Male patients asked if they are pregnant at NHS Trust

[Bronzeage]

Just to add one more bit if anecdotal testimony to this thread, I have a friend who is not taller than average, has broad shoulders and a beard, and could be pregnant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you know why males are being asked whether they might be pregnant? It's because some group of people think it's "icky" to acknowledge that SEX is relevant in a medical setting, and they think their gender identity is sacrosanct. So much so, that having to admit to a doctor that they are a female rather than a "man" is hurtful to them, and it damages their mental health.

So to recap... You're defending the people who want to pretend that their gender identity is more real and more impactful in a medical setting than their sex... while denigrating the people who understand that sex is vitally important in medicine.

The world has become very strange.

You're missing the fact that it reduces the error rate. Your side keeps dismissing the implications of my wife being asked for a pregnancy test at 70.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Not every tech has, or ought have, access to a patient's medical file.

I know a couple of men who need to be asked.

It's not even a matter of polity that they may need to be asked, but rather the fact that it just is not apparent from looking at them in a hospital gown.

Are these men enormously fat? It is true that "fat" and "fetus" both start with an "f", but there's not much more in common.

 

[Emily Lake]

And it has become manifestly clear that the objections are based on sexism and perceptions of masculinity and femininity, and have nothing to do with good medical practices. Argument from "OMG I can't believe the med tech asked me that!" isn't much of an argument.

You believe that my objections are based on sexism and a perception of masculinity and femininity? If so, then it is abundantly clear that you aren't actually reading my posts objectively, and are subsuming my views beneath your belief in a malicious motive.

 

[Emily Lake]

What has been suggested is that nurses/doctors/etc. should verify a persons SEX. And then they should ask questions that are relevant to that SEX. Because it is asinine for a doctor to ask a female patient about her prostate, and it's asinine for a doctor to ask a male patient if he might be pregnant.

So you are advocating, to avoid “asinine” questions, that hospitals keep two sets of documents, and ask extra questions just to determine which of the two documents should be used.

Seems fraught with error.

I swear sometimes people make up idiotic hypotheticals in their brains just so they can pretend to not see the obvious.

This is ridiculous. Absolutely absurd. I really don't think there should be any need to explain some really basic shit to you... but since you've engaged in the fallacious argument from "so"... I suppose I had better correct your errant imagination.

There is no need of two sets of documents. There is, however, a very good reason to add some "If F then ask... " and some "If Y then ask... " pathways to the documents.

Because, despite all of the tortured arguments for why it is so perfectly reasonable, it LITERALLY makes no sense at all to ask a male person when their last period began. Their last period began never and it's an idiotic thing to ask a male. It makes doctors seem like they don't know the fucking difference between males and females, and it will introduce confusion to ignorant patients, and it will make it even more difficult for anyone who has english as a second language.

The argument you and your allies are making here is that asking everyone everything will prevent errors. No, it won't. It *might* prevent errors for a very small number of transgender people who are so delicate they can't understand the need to provide actually pertinent information to their doctors. But it will INCREASE the likelihood of error and confusion for anyone who isn't well-versed in anatomy, for anyone speaking english as a secondary language, and will take a lot more time.

This is a lot of bending over backward to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist... while sending the message that gender identity has relevance in a general medical setting (it does not)... and also messaging that sex doesn't matter... and also sending the message that males can get pregnant and females can have prostate cancer (which is false)... and also makes doctors and nurses seem like they don't know what the fuck they're doing.

 

[Emily Lake]

Here's what I see as "cut to the chase".

Technicians about to perform a process ask every patient a list of salient questions. The same list for all of them. Regardless of what the paper says or however the patient presents as a sex.

Technicians ask everyone the same list of questions salient to the process right before the procedure is done. Everyone. Right before.

Just cut to the chase. "Could you possibly be pregnant?" Yes or No.
That's cutting to the chase.
Tom

So when I, as an aging woman, go in for my colonoscopy... despite me having told them I'm a female... you think it "makes sense" for them to ask whether I might have an enlarged prostate?

Yep. It makes sense. Because they know far better than you apparently that someone who looks like you can still have been born with a fucking prostate, and that such can still be enlarged, and the person you told you were "a female" could have heard wrong, written it down wrong, or could have handed the wrong chart off, and it doesn't tell them any private information about you to be asked and answer "no".

FEMALES DO NOT HAVE PROSTATES

Seriously, why are you so dedicated to teaching falsehoods?

