By - furchfur
It is pretty common knowledge that after being raped people don't like interacting with people who look like the rapist.
Downvote away, you fucking conservative carpetbaggers.
Men get raped too, and also suffer from PTSD, so you can all go fuck yourselves with your hypocritical bullshit.
That is true, and I completely understand that a victim needs a lot of support after the attack happens, but I’ve never heard of “I don’t want black doctors because a black person raped me”. If the looks of one of the doctors are close to the person who attacked you, you have every right to ask them not to be near you, but a wide generalization may end up in what this situation ended - no service.
Not a good analogy since it wasn't race but your sex that matters in sexual abuse cases.
Race doesn’t matter in sexual abuse cases!? !!!!!!! That’s how my entire “race” was originated, Spanish “conquerors” targeting natives, not their own women. However, that’s not why I mentioned race, I mentioned it because to me generalizing everyone of the same race, gender, age, even nationality, is super extreme.
Have you ever been in that position? I'm sure you'd find that in your utterly terrified state you would feel safest with nobody that looks remotely like the person to be near you. You changing the subject to race based isn't fair and that would be a ridiculous ask, but if the person was to ask male or female wise that isn't an unfair ask. If they asked race specific I would assume racism is at play but if it was entire gender based
Sexism is just as bad as racism.
I agree, but in this situation to essentially segregated one sex out of comfort implies you are only worried about one broad category because of the incident and you want comfort, it isn't nice but it's understandable. But to only exclude one race is more targeted, when everyone knows that nobody at the hospital would harm you is a bit more bigoted, it's saying that race of that gender is the problem, which is more specific and I'd say worse
I just read your comment and using the point I was trying to make, yes, that’d be two features closer to the person who attacked you. Let’s say then, since pointing race is so controversial, I request someone not taller than 1.80 because my attacker had that height. So everyone of the gender that attacked you taller than that has to leave. That’s a very specific feature, while gender and race aren’t, that’s what I was getting at.
I haven’t been anally raped, but I have been sexually abused as a child. I specifically said that yes, if the person really looks like your rapist or abuser you’d have every right to be terrified, but that you couldn’t make the wide generalization of saying all men, even those born but presenting as female, have to be nowhere near me. That’s why I mentioned race, because you can’t say all blacks terrify you because someone of that race attacked you, because there’s diversity and it’s quite possible that the doctors won’t look like the person that attacked you. I was trying to make the point that using one feature from your attacker to avoid an entire group of population is making a dangerous generalization.
OK I see what you're saying. I can only get my point across by literally listing what I think is OK and not
So "can I only be treated by X gender while I'm here for SA" is ok
"men are all rapists so keep them away from me" isn't
"my SA'er was black (to the police)" is fine
"black people are all rapists" isn't
If someone took the "is OK" lines and was offended I'd say it's ridiculous, unless she is known to be racist but I doubt she'd hold that specific thought back. She's scared and vulnerable and needing comfort. Imagine saying one of the "is OK" lines and a male doctor came in raging and demanded to know why and demanded to treat her, would probably make her think worse of all men, whereas if she was made to feel comfortable in a vulnerable time, I would imagine she'd be ok saying bye to the male doctors on the way out, could be wrong of course. This post just screams women hating to me and we shouldn't be like that, otherwise it isn't equality we're looking for. We fight for rights and stopping double standards, to do what the post here says is very childish to start demanding only men because a woman once said only female no?
I think we actually agree more than what I thought, and yes, I do think her comfort is the top priority after the attack happened.
Oh my fucking god! I didn't know that you have never heard of that particular thing happening.
Well, since Amoki602 has never heard of things like that happening I guess we all just have to accept it as absolute truth now.
After all, we all know that *your* experiences are the epitome of human knowledge.
Pfffff hahaha do you think that a clinic or hospital will allow you to write “no black doctors” on your pre op form? I was just saying I haven’t, not that it’s the absolute truth, and you’d have to be out of your mind to come to that conclusion.
Sadly/hilariously enough, there *ARE* people out there who have died due to their refusal of accepting medical attention from black people in the medical industry.
So yeah, they're allowed to refuse. But then must let good ol' Charles Darwin take the wheel.
And that’s racism, yeah, in my defense I was talking of the whole “raped by someone of that group” thing, because I did think about segregation (where even the law will allow that), and yes, that ends up in no service and the person dying.
Oh yeah. Neither of this situation nor the segregation is acceptable imo. Especially since the patient is a TERF
I know there's likely some sort of contact with this type of trauma for you, and I'm very sorry if there is. Instead of getting emotional and trying to shame someone, if it's that important to you, why not come back with facts, figures, and sources? If you're right, which you may be, they shouldn't be hard to find.
The shaming thing is a standard tactic employed by rhe anti-men's rights crowd, and it's simply not going to work in a men's right subreddit.
I was engaging you sincerely and without derision. I can only assume you're not interested in any good-faith discussion, so what *are* you after?
Sure you are, kid.
>It is pretty common knowledge that after being raped people don't like interacting with people who look like the rapist.
