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

I think it's abusive
I explained why on this thread

Which bit did you nit agree with * doodledog?*

Doodledog

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.

A simple 'no' or 'yes' is just too simplistic. And if people are going to make specific requests which cannot be met, or which cause true prejudice to members of staff- then no. And if people make such requests, they should be consistent. How can you say you don't want a transgender nurse, but ok with a transgender doctor. Nonsense.

And a private hospital is totally within its right to decide not to take on that patient, as he or she does not respect their staff.

Read the book. do you believe that a white supremacist should say a black midwife should go nowhere near his wife and baby?

If the answer is no, why should a patient refuse treatment from some who is transgender. And accept a doctor who is, but not a nurse. Utter nonsense.

As I have said I dont know this particular case but there are certain types of care I would be happy to receive from a man and certain types of care that I would want to be provided by a woman.

Men can be Women.

Women & Girls can be Bleeding Bodies

(not even People, but Bodies)

I am amazed at the casual anti-semitism and Islamophobia on this thread. Dismissing sincerely held legal beliefs as of no importance or even harmful is disgusting.

If the original account of the 'incident' turns out to be a complete fabrication with absolutely nothing untoward having happened, it does not excuse the arrogance of rejecting and belittling any woman's right to request same sex care, and to want informed consent, whether for religious or other reasons. Of course that will not always be possible, but where it is, it should be accommodated, and nobody should be disparaged for making the request.

Galaxy

As I have said I dont know this particular case but there are certain types of care I would be happy to receive from a man and certain types of care that I would want to be provided by a woman.

Well yes, preferences are just that.

Well except when they are protected by the equality act as I mentioned previously, so in social care you can request a male carer or a female carer in particular cases, it's you know quite different to apartheid.

Thanks Rosie sometimes I get so cross at the homophobia that tends to lurk in these discussions that I dont highlight enough the other protected characteristics.

Really?!?

I'm not islamaphobic and none of my friends or colleagues who are Muslim follow the practices I described or view them as anything other than abusive ro women. Neither did those lived with in the refuge.

Maybe you need to actually research honor based abuse for yourself.

Abuse is abuse

And the reason I know about it is due to an amazing friend and the work she does to fight for women's rights.

Because all women have rights

They can choose who they recieve medical treatment from or whether to cover their hair and no one has the right to abuse them for it

VioletSky

I think it's abusive
I explained why on this thread

Which bit did you nit agree with * doodledog?*

I don't know, as I don't know what you are calling abusive.

Fleurpepper, I have no wish to read the book. As I say, I don't see this as having anything to do with racism, but I do know how racism works and understand the rationale behind Apartheid. I don't need to read a novel to understand, and if you are suggesting that being concerned about the removal of bodily autonomy from women is akin to white supremacy you have completely lost the plot.

Preferences really don't have to be consistent. The point of them is that they are personal to the holder. Not only that, but the roles of doctors and nurses are not the same, so there could be differences there. I don't understand why a simple yes or no to a question about women having bodily autonomy based on informed consent is asking a lot.

Hospitals don't have unlimited staffing levels, so there will be times when it is not possible to accommodate all requests, and I understand that. I don't honestly know what could be done in the event that no female staff are available to treat someone who doesn't want to be treated by a man - it's not my job to know. But the idea that it is ok to pass off a male-bodied staff member as female is not acceptable to me. Informed consent is very important, even if preferences are not able to be accommodated.

And yes, Rosie. The total lack of respect for the culture and religion of others is appalling. This thread has highlighted a lot of ignorance and intolerance of diversity (whether race or sexuality).

Rosie51 Who has belittled a woman's right to request same sex care?

Nobody in this case has tried to pass off any male-bodied staff member as female.

What I am saying and will say again is that there is often broad scope of practice within religions

Some families may refuse care of a male doctor for women and some won't.

But if you prevent a female relative getting the care she wants or needs due to your fundamentalist views and that causes harm because the type of doctor you want is too far away or not available or you later shame and punish her for it then that is abuse.

When there is broad scope available such as there is in Christianity where some fundamentalists churches around the world protest homosexuality and some don't... then there is a choice.

Or if we dial it back to bare bones

It's basically a choice between love and abuse

Religion is a wonderful thing... unless someone is using it to abuse you

growstuff

Nobody in this case has tried to pass off any male-bodied staff member as female.

Oh good grief! You can’t still be misunderstanding the fact that (as has been said a hundred times) I am talking in principle not about ‘the case’.

A cynic might think you were avoiding the question.

VS, there are women who prefer to cover themselves and to avoid contact with men other than their husbands. From choice. Of their own volition. Thinking for themselves. A case where a man was standing over his wife, fighting off medical held from male staff would be entirely unacceptable. We are (very predictably I would have thought) agreed on that.

Do you think that if a woman said that she would prefer to be treated by another woman, and if the only option available happened to be a male who identified as female she would like a chaperone because of her own religious views, she should be accommodated or not?

I see you couldn’t explain how both your statements could be true regarding discrimination VS, but that’s OK. I thought you’d avoid it and you did.