 

[Emily Lake]

Just to add one more bit if anecdotal testimony to this thread, I have a friend who is not taller than average, has broad shoulders and a beard, and could be pregnant.

Then your friend is FEMALE, and if a doctor were to ask them their SEX, they should answer that they are FEMALE. Probably also worth telling them that they are taking testosterone at high doses too, although one would really hope they include that on their list of medications.

 

[Emily Lake]

You're missing the fact that it reduces the error rate. Your side keeps dismissing the implications of my wife being asked for a pregnancy test at 70.

I disagree. It might reduce the error rate for a very small number of transgender people who don't have the sense to tell the doctor their actual sex... but it is likely to increase the error rate for people who have english as a secondary language, as well as causing confusion to the patient, and also making the doctor and nurse look like idiots who don't know how their patient's bodies actually work.

 

[Emily Lake]

Not every tech has, or ought have, access to a patient's medical file.

I know a couple of men who need to be asked.

It's not even a matter of polity that they may need to be asked, but rather the fact that it just is not apparent from looking at them in a hospital gown.

Are these men enormously fat? It is true that "fat" and "fetus" both start with an "f", but there's not much more in common.

I would suspect that those men are FEMALES who have had mastectomies and are taking large amounts of exogenous testosterone in order to better mimic the appearance of a male.

But they are actually FEMALE, and if the doctor asks them their SEX - which I very strongly believe doctors should do - those friends ought to have the sense to answer truthfully that they are FEMALE.

 

[Jarhyn]

Here's what I see as "cut to the chase".

Technicians about to perform a process ask every patient a list of salient questions. The same list for all of them. Regardless of what the paper says or however the patient presents as a sex.

Technicians ask everyone the same list of questions salient to the process right before the procedure is done. Everyone. Right before.

Just cut to the chase. "Could you possibly be pregnant?" Yes or No.
That's cutting to the chase.
Tom

So when I, as an aging woman, go in for my colonoscopy... despite me having told them I'm a female... you think it "makes sense" for them to ask whether I might have an enlarged prostate?

Yep. It makes sense. Because they know far better than you apparently that someone who looks like you can still have been born with a fucking prostate, and that such can still be enlarged, and the person you told you were "a female" could have heard wrong, written it down wrong, or could have handed the wrong chart off, and it doesn't tell them any private information about you to be asked and answer "no".

FEMALES DO NOT HAVE PROSTATES

Seriously, why are you so dedicated to teaching falsehoods?

And yet many people use "female" differently than you, the person might have heard the word you uttered incorrectly, or any number of reasons why they might need to ask "do you have an enlarged prostate" and to which the answer CAN be a polite "no" rather than a snide "I'M A FEMALE!!!11111oneone".

I know Emily Lake wants to take every opportunity to shove their assessments of sex in everyone else's face, even when it is absolutely unnecessary, but that doesn't make it any less necessary to ask all the people all the questions relevant to the situation at hand, not does it make it any more necessary to ask or tell anything else.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What has been suggested is that nurses/doctors/etc. should verify a persons SEX. And then they should ask questions that are relevant to that SEX. Because it is asinine for a doctor to ask a female patient about her prostate, and it's asinine for a doctor to ask a male patient if he might be pregnant.

So you are advocating, to avoid “asinine” questions, that hospitals keep two sets of documents, and ask extra questions just to determine which of the two documents should be used.

Seems fraught with error.

I swear sometimes people make up idiotic hypotheticals in their brains just so they can pretend to not see the obvious.

This is ridiculous. Absolutely absurd. I really don't think there should be any need to explain some really basic shit to you... but since you've engaged in the fallacious argument from "so"... I suppose I had better correct your errant imagination.

There is no need of two sets of documents. There is, however, a very good reason to add some "If F then ask... " and some "If Y then ask... " pathways to the documents.

Pathways are sources of errors. That is why we are objecting.

This is a lot of bending over backward to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist... while sending the message that gender identity has relevance in a general medical setting (it does not)... and also messaging that sex doesn't matter... and also sending the message that males can get pregnant and females can have prostate cancer (which is false)... and also makes doctors and nurses seem like they don't know what the fuck they're doing.

You are seeing it as about a message. We are seeing it as about practicality--mistakes happen. Asking everyone a few redundant questions isn't a big deal, missing a case where it matters is a big deal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're missing the fact that it reduces the error rate. Your side keeps dismissing the implications of my wife being asked for a pregnancy test at 70.