My god that statement makes no fucking sense. Is it pretty common knowledge though? Even the subject of rape is barely talked about, now you say it's common to see people that have been raped excluding a whole 50% of the population because now they're afraid of it? Do you even think before you write? This is why people hate conservatives and liberals alike, no matter what side you hear they're all gonna be batshit crazy. Also, 70% of rape victims go on with their lives after it happenned and it takes time to open up or call for help. Also, if you weren't living in America and be an ignorant asswipe, you'd know that in most third world countries the victims usually live and will continue to live with the abuser, because they don't live in a sheltered society that allows them to be selective about their medicall staff or what type of humans they want to see everywhere. Your mentality is absolutely gross.
What do you want the hospital to do? She asked them to reconsider, and they offered her a private room but not the female surgical team. It’s not realistic to think that hospitals can start making these arrangements on demand, especially in the post Covid world.
I am aware of that. I am also aware that doctors will try to avoid triggering a person's PTSD.
I don’t see how the doctors could have avoided her triggers any better. She made eye contact with a trans woman for a second. They did offer the do the surgery and give her a private room after she asked them to reconsider her cancellation. I’m genuinely asking, what more should the hospital have done?
I am addressing the sweeping and absurd generalizations in this thread, not this specific incident.
Maybe you missed the one the patient made
Am I fucking talking to the patient in the article, or am I talking to you chuckle fucks?
Not cancelled her surgery because she doesn't share their values.
You're defending an out-and-out TERF, and you call others "fucking conservatives"? Really?
No. I am addressing overly broad generalizations and idiotic hypocrisy in this thread.
The specifics of this case don't matter. It's like trotting out some racist black person to discredit the entire civil rights movement.
You're "addressing" broad generalizations by making broad generalizations. You fucking hypocritical asshole. You fucking feminist other piece of shit. Come back when you stop simping, kid. You have no idea how large the world is.
Aw gonna cry :(? Of course a barking misandrist will throw in "conservative" lmao.
Honey bo, I was sexually assaulted by a man and I'm still a men's rights activist, not a coward that discriminates because "muh experience!". As the other person said, no one says they don't want a certain doctor based on race.
Love how you never answer why people can't do that based on race. Keep pretending you support men when you bark at this sub and call them conservatives lmao
You can. You just wouldn't do it by just saying "no blacks".
A reasonable person would have a conversation, like, "I was raped by a black man, and being alone in a room with a man, especially black men, triggers my PTSD." They would probably respond by suggesting therapy. Then you might explain how you are deeply disturbed by your own trigger, and how it may come off as offensive and racist if you just say "no black doctors", and how that guilt compounds your anxiety about PTSD. Then hopefully someone does the right thing, and offer you mdma supported psychotherapy to address this obvious problem, but that until then they will try their best to accommodate.
But I know nuance is really fucking hard for y'all.
And if you don't want to branded as idiot conservatives, then stop letting them astroturf your movement.
I very highly doubt you would say the same about someone saying "No male doctors/No men". As soon as it was about anything other than men, you started speaking about respect and how to deliver the message.
Fuck your strawman.
Correct me then. I didn't see you speak about respect at all whenever anyone here stood against the sexism. All you replied with was "No, it's ok because it's trauma!".
Again, fuck your strawman.
So, is this idiotic rant serious or sarcastic?
This is either an a1 class troll, or the dumbest TERF i have ever seen.
And yes, im aware that second one is saying the same thing 2x. It needed stated 2x.
You understand healthcare ain't exactly a low-traffic industry? Most hospitals don't have a surplus of staff. Really sucks for that person but we can't afford the luxury of choice sometimes.
Doesn’t really change anything.
What we should do, what we can practically do, and what we are currently doing are all three separate things. Conflating the three to dismiss one of them is a formal logical fallacy.
i think its the insult that prompt people to downvote, not the opinion you express. example :
I hate cats, you can all go fuck yourselves.
similarly to your insult, ppl dislike being insulted.
Nah, it happens either way, and if anything they are more mad at being called “conservatives”. I know it really bugs pseudo-libertarian incels.
There is no excuse for sexism
Ok at least they refused it, and if they accepted they should also accept all male for men. Either both cases or neither.
No, they shouldn't do it for men or women. What's next? Should you be able to say "no gays" if you're homophobic? "No Germans because I'm Jewish"? "No Muslims because I'm American"?
I find it horrifying that people can easily spot bigotry for just about anything except when it comes to white people or men. You either take who you get or refuse medical service. No accommodation.
Don't worry... This quote of your won't age too well.
Sorry I dint get what you mean
Soon they will fold... They are the same people who changed the word women in material for pregnancy from women to person.
I’m a man and would like an all female room operating on me
Then you're the part of the problem
And you left your sense of humour at the door.
Yeah aside from the headline "sex attack victim" is not found anywhere else in the article.
She was there for complex colorectal surgery
Either that or a stick that's lodged way up there.
Until they discovered her head was her ass
Yeah that's not what happened
Read the article
It was a scheduled unrelated surgery
It's only in the headline for clickbait, literally none of the article even mentions it
Considering her other mentally ill comments I'd wager it's more likely she's talking about something that happened in the 1970s
Her thinking pronouns are a manifestation of gender ideology shows she just lives in a privileged 21st century anglophone bubble.