The lack of grasp that apartheid, is not the same as transgender is astounding. Apartheid was and is wrong, but black people were never claiming to be something they weren’t.
If I refused to be intimate treatment by a black doctor/nurse, then I would be racist and discriminatory. If I refused intimate treatment by a black or white male doctor/nurse without a chaperone or asked for my intimate care to be carried out by a female doctor/ nurse regardless of colour or then that’s not racist or discriminatory.
If a male then presents himself to do that intimate care, I have the right to refuse or ask for a chaperone without being sexist or discriminatory.
So how can refusing treatment by
or asking for a chaperone with a male who claims he isn’t male, be discriminatory.

Yes, I think a real ignorance of religious belief and culture is being shown here. At least I hope it’s ignorance rather than wilful prejudice.

The belif that women should not be touched intimately by any man other than their husband is there to protect women from male advances in that it lays, in equal measure, the responsibility on men not to touch ant female except their wives.

Some men do abuse this. But as has been said, you cannot judge a whole demographic on the actions of some.

The covering that keeps being referred to as abuse is chosen freely by many women as part of their religious observance.

What is coming over very strongly in this thread is that women in many spheres of life, religious or otherwise, are still being told what they should and should not be allowed to do, not only by men but by other women who are all to ready to condemn any choice that does not to conform to their own beliefs of how women’s lives should be lived.

Do I need to go back to find and share the quote of myself saying that it is a woman's choice to cover her hair or request treatment from another woman...

Or do you want to keep running with things I haven't said?

Again, Google honor based abuse if you want to see how women have been punished for expressing their rights to choose for themselves

So many discrepancies.
First of all if a woman genuinely believes that she should not in any circumstances be touched or treated by any one other than a person who was born female then it is her right to request that. However if she is judging for herself who is female and who is not that will cause problems, and not just for transwomen but for any woman who chooses not to subscribe to gender norms.

We should as well consider how much of that belief has been created and instilled in her by men. Because it forms part of a religious practice which is not linked with belief but with cultural norms and accepted discrimination, which has managed to subjugate women for centuries. Separating what is a woman's belief, and what is being imposed on her by men is difficult. And subscribing completely to any such beliefs could put a woman's life at risk.
We should be very careful about demanding such things. Iran because of its religious rulings now has more women studying gynaecology, as it's a subject men are barred from. There are all female hospitals which men cannot enter. But the cost to women is obvious. It always seems a smaller step to me from demanding treatment by females only, to an insistence that only females can treat females. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC99430/

As for the woman in the hospital Doodledog says
Not only that, but the roles of doctors and nurses are not the same,
I would suggest that today the roles of doctors and senior nurses are actually too closely linked to be properly separable. For example when a sodium drip was needed for my mum a doctor had to sign for it, but a nurse administered it. So for the women in question a transgender doctor could examine her and decide a treatment, but a transgender nurse wouldn't be able to administer that treatment. It is absolutely ludicrous.

glorianny is right

In the case of Muslim women, as was explained to me, treatment is far too often delayed unnecessarily by what they have been taught or what is expected of them by family members.

This is putting women's lives at risk of harm.

That's not acceptable when it is permissiable to see a male non Muslim doctor if that is all that is available.

There is no actual reason to delay treatment and there should be no shame or embarrassment for receiving it.

Surely Glorianny the point is that a woman shouldn't have to judge for herself. If there was no possibility whatsoever, that a trans woman who is a for example a nurse or doctor examining a female patient, who has requested females only, without them knowing that that particular nurse or doctor isn't female, then it would never be an issue would it.

Doodledog ''Fleurpepper, I have no wish to read the book. As I say, I don't see this as having anything to do with racism, but I do know how racism works and understand the rationale behind Apartheid. I don't need to read a novel to understand, and if you are suggesting that being concerned about the removal of bodily autonomy from women is akin to white supremacy you have completely lost the plot.''

You've sadly got the wrong end of the stick here! I am not talking about 'body autonomy' - but about how some groups are perceived, at certain periods of history. That later seem totally incredible and unbelievable, looking back. Jews in Germany, Blacks and Coloureds in Apartheid, and sadly, many more. Not comparing this at all with racism as for today in UK.

Why is this woman, with a clear agenda, obsessed with transgender? But, having been previously violated in some way by a man, totally OK with having male medical staff look after her, and have to examine her intimately? I would get it, perhaps, if she said she only wanted to have female doctors, nurses and carers (cleaners too? people serving her food???) - but why say, males and females ok, but not transgender. Some have said there are only 2 sexes in RL, so anyone transgender would be either male or female? So, this is not about 'body autonomy' - it seems clear to me, but about an anti trans-gender agenda. and as such totally different.

And the point I am making- is that in a generation, this kind of anti transgender agenda will look totally wrong and misplaced, and just prejudice.

Shame you won't read the book. It is a great story, very well written and very moving. Worth reading even if you totally disagree with me.

Anyone here who has read it. I recommend.

www.refinery29.com/en-gb/muslim-feminism-womens-rights

Here

Also another reason why intersectional feminism allows feminists to really support each other and be a part of something bigger than their own demographic

A person's religious beliefs and culture should be respected.

It is wrong to assume that all Muslim women adhere to their religious and cultural beliefs under duress, and are being forced into making decisions that may affect their well being because they are being forced to do so.

Where that is the case it is wrong but it is also wrong to go against their wishes when they are held freely. The Muslim faith is not the only one that has rules when it comes to medical care. JW's wont accept blood transfusions.

For some Muslim women it is not permissible to see a male non Muslim doctor because of their faith. Shame or embarrassment has nothing to do with it.