This is what Upton actually said when questioned under oath, according to the contemporaneous reporting by Tribunal Tweets.
Cunningham: What if a woman asks to see a female doctor?
Upton: I don’t see that I have to give personal information to patients. I have no obligation to do that.
Later, Cunningham presented the hypothetical case of a woman in A&E with unexplained heavy bleeding who had requested a female doctor.
Upton: If she wanted me to leave, I would and get someone else.
Cunningham then asked whether it was up to the patient to say she was uncomfortable with Upton.
Upton: That’s how it works.
Upton went on to explain that one could not assume a patient would reject a trans woman, and emphasised the importance of consent and making patients comfortable.
From Upton’s perspective.
Upton understands herself to be a woman. She doesn’t regard a request for a female doctor as necessarily excluding her, because she doesn’t assume that every patient requesting a woman means a cisgender woman.
Nor does she believe that being transgender creates an automatic obligation to disclose her personal medical history to patients.
However, she explicitly recognises that patients can refuse treatment from an individual doctor, that their wishes should be respected, and that another clinician should be found if they are uncomfortable.
In other words, Upton’s position is entirely consistent with her understanding of herself as a woman, while also recognising patients’ right to refuse treatment. Nothing in this exchange establishes that she has disregarded a patient’s wishes, still less that she has committed any wrongdoing.
Also this is all old news from the tribunal and doesn't establish she has done anything wrong at all in Australia.