Galaxy
The fact that they are discriminating against protected groups doesnt seem to matter in their inclusivity, disabled people, those who hold religious beliefs, etc none of these matter in the search for inclusivity.
Yes, 'inclusivity' doesn't seem to include the disabled, the elderly, women, those who hold faiths with obligations to avoid intimate touching from members of the opposite sex - in fact anyone who doesn't go along with the idea that men should be able to access all areas - whether of women's spaces or women's bodies. In fact, the only group being 'included' is transpeople - everyone else can lump it.
The idea that an older woman (or a young disabled one) should be made to suffer because she has asked for personal care to be given by other women implies that a high percentage of care workers are male - whether transwomen or not. Is this based on fact, or is it made up to suit the punitive argument - the 'put up or shut up' misogyny that underpins so much of the 'debate' that surrounds this topic now that No Debate has been put to bed? If it is supposed to be fact, please may we have some statistics that show that the number of male carers is such that this is likely - particularly given that a significant number of women may not mind who is giving her care?
I would be surprised to find that so many carers are either male-presenting men or transwomen that it would be so difficult to find a woman to attend to another women that clients risk skin damage simply for asking for a female carer, but I may, of course, be wrong.
Where medical care is concerned (as opposed to personal care) my understanding is that some religions (eg Orthodox Judaism) put the welfare of the patient ahead of usual obligations, and in emergencies it may well be the case that there is no time to gain explicit consents in any case; but where planned care is concerned people need to be given enough information to ensure that they give informed consent, or to refuse if that is their choice.