Dr Upton in the news again

[Sparkyduchess]

I see the lovely Dr Upton is in the news again, who didn’t see this coming 🙄

i feel for the woman facing this, and troubling that she was worried she’d be bullied into accepting treatment from him

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16235793/Doctor-quit-UK-Peggie-trans-row-centre-gender-storm-Australia-known-Lis.html

Oh I've been 'transed' again!

Its very weird behaviour from a still junior doctor trying to establish his career. Soon he will be untouchable.

In my local authority (I assume the same elsewhere) in mixed sex children's residential homes it's mandatory to have staff of each sex on duty at night.

In Australia, would a TiM be classed as female in this situation and thus potentially no actual female staff on shift?

It's a safeguarding nightmare.

What's the 'weird behaviour' in this incident?

A man pretending to be a woman.

So being trans?

It's weird to admit in a tribunal that you would disregard a woman asking for a female HCP, in favour of yourself, a man. And then travel to a place which allows it legally.

So the answer is nothing in this incident. Or simple existing while being trans.

There is no excuse for a male doctor to present themselves to a female patient who has requested a female doctor. From the report, this is what this male doctor has done. He also has declared to the many people watching the employment tribunal where he gave evidence that he could see no issue in doing so. He expects that female patient to have to reject him or to accept him with him knowing that he was male.

Meaning he was demanding a female patient, who has a quite high chance of being a vulnerable female patient, decide whether or not he was 'female' and whether she would risk being negatively treated for rejecting him.

There is a valid discussion around consent to be had about that behaviour.

It is not that the man is 'trans'. It is that he is a male doctor who has publicly declared that he would not respect female patients wishes immediately before putting the patient in the situation where they had to reject him based on observation if they had that capacity, because he would ignore their request and present himself as if he was a female doctor that they requested.

This should not be acceptable in any way.

There is no excuse for a male doctor to present themselves to a female patient who has requested a female doctor.

There is nothing in the report that even suggests this happened. Unless you know something different?

Meaning he was demanding a female patient, who has a quite high chance of being a vulnerable female patient, decide whether or not he was 'female' and whether she would risk being negatively treated for rejecting him.

Again - there isn't a scrap of evidence that any of this occurred.

So you admit à TIM is a man pretending to be a woman? Good to know

"Her family claim that fears she would be ‘bullied’ into accepting the 6ft doctor as female meant her husband refused to leave her bedside."

Seems to be a report from her family. That she felt concerned that she would be "accepting the 6ft doctor as female".

and

"A friend claimed: ‘Her husband stayed the whole time she was in to make sure they didn’t bully her into accepting treatment.’"

I would consider these quotes to be 'suggestions' that this has indeed happened but obviously you may have a different opinion on what has been suggested or not.

I would also consider that Rachel Wong will have checked the claim before making this statement too.

"Women’s Forum Australia CEO Rachael Wong said: ‘A woman in hospital should not have to defend her boundaries from the very people entrusted with her care.

‘The New South Wales health minister must urgently investigate why a vulnerable woman seeking emergency care felt she needed her husband’s protection to ensure her wish to be treated by a female doctor was respected."

None of that supports your claims. If what you claim is true then it would have been plainly reported - it wasn't. If what you claim happened happened - then what would be the reason for the Mail on Sunday to leave it out of its reporting?

Apart, obviously, from the statement to that effect from the Women’s Forum Australia CEO Rachael Wong to the press. Who presumably had her facts straight before she did so.

Are we seriously going to play 'that didn't happen (and if it did it wasn't that bad, and if it was then he didn't mean it, and if he did, she deserved it) because God knows that one's tired.

Exactly. Upton is a bloke - only someone who supports the creepy and underhand behaviour of such men would attempt to defend this.

Let's be plain about what this disagreement is about.

A woman, told she could have a female HCP, was provided with a man who identifies at a woman. She has explained her distress at this, the breach in trust, that she was put in the position of having to refuse him, and the attempt to deceive her and breach her consent.

Many women here, me included, think this is an appalling thing for a man with a gender identity who is a doctor to intentionally do to a woman patient, knowing the woman has requested a same sex hcp. He is not. He knows he is not. He knows she has not consented to a man, and will obviously understand both the reasons why sex matters to some women, the issues probably underlying, and he will have had a great deal of training around consent. He is either therefore hoping to deceive her - which starts to wander into the territory of sex without consent because this involves intimate contact and consent, but is worse because he is in a position of trust and responsibility - or he is intentionally challenging her to either accept or reject him. With all the stress involved for a woman in a situation where she has to say to a man's face, that he is a man, and that he is breaking her consent and trust, and she now has a very serious problem with the hospital. On sheer grounds of consent he's on exceptionally dodgy ground, with no excuse at all.

A couple of posters think however that this is perfectly ok for him to have done to his patient, that her distress and protest - well, mostly there seems to be an attempt to deny it happened at all, which suggests it would be uncomfortable to face - and that it is unkind to the doctor concerned to even be discussing this.

YMMV.

Why would you think a talking head would have any more information about this than the newspaper? And if she did have more information then why wouldn't she share it with said newspaper so they could report it? What is the logical reason that the newspaper didn't report what is claimed happened?

None of that is in the only original source though. If that happened - why wouldn't the Mail on Sunday report that it happened? Why would they dance around it?

I'm not responding to this, it's bonkers.

@alcovecupboards your questions about the DM's intentions cannot be answered here - you need to contact the DM themselves.

Yes. Presumably he thought he'd be safe to force himself on unconsenting women in Australia - a not unreasonable expectation considering how captured Australia is - so much so that sex no longer exists in law there.
Let's hope he is proved wrong. He needs to be struck off.

Or I could ask the people claiming something else happened that isn't in the only report of an incident. Unless you accept that they may be mistaken?

Your inability to answer is quite telling.

What reason would there possible be for no family or friend of this woman to make a statement in the media?

I can think of two court cases that are currently going through Australian courts that could provide the very reason. Because there are currently two female people going through court or have been through court, one in NSW and one in QLD, who used male language to describe a male person in media.

If a female person cannot be very clear that their issue is that the male person being 'male' is the very issue, then it does deter clear statements being made. It also means that some people will jump to the conclusion anyway that the person is just a bigot because the male person is 'trans' and that they are transphobic.

Seems a very possible reason why a person in Australia, particularly in NSW, would not make an explicit claim about a male person being a male person?

It would then also be victim blaming any female person for not speaking out about a male person being a male person if they feel they cannot do so without significant negative repercussions.

You can ask - but they can't answer for the DM. Again, you will have to ask the DM.