employee arrested on who knows what charge for objecting to a male employee in her changingroom.

Then NHSfife troop in a load of idiots to prove there was a contractual obligation for her to provide the male with a stripshow.

None if the medical staff who sided with the hospital could be trusted to put a patient (who wanted SS provision) first.

Yeah, if I really wanted a female doctor and they brought me Upton, I would not be impressed. If I had requested a female it would be because it was something to do with boobs, bum, or undercarriage. Or maternity care. Wouldn't care if it was a sore throat or ear infection etc. But some might.

And if you objected to Upton being brought to you after you have requested a female doctor it would be you who would be labelled as the problem and bigoted. According to Upton and his handmaiden’s you would be ‘unkind’ which is the worst thing a woman can be apparently.

Beyond the biological sex issue there is the question of "specialness".

Are you having to treat some staff with kid gloves, simply because they might use the power that comes with their status. If you challenge their demands, as as NHS Fife should have done, are you opening yourself up to complaint and who is watching your back?

It is the "bring your whole self to work" idea. Many/most people would prefer that their colleagues turned up and did the job without add ons. They don't care about their colour, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. They want to work with team players to contribute their share. They are happy that there are suitable adjustments for disability or pregnancy and indeed that there is a disabled toilet. They are also happy to acknowledge Chinese New Year and Ramadan, and to make every effort to be sensitive to colleagues diverse backgrounds, and would be quick to support colleagues if there were any obvious discrimination. However at the end of the day it is a job and you expect your colleagues to get on with it, without them keeping notes of minor and perceived slights from a number of colleagues.

A friend has a new colleague, a recent graduate, in their team. This colleague is non-binary (born female.) There was a certain amusement when the NB would correct the Head of Department, someone in their 60s, for using their official name not their NB name. Even established employees are careful about how they phrase any work related disagreement, and do not expect to share anything personal. Those closer in level to the NB would try to fit in with their they/them preferences but are liable to forget when things are busy. The NB is now three months in and a few concerns that have come up that the Head of Department would normally raise to reinforce what has been said by the line manager, in order to help the NBs professional development. However it has become clear that the Head of Department is not going there, thereby making it difficult for the line manager to manage effectively. The graduate will move on in a few months and will become someone else's problem. Without the full career learning that they should have gained in their current position, and without gaining the colleagues and contacts that would provide immediate support, and which might prove useful in the future.

Some of it seems to be about control. A perfectly sweet but slightly anxious young woman, because of her status, can exert control over more senior colleagues. A narcissistic man with a fetish can do similar. Many of us will have come across instances where others have abused their "special" status to gain advantage in the work place. Beth might well have made a good doctor if proper boundaries (use of changing facilities, not treating patients who ask to see a female doctor etc) had been imposed from the start.

He would get hurty feelz 🙄

Some of it seems to be about control.

A very large part of it is about control; no matter what disguise it comes in it is designed to have others dancing to his or her tunes, which are always off key.

Very true Needmoresleep

I always point out that an extra body is hired in to make everybodys job easier.

The whole being your whole self to work is a mess. Lots of organisation which claims to do this also have a very PC culture and a blame culture. Both create a culture which allows bullying and petty office politic which creates a hostile workplace and thats normally reflected in high staff turnover.

In Fife the staff setting the policy did not have a contractual obligation to strip off their clothes at work. And others had and used private work spaces.