Well, yes, because in parts of the world where people have actual problems, there isn't any gender ideology. There's just boys and men, girls and women.
I honestly wonder if people aren't hard-wired to simply invent problems if we can't find enough real problems.
There's power in being a victim and people like power, so yh some people like to invent problems for themselves.
price chase drab governor stocking cable weary point fuel abounding ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
>Transgender people exist all across the world.
Gender confused people pop up in places where gender ideology can reach. Head out past the range of the cell phone towers and ask some African tribesmen about it, see what they tell you.
You ever notice how *recent* these people "who are everywhere" and have "existed since forever" are? Go back a few decades (perhaps before John Money sexually abused some minors and published some research coining the word "gender"), and you'll notice it's mostly of normal heterosexual with a few percent normal homosexuals as standard for human populations, plus occasional crossdressers and people who bucked social trends for acceptable behavior, in a pattern that holds fairly firm going back thousands and thousands of years in geographically and socially isolated segments of the world.
And then, in the last few decades, a bunch of men and a few women pop up and insist they are in the wrong body (which they know somehow, despite only ever being the one body) and are really the other sex and sex-based social group.
And if you investigate this group more closely then you're permitted to casually discuss on social media, you'll notice a disturbingly and disproportionatly high percentage of this population group suffers from various significant mental illnesses, has high suicide rates, and contains statistically significant higher percentage populations of violent criminals and violent sex criminals then the general public. They even pursue cosmetic surgeries to remove healthy body tissue (and recent trends have begun encouraging children and teens to do this) and medication regiments that stunt their growth, induce sterility, and inflict osteoporosis (those "puberty blocker" medications).
Ask those African tribesmen how many men of the tribe cut off their genitals while insisting they are really tribeswomen. I'll bet you it's as common as circumcision, feet binding, forehead stamping, or any other culturally-inflicted injury that doesn't stem from local traditions and beliefs; practically non-existant.
>They literally have constitutional protections in India.
What rights do normal people have that they don't, which requires special dedicated constitutional protections? Or is it, like in many places, government-enforced "tolerance and respect" (conveniently taking the form of submission and veneration)?
Preferred pronouns most certainly are.
They start by calling her a "sex attack victim" to make the reader sympathise with her from the start, hoping the reader will also sympathise with her discrimination against transpeople.
**Anyone can call themselves a sex attack victim.**
If any female insults a male, that male could then refer to himself as a sex attack victim.
I swear to the flying spaghetti monster, anything other then veneration on the trans shrine is "hate" and "discrimination" nowadays.
People have a right to call a spade a spade. You can pretend to be whatever gender in your own mind all day, but it doesn't mean anyone else is required to play along with you.
>it doesn't mean anyone else is required to play along with you.
**cough** Canada **cough**
No they call her a sex attack victim because that attack is the precise reason she doesn't want a male anywhere close to her during an intimate procedure.
"The patient - a feminist retired lawyer"
Her dad must be awful
So she didn't want to write down her gender on the forms but also demanded that she be treated by an all female staff? Make it make sense. At what point do we start recognizing this type of ideology as deranged lunacy or an illness? It is clearly harmful, if not to herself.
If a man requested an all female staff, or an all white staff, it would instantly be recognized as hateful, prejudiced and discrimination. It is actually insane that a hospital, a public service, should have to cater to such bigotry. Does she want to be rescued by female fire fighters and paramedics only too?
> So she didn't want to write down her gender on the forms but also demanded that she be treated by an all female staff?
It makes perfect sense if you realize Female refers to Sex and not gender.
> If a man requested an all female staff, or an all white staff, it would instantly be recognized as hateful, prejudiced and discrimination.
It shouldn't be.
> It is actually insane that a hospital, a public service, should have to cater to such bigotry. Does she want to be rescued by female fire fighters and paramedics only too?
She might and she will have the right to. And if the service is capable of providing it, they should. They shouldn't push her into fire because she didn't share their value.
>It makes perfect sense if you realize Female refers to Sex and not gender.
Despite any personal delusions to the contrary, they are the same thing.
>It shouldn't be.
Yes, it should be. There's no reason for it, besides just ignorance or bigotry. It's no better than someone like Andrew Tate saying he doesn't want a woman piloting his plane. It is actually objectively worse, because at least he would try to provide some legitimate reason for it beyond "I hate the opposite sex".
>She might and she will have the right to.
Wanting something and having a right to it are two very different things. If a white-supremacist wants to go to a "white-only restaurant" he does not have a "right to" because that's a service built on prejudice and discrimination. It's wrong.
>And if the service is capable of providing it, they should.
The expectation that every public service should effectively have double the staff that they really need, if not simply to make sure that every role is served by both men and women, is both unrealistic and sexist. It's not functional.
> They shouldn't push her into fire because she didn't share their value.
No, her sexist "values" should not be the ones calling the shots or dictating who gets to do their job. Not just because it's wrong to the staff but because it's wrong on principle. You wouldn't walk into a hospital and then demand that all the black staff be expelled because you don't want to be "pushed in a fire" with them. That's insane.