I disagree. It might reduce the error rate for a very small number of transgender people who don't have the sense to tell the doctor their actual sex... but it is likely to increase the error rate for people who have english as a secondary language, as well as causing confusion to the patient, and also making the doctor and nurse look like idiots who don't know how their patient's bodies actually work.

SIL who is often thought to be male. Combine that with someone going on appearances.

(Note, she is not trans, it's just the way she is.)

 

[Metaphor]

Just to add one more bit if anecdotal testimony to this thread, I have a friend who is not taller than average, has broad shoulders and a beard, and could be pregnant.

You have a female friend who could be pregnant?

Have you notified the press?

 

[Arctish]

Just to add one more bit if anecdotal testimony to this thread, I have a friend who is not taller than average, has broad shoulders and a beard, and could be pregnant.

You have a female friend who could be pregnant?

Have you notified the press?

Bronzeage has a friend who might not be asked if they might be pregnant in the system you and Emily so vociferously defend, but would be asked in the system I and others prefer.

 

[Metaphor]

Just to add one more bit if anecdotal testimony to this thread, I have a friend who is not taller than average, has broad shoulders and a beard, and could be pregnant.

You have a female friend who could be pregnant?

Have you notified the press?

Bronzeage has a friend who might not be asked if they might be pregnant in the system you and Emily so vociferously defend, but would be asked in the system I and others prefer.

Why wouldn't she be asked?

 

[Arctish]

Because mistakes happen, and they happen more frequently when there's two or more separate paths the questioning can follow instead of just one.

TomC summed it up clearly:

Here's what I see as "cut to the chase".

Technicians about to perform a process ask every patient a list of salient questions. The same list for all of them. Regardless of what the paper says or however the patient presents as a sex.

Technicians ask everyone the same list of questions salient to the process right before the procedure is done. Everyone. Right before.

Just cut to the chase. "Could you possibly be pregnant?" Yes or No.
That's cutting to the chase.

Keep It Simple, Stupid

 

[Emily Lake]

Just to add one more bit if anecdotal testimony to this thread, I have a friend who is not taller than average, has broad shoulders and a beard, and could be pregnant.

You have a female friend who could be pregnant?

Have you notified the press?

Bronzeage has a friend who might not be asked if they might be pregnant in the system you and Emily so vociferously defend, but would be asked in the system I and others prefer.

Only if Bronzeage's friend tells the doctor they are male when they are, in actual fact, female.

 

[Arctish]

Just to add one more bit if anecdotal testimony to this thread, I have a friend who is not taller than average, has broad shoulders and a beard, and could be pregnant.

You have a female friend who could be pregnant?

Have you notified the press?

Bronzeage has a friend who might not be asked if they might be pregnant in the system you and Emily so vociferously defend, but would be asked in the system I and others prefer.

Only if Bronzeage's friend tells the doctor they are male when they are, in actual fact, female.

It doesn't matter what Bronzeage's friend says, or in fact believes, about their sex. There is no good reason for the Radiology Department to sort the males from the females and have different pre-treatment questionnaires based on their sex. That's just a needless complication. If everyone is asked the same important questions every time, there's less room for error.

"Do you think you might be pregnant?" Y/N

Easy peasy.

 

[TSwizzle]

And this is what it leads to;

Over nearly 50 years, Leslie Sinclair has given a formidable 125 pints of blood. But on his last trip he was turned away after refusing to answer a question on whether or not he was pregnant. Mr Sinclair, 66, was told to fill in a form which asked whether he was expecting a child or had been pregnant in the past six months. When he complained that as a man in his 60s this question did not apply and he should not have to answer it, Mr Sinclair said staff at the clinic told him they could not accept his blood.

Daily Mail

Meant to post here but did it in the wrong thread in Elsewhere, oops.

 

[Metaphor]

And this is what it leads to;

Over nearly 50 years, Leslie Sinclair has given a formidable 125 pints of blood. But on his last trip he was turned away after refusing to answer a question on whether or not he was pregnant. Mr Sinclair, 66, was told to fill in a form which asked whether he was expecting a child or had been pregnant in the past six months. When he complained that as a man in his 60s this question did not apply and he should not have to answer it, Mr Sinclair said staff at the clinic told him they could not accept his blood.

Daily Mail

Meant to post here but did it in the wrong thread in Elsewhere, oops.

The NHS doesn't need the blood of a transphobe. One hopes he is now ineligible to receive blood of any kind and this incident has been recorded on the police's 'non-crime hate incident' register.