Princess Grace hospital cancelled vital surgery for woman who requested single-sex care

Smileless2012

Thanks Fleur . To clarify, a female being examined by a male nurse or doctor presenting as male and one who identifies/presents as female, should have a chaperone.

Hope you enjoyed your choir practice. I'll miss mine for the next two weeks as we're away.

Well quite a diversion here. First session for the local 'rock' style choir. Quite a drive, but the leader is such a wonderful young woman. We sang a song I heard live at the Isle of Wight, 1970- Allelujah by Leonard Cohen.

VioletSky

Prejudice is thinking being biased against someone.

Discrimination is action in many forms that impacts someone's life negatively.

Discrimination is also exercising privilege by putting a minority groups needs below a majority

I know exactly what words I'm using thanks

No, it's not. It is pre-judging someone before finding out from experience, based on information about others perceived to be from a similar group. It does not necessarily lead to bias against that person - it is possible to be prejudiced in favour of someone.

Many things can impact someone's life negatively. Discrimination is far more specific, and involves singling out a particular group for different treatment. It is possible to discriminate positively, which could involve putting the minority groups' needs ahead of the majority.

Maybe you need to consult your dictionary again?

Chocolatelovinggran

My excellent GP was a transgender woman and I do not recall hearing of a female having any concerns about their safety/wellbeing in her care. This was 30+years ago.

There is no reason why her patients should have been at risk. That isn't the point though, which is that if someone has a reason (any reason) not to want to be treated by a male-bodied person they should have the right to informed consent, and the right to refuse, or to ask for a chaperone if they wish to do so.

Whether you, I or anyone else we know would avail themselves of that right is irrelevant.

There aren't really any principles, apart from in the minds of people who have chosen to weaponise it for an agenda. Controversy has been manufactured.

That controversy has been manufactured may well be so. But I disagree that there are no principles involved. I believe that informed consent is sacrosanct, and male bodied people 'presenting as' women and not declaring that (which I know didn't happen in this particular case) is removing that right. I keep asking whether people see the right to be told the sex (not the so-called 'gender') of someone who is about to examine them as something that is important, whether they personally would care either way or not, and am not getting many answers.

Again, what if someone does not want to be treated by, say, a black person. Or a Muslim, or a Jew?

Have your read Jodi Picoult 'small things great' (about a black midwife in the USA- where a man has requested that no coloured should take part in his wife's delivery?)

Sorry 'Small Great Things'. It was given to me by our cousin who trained as a nurse in the UK, but could not work in white only hospitals during Apartheid (she did, however- but had she been found out, it would have been a massive issue for white supremacists)- to illustrate what it was like, to be discriminated as a nurse, like this- when you know you are really great at your job!

Doodledog

*There aren't really any principles, apart from in the minds of people who have chosen to weaponise it for an agenda. Controversy has been manufactured.*

That controversy has been manufactured may well be so. But I disagree that there are no principles involved. I believe that informed consent is sacrosanct, and male bodied people 'presenting as' women and not declaring that (which I know didn't happen in this particular case) is removing that right. I keep asking whether people see the right to be told the sex (not the so-called 'gender') of someone who is about to examine them as something that is important, whether they personally would care either way or not, and am not getting many answers.

It is so!

Do you think the equality act is a form of apartheid.

I don't see the equivalence, sorry. You keep bringing race into this but it is irrelevant.

Some people have religious reasons for not wanting to be touched intimately by men other than their husbands and would have to refuse treatment if this were not available. Survivors of rape or sexual abuse may be traumatised at the thought of having a man touch their genitals and it could trigger PTSD. There are real reasons for women wanting to know the sex of medical staff that go way beyond prejudice. Prejudice is the only reason for anyone not wanting to be touched by someone of a different race, and therefore should not be tolerated.

Your principles are irrelevant to this case because there was never any question of them being breached. It's a mainly made-up story by somebody with a transphobic agenda, to get people steamed up.

growstuff

Doodledog

There aren't really any principles, apart from in the minds of people who have chosen to weaponise it for an agenda. Controversy has been manufactured.

That controversy has been manufactured may well be so. But I disagree that there are no principles involved. I believe that informed consent is sacrosanct, and male bodied people 'presenting as' women and not declaring that (which I know didn't happen in this particular case) is removing that right. I keep asking whether people see the right to be told the sex (not the so-called 'gender') of someone who is about to examine them as something that is important, whether they personally would care either way or not, and am not getting many answers.

It is so!

Ok, it is so.

Now. Do you think that women have a right to informed consent or not?

Doodledog

I don't see the equivalence, sorry. You keep bringing race into this but it is irrelevant.