> Despite any personal delusions to the contrary, they are the same thing.
Newsflash: Both me & the lady in question agree with you. Sex & Gender are the same thing. Which is why the Transgender Male doctor wasn't a female and she requested female only care. It's the hospital that doesnt agree with you.
> Yes, it should be. There's no reason for it, besides just ignorance or bigotry.
> It's no better than someone like Andrew Tate saying he doesn't want a woman piloting his plane.
Woman: I was raped by a man so I don't want men around me when I am going through a very intimate surgery.
Redittor: It's no better than someone like Andrew Tate saying he doesn't want a woman piloting his plane.
What a redittard analogy.
> Wanting something and having a right to it are two very different things. If a white-supremacist wants to go to a "white-only restaurant" he does not have a "right to" because that's a service built on prejudice and discrimination. It's wrong.
Another redittard analogy.
> The expectation that every public service should effectively have double the staff that they really need, if not simply to make sure that every role is served by both men and women, is both unrealistic and sexist. It's not functional.
Reread my comment again pls. I didn't say It should be able to. I said if it is capable of. There is a difference. Reread until you realize the difference.
> No, her sexist "values" should not be the ones calling the shots or dictating who gets to do their job.
But they aren't necessarily her sexist values. I am guessing you are the kind who will say it's sexist if a rape victim doesn't want men in rape shelters.
> You wouldn't walk into a hospital and then demand that all the black staff be expelled because you don't want to be "pushed in a fire" with them.
And one more redditard analogy. You really suck at analogies don't you.
Let me show you how to make analogies.
Scenario: A woman experienced abuse, due to her sex, at the hands of someone of another sex and therefore wouldn't trust someone of that sex related to any issues related to sex.
An analogous scenario: An Indian experienced abuse, due to their race, at the hands of someone of another race and therefore wouldn't trust someone of that race related to any issues related to race.
I am temporarily suspended, so this will be my last reply:
> This would be like saying "I got mugged by a black man once, so I don't want to deal with black doctors". It is still racism.
Your analogies are truly devoid of any logic & reasoning. Was the race of the victim a a factor in the mugging? If yes, then it is not racism. If No, then it would be racism.
> It is making an enemy of an unrelated trait, being black, rather than making an enemy of the actual defining factor, being mugged.
Agreed. This means you are so smooth brained dumbass that think's sex of the victim is irrelevant in a rape?
> If a female rapist is allowed into a rape shelter, because she's a woman, then how is that serving the greater good?
Newsflash: Rape shelters are for victims & not perpetrators of rape.
> If a man who was a rape victim is refused from a shelter because he is a man, how is that serving the greater good?
I should have been clear earlier. I am talking specifically about female only rape shelters. Men should have separate rape shelters for males. Men should go there and women shouldn't be allowed.
> All you are doing by barring men from rape shelters is reinforcing this idea that men are the enemy and denying a service to men because they are men(and, in so doing, denying the legitimacy of their abuse/rape). It's wrong.
Wrong. I wasn't clear but I am referring to female only rape shelters. Not unisex rape shelters (which is a moronic idea btw).
> Most abuse that men face, would be spared on women, which makes it gendered.
Bullshit. That's double standard. Doesn't mean it's gendered. You are being robbed. A woman have a lesser chance of being robbed. Doesn't mean robbery is gendered. It's only gendered if your gender is a defining factor in the crime.
> That does not give men the right to hate all men or hate all women when it happens to them.
But if they want, they can stay the hell away from woman and that should be acceptable. That is not misandry. By your logic men who are burnt by women and go MGTOW are misogynist. That's pathetic logic btw.
> If an Indian person is called an ethnic slur by a black man, that does not give that Indian the right to start calling all black people by ethnic slurs that target black people.
What I said: If an Indian person was abused by a black man and he becomes extra cautious around black men, it's fine.
What you heard: You just want an Indian man to call slurs against black people if some black guy once said slur against him.
Either you are intentionally being stupid or a disingenuous fuck. I understand that you are unable to come up with a decent analogy. So just take the L and stfu instead of making up hypothetical scenarios not even close to what happened here.
Won't respond further because redditard admins suspended me for questioning their gender woo woo. Bye. Keep making delusional analogies.
Maybe because a MAN sexually assaulted her. I’m sure I wouldn’t be comfortable around a man ever again if this happened to me. I’m not comfortable around men to begin with. Also y’all are complaining about this and it’s ridiculous! And if you want all male workers operating on you then go ahead! Doesn’t matter! The majority of sexual assault victims who are male WERE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY A MAN. Also you clearly haven’t read the rest of the story here, come back when you have.
>Maybe because a MAN sexually assaulted her.
Ahhh this argument again! I wonder, do you apply this logic consistently? If a black person assaults me am is it okay for me to request a no-black treatment staff?
This is something hilarious about you feminists. Your justifications are literally the same reasoning that racists and Nazis use.
>comfortable around men to begin with
Ahh so you're just another female Nazi then. Good to see. it's funny because I bet if someone says they weren't comfortable around black people or women or any other group you'd be screeching. But men? Absolutely fine
Every feminist argument is either a fallacy or the logic behind it is applied very selectively. Ergo feminists like you should NEVER be listened to. If you can't apply your own logic consistently why should I respect it?
Well now....guess those that push for all this inclusion will probably do well to build chicken coops. After all, they need a safe space for coming home to roost
So basically a Terf got triggered when a trans woman greeted her before her operation, went full Karen demanding special treatment, and the hospital, unable to fulfill her demands, cancelled her surgery.
And then the Daily Mail report on it. Queen of TERFs JK Rowling will probably post about it on her Twitter too.
Ive noticed a large amount here lately. Cant help but wonder if theyre brigading.
Why did this get down votes?
People on reddit are dumb. I only dislike unnecessarily rude or very dumb/misinformed comments. I wouldn't like or dislike this comment because I'm not sure they're even trying to say lol. I know who the daily wire are n stuff, I just don't get what he's saying.
Basically author JK Rowling doesn't like transpeople very much.
I agree and would go further to say that she has some internal bias against men which is where her dislike of the trans movement is originating from
Exactly. Any MRA is kinda shooting themselves in the foot when they act like a transphobe.
No they sent in one intentionally to make her upset. No female has to be comfortable around males. And honestly this comment are very weird. She has been through a lot and of course they send in a dude with hair and makeup.😐 The reason you only agree with the trans male is because you have male privilege so you can’t see it from others point of view.
>sex attack victim
Aside from the headline the article says nothing about it.
She was there for "complex colorectal surgery"
Sounds like run of the mill mental illness and victimhood complex otherwise.
My take on this:
She should be perfectly entitled to have female staff care to her, subject to availability. Obviously if the only possible staff members are male, then that’s all she can have.
She certainly shouldn’t be expected to consider ‘transgender people’ as female in this regard.
To summarise: if the hospital has capacity to allow only female staff to assist her, then great. If not, then she has to make her own decision about whether to accept treatment or not.
Similarly, men should be able to request male staff, subject to availability.
Of course, in reality there will not be such availability, so this is a rather silly discussion.
Regardless, transgender people should not be counted as the opposite sex for this purpose.
> if the hospital has capacity to allow only female staff to assist her
good luck with that. Most wards run a mix of staff and trying to ensure a female-only environment is not going to happen. Yeah, I know it's a little different to what was asked for, but this is basically what she means. They could always farm her off to a gynae ward post-surgery, but then there's issues with having experienced staff to deal with her post-op care.
The whole "retired feminist lawyer" makes this sound like a publicity stunt tbh. The offense of "opening a door and making eye contact" is bizarre, are staff expected to bow down head to the floor? Telling her to take a hike seems like the way to go.
I kept reading trying to find the inappropriate way she was approached and she was just looked in the eye.
What I think is brilliant about this comment is that's how I works, here in the uk anyway.
I know my wife has every right to want a woman doing any intimate medical procedures and I was asked if I wanted a man when I needed an examination of a testicle.
Idk about her answers tbh, that's between her an the medical staff, honestly though I didn't care, I had a lump on my spud and wanted it checked by the next available doctor.
I once had a female GP check my penis and testicles when I had erectile dysfunction. They're just people doing jobs I don't care.
Easy to do for small procedures, but it’s more complicated for something like a complex colorectal surgery
What if I want an all white staff?
>My take on this:
>She should be perfectly entitled to have female staff care to her, subject to availability. Obviously if the only possible staff members are male, then that’s all she can have.
She's entitled to request it, I don't see how they're in any way obligated to provide it.
>She certainly shouldn’t be expected to consider ‘transgender people’ as female in this regard.
What does gender matter if she doesn't subscribe to any kind of gender identity herself and refuses to acknowledge pronouns?
>To summarise: if the hospital has capacity to allow only female staff to assist her, then great. If not, then she has to make her own decision about whether to accept treatment or not.
You're forgetting that barring some kind of law forcing them to do so they're not obligated.
>Similarly, men should be able to request male staff, subject to availability.
>Of course, in reality there will not be such availability, so this is a rather silly discussion.
>Regardless, transgender people should not be counted as the opposite sex for this purpose.
How can transgender people be real if she doesn't believe in gender?
Whoa, whoa. Stahp it. That’s a based-ass take and has way too much common sense and reality as well as attempting to accommodate people at the same time. Take the post down now!
Quick, cancel me before I say anything else!
Something something misogynist something incel! REEEEEEEEE!!!
Do we all feel safer now?
If she only wants female (excluding transwomen) staff and if she wants only white staff or whatever that's fine. She can wait 10 years on the NHS waiting list until the hospital are able to meet her Karen criteria.
Yeah, you can "request" whatever you like. For instance, white heterosexual male christian nurses.
Very reasonable! Nice!
There is a good chance that they just didn’t have the staff to accommodate that
I am with her on this. She is a sex attack victim, so I understand why she would be fearful of mixed sex facilities involving intimate moments like bathrooms or intimate procedures.
They should have respected that but instead they, mostly intentionally, sent a transgender male to attend to her. So she files a complaint and as a consequence, her surgery is cancelled and she now faces harmful consequences.