Some people have religious reasons for not wanting to be touched intimately by men other than their husbands and would have to refuse treatment if this were not available. Survivors of rape or sexual abuse may be traumatised at the thought of having a man touch their genitals and it could trigger PTSD. There are real reasons for women wanting to know the sex of medical staff that go way beyond prejudice. Prejudice is the only reason for anyone not wanting to be touched by someone of a different race, and therefore should not be tolerated.

Fine! There have been umpteen threads about this on GN, but it's irrelevant to this case.

VS
Prejudice is thinking being biased against someone.
Bias works both ways, if you are biased towards something then you obviously think negatively about the opposite-and are prejudiced against it.

Discrimination is action in many forms that impacts someone's life negatively.

Yes-exactly what I’ve been saying about discrimination against females by certain TAF.

Discrimination is also exercising privilege by putting a minority groups needs below a majority

No, that can’t be true if you truly mean your second statement.

If the actions in many forms that impact someone’s life negatively are carried out against females by TIF,
then even the fact that there are more females
and fewer TIF
and even fewer TIF perpetrating,
in your words,
those actions in many forms that impacts someone’s life negatively that means that your second claim cannot be valid.

So there you are.
1. True - prejudice is double edged. Are you saying one prejudice more acceptable to you?

2. True As evidenced by my explanation.

3. Can only be true if 2. is untrue.

growstuff

Your principles are irrelevant to this case because there was never any question of them being breached. It's a mainly made-up story by somebody with a transphobic agenda, to get people steamed up.

Yeah, so you keep saying.

My question arose out of the discussion that grew out of the story that was made up and fed to the media. That doesn't make it irrelevant in itself. Some of the responses on this thread suggest to me that there are those who don't think that women have a right to decide who touches them intimately, and that it is just fine for them to be actively deceived about it. I am simply asking whether this is the case or not.

So in summary

"But what about me?!!11"

Some things are disgusting and unacceptable

There isn't even a yes I agree but....

It's just a but

Discrimination

growstuff

Doodledog

I don't see the equivalence, sorry. You keep bringing race into this but it is irrelevant.

Some people have religious reasons for not wanting to be touched intimately by men other than their husbands and would have to refuse treatment if this were not available. Survivors of rape or sexual abuse may be traumatised at the thought of having a man touch their genitals and it could trigger PTSD. There are real reasons for women wanting to know the sex of medical staff that go way beyond prejudice. Prejudice is the only reason for anyone not wanting to be touched by someone of a different race, and therefore should not be tolerated.

Fine! There have been umpteen threads about this on GN, but it's irrelevant to this case.

I'm not sure whether you are speaking to me or Fleurpepper here, but I agree that race is entirely irrelevant to this case, or to any discussion about trans issues.

VioletSky

Some things are disgusting and unacceptable

There isn't even a yes I agree but....

It's just a but

Discrimination

What?

And any practice, religious or otherwise that harms women is abuse.

VioletSky

So in summary

"But what about me?!!11"

No. It's all about the rights of women. Where do you stand on that? Do you think we have the right to know who is touching us or not? A simple yes or no is fine.

I am unclear about this case because as far as I am aware same sex provision cant be guaranteed in healthcare, however requesting same sex provision in many cases (say in a job advert for a role which involves personal care) is included within the equality act and is really not comparable to apartheid.
I am sometimes astounded at the phrases I have to say.

Doodledog if you don't know my answer to that by now then I don't see the point really

I've said it many times

VioletSky

And any practice, religious or otherwise that harms women is abuse.

And discriminating (by which I mean not making reasonable adjustments to allow people to follow religious obligations) is illegal, and IMO arrogant and immoral. It is not for you to over-rule people's religious beliefs unless they break the law (eg FGM).

Galaxy

I am unclear about this case because as far as I am aware same sex provision cant be guaranteed in healthcare, however requesting same sex provision in many cases (say in a job advert for a role which involves personal care) is included within the equality act and is really not comparable to apartheid.
I am sometimes astounded at the phrases I have to say.

My own view is that if there is someone of the same sex available to carry out an intimate examination a patient's wishes should be accommodated. If the only person available is a man (and assuming that the patient is unhappy about this) there should be a female chaperone, and this should apply in the case of a male-bodied person who identifies as female.

Personally, I wouldn't care who examined me, but I respect the right of others to make informed choices.

Yes I agree that patients wishes in terms of same sex care should be respected, I am just aware that certainly in terms of the NHS they cant guarantee it (I know this wasnt the NHS I am just trying to explore the issue) I suspect the issue may be they couldnt guarantee same sex care for men. I know in social care provision same sex care for girls could easily be accomodated but became more difficult for boys because of the lower numbers of Male staff.