And most importantly, when did this sub start supporting refusal to serve patients because they don't share their values. Many of them are feminists as well and probably hate MRAs. Don't think you all would support a hospital if it refused a surgery to you because you were an MRA.
My god, she saw a transgender person for a second. Some of you people are unhinged
She was sexually abused so she doesn't trust any males.
And she didn't just saw him. He was assigned to her inspire of her request and he entered the room she was in during an INTIMATE swabbing. That is very much different that seeing a trans person for a second. There is a reason that incident is being investigated.
But I guess you need to strawman it hard.
That’s not what the article says about the trans person. If you have another source, share it. Keep in mind, this is daily mail, so they’ve already exaggerated it as much as they can.
Honestly her sexual assault doesn’t matter. She’s not there for treatment related to it. Just because something bad happened to you doesn’t mean that the whole world needs to go to extreme lengths to accommodate you. During Trump, hospitals in the US could refuse to treat trans people, so it’s not that unreasonable to me that a hospital could refuse to treat this woman for her beliefs.
[Here's the email that the CEO sent her. Go through the entire thread.](https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1582761069788876800/photo/1)
Buddy, it's a colorectal surgery. That is an intimate surgery and it was during an assessment where she was to undergo intimate swabbing did that trans person enter the ward.
> extreme lengths to accommodate you
LMAO. She asked that most staff attending her after the surgery should be female and male staff should be allowed only if they are qualified doctors or someone she previously approved. [Source](https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1582761069788876800/photo/1)
That's extreme length? Laughably stupid if you think so.
> During Trump, hospitals in the US could refuse to treat trans people, so it’s not that unreasonable to me that a hospital could refuse to treat this woman for her beliefs.
Wrong. They were refused because it was a cosmetic surgery and not life saving surgery which took priority during Covid Pandemic. The surgery here isn't a cosmetic surgery. It's a life saving surgery.
Guess you will also not find it unreasonable if a feminist doctor refused to provide services to MRAs.
Wow, the actual letter from the hospital makes this woman look so much worse. First, while the trans woman shouldn't have opened the door, there's nothing here showing that it was even intentional. The woman's own description is that she opened the door and they made eye contact. If she was trying to traumatize the woman, wouldn't she have actually came in and stayed? Next, the hospital made it clear that they were only temporarily cancelling the surgery. They couldn't have it that day because the hadn't reached an agreement about about this. With cancelling it, he offered to meet with her to find mutually agreeable arraignments. And yes, asking a hospital to provide an all female support staff in a mixed sex ICU is an extreme length. And finally, no, during the Trump era, it wasn't just medical care related to transitioning. You are as unhinged as this woman is.
> Wow, the actual letter from the hospital makes this woman look so much worse.
Only if you are insane.
> First, while the trans woman shouldn't have opened the door, there's nothing here showing that it was even intentional. The woman's own description is that she opened the door and they made eye contact. If she was trying to traumatize the woman, wouldn't she have actually came in and stayed?
"She just groped his crotch. If it was intentional, wouldn't she have raped him?"
That's how you sound. She was very specific about not accepting the gender woo woo bs. That's why she felt she was being targetted by a trans person who intentionally entered a ward with a female patient in a state of undress. Guess what? Even the hospital agrees that is unacceptable and is therefore investigating.
Maybe you don't have a problem with males entering wards with female patients in an undressing state during an intimate assessment, most sane people do.
> Next, the hospital made it clear that they were only temporarily cancelling the surgery.
No, they didn't. They cancelled her and told her to make alternate arrangements. Only after she sent an email back did the CEO say they can come to an agreement.
[Here's the email they sent about cancellation.](https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1582761057189212160/photo/1)
> And yes, asking a hospital to provide an all female support staff in a mixed sex ICU is an extreme length.
> And finally, no, during the Trump era, it wasn't just medical care related to transitioning.
If that was the case, it was wrong.
> You are as unhinged as this woman is.
Better than the guy who blatantly lies. Makes me wonder if you bothered to read the thread I shared and knew that they cancelled her surgery and still lied that it was temporary. Or were you unable to comprehend the contents of the thread? Or did you not bother to read the thread and just assumed whatever suits your narrative?
They sent one in which is disturbing!!! Your the unhinged one, doesn’t matter if it was for a second it shouldn’t be in there at all!!! Disgusting! Your comments are proving male privilege.
Western hospitals would collapse if men did this. There is not enough male staff in most hospitals.
I work in a hospital. Public, tax payer funded. If you’re refusing care because of the gender, race, religion, or whatever it is you don’t like about staff members, you gotta leave and let someone else who pays taxes and WILL accept treatment take that bed.
The problem here is this woman has been taught that it’s okay to hold negative views of all men because of her experience. She should be taught the same thing we are about race, i.e. just because, for example, you experienced violence at the hands of an African American, doesn’t mean it’s okay to assume all will commit violent crimes.
What’s ironic is greys anatomy did that where they had all the male doctors stand out while the female doctors worked on her. She also tried to justify not reporting which I find crazy that they tried to justify not reporting it so the guy can get caught. And now knowing the stats, asking the male doctors which are majority men doesn’t make any sense. Female doctors are normally gynecologist, pediatrician and dermatologist. Good luck having them work on trauma, orthopedic, neuro or cardio
Check the 9000 likes on the only two comments, seems like this must have made it on TwoX or some other feminist sub and is now being spammed with likes on the only two comments supporting the woman’s request
I noticed that too. Weird. It only had 300 shares and 2 comments.
How the hell do those comments have 9000 likes?
What does the number of likes two comments got have to do with anything?
I’ve never seen 9000 likes on any comment on that site, or anywhere close to that number
Shit I ask for female staff when I went to the hospital but thats just cuz I don't want a dude sticking a camera up my ass 🤨
So… Your into Women sticking cameras up your bum? Forget I asked…
I have a female dentist. Until now l wasn't aware at how orally violated I've been as a man!
Can I have the name/phone of your dentist???
See, at least you have class. Most people ask for her Only Fans 👍
Anything oral, especially oral health is very important.
But with the additional option of being "Orally Violated" by A600's dentist, I feel that would encourage me to visit a dentist much more often than I currently do.
Also, I would gladly pay out of pocket for that additional service.
I'm getting Bill Murray in Little Shop of Horrors vibes. 😁
Definitely. I wouldn't want a misandrist chick in charge of my IV.
Well the retired “feminist lawyer” would seem to have been hoist by her own petard. The “language” used by the hospital CEO is pretty much the same that feminists have used to push their own agenda, and now the ideology is rebounding on one of its promoters! Oh dear!
Totally could and should, I don’t see an issue with asking for dudes
Sex attack victim my ass... the key words are 'feminist lawyer' and that explains it all.
Generally for more serious problems such as people suffering from complications related to sexual assault hospitals will be considerate and selectively assign staff to be sure that the patient feels safe during their recovery, it seems like a rather reactionary feminist (according to the article, though I suspect it might be taking some creative liberties with it's tone in order to stir up some conservative backlash. I'll get back to this) was being treated at a hospital for just that when she realized, or came to believe, that one of her care providers was a trans woman (the article says "trans man", but the description given seems to suggest that the person was MTF and the reaction of the patient makes more sense in that case as well) and got very upset about it as she felt it was a threat to her safety, and in response the hospital tried and failed to reassure her that it wasn't and eventually decided that she was being far to disruptive and problematic so they transferred her to another hospital.
On the one hand, while starting problems by refusing to refer to and recognize a trans person as the proper gender is a bad thing, given the circumstances it is understandable to see why the women could be upset. At the same time however, if she was being massively disruptive and problematic that could pose a serious problem to the hospital and staff. Ultimately, it's not easy to say who if anyone was more right in this situation because clearly the media portraying the situation is laced with heavily biased journalism, intended I suspect to serve to create a sense or reactionary outrage twords LGBTQ and feminist issues (despite neither of those things being primary drives of the story), as such the portail of the characters in this story are called into question, and the amount of compromise or lack there of is never clearly stated for either side.
This is all to say that the only thing we can take away from this article, is that the person who wrote it did a shit job of writing it, and probably isn't a very cool person.
Aside from the headline the alleged sexual assault isn't found anywhere in the article.
She was there for colorectal surgery.
We can only assume it's to remove the stick from her ass but I assume there's also a touch of mental illness on her part
Which is an intimate surgery and therefore reasonable that she doesn't want a male around her at the time.
It requires robot assisted surgery in this case and they can't necessarily cherry pick who is able to perform that
If that was the case, they would have mentioned that the only person available was a male. They didn't. They said she doesn't share their values and cancelled her surgery.
The hospital didn't want to meet her demands. They didn't offer more details.
Her batshit crazy comments and conduct surely played into it more than her request for female staff.
Is that the reason they are investigating their own staff now for possible misconduct? LOL. In the emails that they sent, they offered more than enough details.
And if the demands are reasonable, it is a question of possibility and not a want. Given her past, it is absolutely reasonable to ask only female staff be present in auxiliary staff and any males should be either qualified doctors or someone she previously agreed to.
Would like to know what you feel if a hospital said they won't treat some MRA because he said some batshit crazy stuff.
Why are you assuming cis women don't SA other cis women?
Never did. But strawman more pls.
How is that even a strawman lmfao? Im literally just wondering why you glossed over the fact that a cis woman is just as likely to hypothetically SA as a trans woman is?
Because that is irrelevant to the fact that this woman was sexually assaulted by a male which is the cause of her discomfort towards males presence during intimate scenarios.
That’s a brilliant and extremely level-headed way of putting it.
You're not actually suggesting that this subreddit has become overrun with conservative propaganda instead of focusing on male issues?
Pfffft, no way man, this is clearly a very relaxed place with wholly reasoned and straightforward veiws without any reactionary dogwhistles whatsoever.
I don't see the request for an all female team being relevant here. There's cases where the sex of the doctor would be like if she was in the hospital for a sexual assault, which while mentioned doesn't have much to do with
I was once in a position where it was relevant so my initial thought going in was "wait this one might have a point for once". But it after reading it I see it doesn't have that much to do with her operation so I'm very overburdened by indifference. If she was meeting with a crisis or trauma team or something and then she requested a female doctor to do the interview and potential self-harm examination then I'd see a point.
Do you think PTSD just disappears after meeting with a "trauma team"?
Why would it? That's not something that goes away overnight.
Then you must be aware that your last sentence contradicts this basic fact.
It does not. You should explain that point.
You literally said you would only understand during their initial hospitalization after being raped.
So fuck off with your disingenuous bullshit.
*I see you are going with the “blocking them means I win” argument.
I was engaging in this conversation in good faith but you clearly don't want to.
Big difference between a rape kit and complex robotic assisted surgery for an unrelated issue
That's part of my point.
>But when she arrived on October 6 for her clinical pre-op assessment, which involved intimate procedures, what appeared to be a transgender man in a blonde wig and make-up opened the door and made eye contact with her.
She's just standing there menacingly
>Emma told MailOnline: 'I began to wonder if it was just a coincidence that this member of staff with a "gender identity" had made their presence felt to me in such an inappropriate way during my first visit.
Paranoia -- this information is down on my records so therefore the way that alleged trans person looked at me must be part of a conspiracy against me
>Rights campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen, who founded Standing For Women, called the hospital's stance 'misogyny in heels'.
Schadenfreude. That's all I can really state. They're misandrists both of them. The problem they've got is, that person used to be a man and she might as well be a rapist because potential penis
For anyone reading this look up the Kellie-Jay Keen Talkradio interview. It's pretty short
Some background on this- the UK has a major problem with transphobia atm, and transphobic media (this includes the Daily Mail) run articles almost daily trying to stir up fear and hatred against transpeople.
The most common narrative is "men change sex just to gain access to women to exploit/assault them".
UK did the right thing. I would have went further and kicked her out.
I think sex attack victims should be looked after by women, Real ones, Not men with mental health issues, In wigs.
But her being a feminist lawyer feels a little like the snake eating it's own tail.
Sex attack victim is only present in the headline. She was there for an unrelated reason.
She was there for "colorectal surgery".
I don't think that was an unrelated surgery, She has every right to want men to keep away from her
>She was there for "colorectal surgery".
>I don't think that was an unrelated surgery, She has every right to want men to keep away from her
The text of the headline appears nowhere else in the article
Suffice it to say she has a right to want an all female staff but the hospital doesn't have to grant it.
Considering her other statements the women clearly isn't playing with a full deck.
A sexual assault victim being in hospital for colorectal surgery implies that the hospital visit for the surgery is in someway connected to the sexual assault, There would be no reason to mention the two together otherwise.
\>>Considering her other statements the women clearly isn't playing with a full deck.
Neither is the hospital the transgender community or the medical establishment, Like I said "snake eating it's own tail"
We shouldn't request all male staff because that would be stooping to their level. Best be civil and let the crazy ones get all the headlines about how crazy they are.
If you don't want the product the hospital sells, don't go there.
Boycott hospitals to teach them a lesson!
Lmao, fat chance.
I don’t see anything wrong with this. There have been times where my patient has asked for a male nurse to insert his urinary catheter and I have no issue with it. The patient’s comfort is important and I would never force them to receive my care. Although it’d be a different story if my race was the issue…
Poor thing. … She’s scarred. …. Anxiety after a brutal attack is no joke.
Tell me you only read the headline without reading the article without saying it
Yup. I’m a cute man too. Do I get a hall pass?!! 😲
If you too have had a traumatic experience with the opposite sex, you can also ask for a male shaperone as well as male attending nurse. This is your right for piece of mind and comfort, also if religion plays a part.
Yeah you don't get to request however that no females go near you, at all...
You have a mouth, you can always advocate for yourself.
She is an attack victim, she has every right to demand her choice of doctor. Let's not make this about MRA.
Although calling it "Misogyny in heels" is absolutely over the top.
1. Why do "attack victims" have more a right than anyone else? Surely anyone can choose their doctor? Yes, if it was private and not a public healthcare system.
2. She requested zero males be involved. This isn't the same as choosing a single doctor.
3. If I had been violently attacked by men of a different skin colour or ethnicity should I be able to request that no people of that background come near me? Or would I be a racist for asking for such a thing?
It's about men's rights because you should hear what she is saying about men. Even if out of fear, we wouldn't tolerate it for any other situation unless maybe it was a child. We wouldn't tolerate her being afraid of gay people or Muslims or black men. So why men in general?
To give any credence to her position is to accept or admit that men are dangerous in some way and that this person is justified in being a bigot based on their experience which face it, is why anyone is bigoted about anything. If her experience if valid, so is a member of the KKK.
>'It was a slow, dawning realisation. I felt sick. Alarm bells were ringing in my head. I cannot describe the fear that I felt. I cannot rationalise it.'
Imagine if she was saying this about black people? Or someone of a different religion?
So what I'm getting from this is that men will have better healthcare for once?
That is correct.
Heh... fuck the fucking fuck out of that fucking bitch and her stupid fucking request and anyone who thinks her request was reasonable.
I mean...all that looked like English, so good job with that at least.
Let's be real, men would request a full staff of women to look after them, I know I would lol
Ummm, that is interesting, and as a man of many interest, I would not only request an "all male staff" to look after my care, but demanded it.