Trans Patient Sues Hospital for Comments Made While Anesthetized

[FlyersFan]

Well okay whatever but there are very good reasons for doctors with a patient under anaesthetic to not introduce the possibility of confusion by referring to them as the incorrect (or "preferred", or whatever) sex. Same with data on medical charts. Thinking your name is dead is one thing, being actually dead is another.

That's what I was thinking.

When you go into surgery, or in for a medical procedure, they always check the information ... name, date of birth, gender, etc.   They always ask you to verify.   And they check the wristband with the information.  If they have a patient undergoing major surgery and it falsely says 'female' on the documentation but they can see that the patient is really a man with a penis .... confusion and problems can happen.

[Oldcarpy2]

Are we the only ones with this crap going on?
Europe isn't infected yet?
Give it time.

No.

Over here, if you bring a crap law suit and lose, you pay costs.

Over there, not so much.

[Maxmars]

No.

Over here, if you bring a crap law suit and lose, you pay costs.

Over there, not so much.

And the claimant pays costs either way... minus the tithe.

[chr0naut]

Here's a fun one.  

A man, living as a woman, has stage 4 metastatic rectal cancer and had a lung tumor removed at a hospital.   He somehow secretly recorded what the surgeons were talking about during his surgery.   He is claiming discrimination because while he was anesthetized the doctors referred to him as 'him/he' and that they said they didn't understand trans and that he still had 'man parts'.   The hospital defends the doctors and staff saying it's a private conversation that they are allowed to have and recording them violates their privacy, and that they weren't mocking anyone during the recording.  The trans person also claims that the hospital changed his records to say 'he' instead of she, which the hospital denies.

It should be noted that most of the audio is not able to be understood because of the poor quality of the recording.

Trans Patient Recorded Surgeons During Tumor Removal

The hospital staff were having a normal conversation and weren't mocking anyone.   If they had made snide comments about penis size then that would be mocking, but saying you don't understand the whole trans thing and that he still had man parts is not mocking.   Also, it's natural to use the pronoun 'he' when dealing with a biological male because that what he is.

Then there is this ...

The staff used the trans pronouns in documents and to the mans face.   While in private conversation they called him what he is ... a 'he'.   That's private conversation.

Healthcare workers including surgeons have to work according to biology, not psychology.

Additionally, although estrogen has general anti-cancer properties, particular anti-androgens such as estradiol are implicated via the mechanism of GPER activation to being contributory to colorectal cancers. Perhaps the surgeon/s and doctor/s were discussing if they should advise the patient to discontinue, forever, the anti-androgenic medications?

The G Protein-Coupled Estrogen Receptor (GPER): A Critical Therapeutic Target for Cancer

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

Lol, fervency alone doesn't make something a religion. Nice try. There is no constitutional protection for this man's mental delusion.

You wanna do the suspect classification technicality jig? 

Well, either is being female. Not even biological gender is a universally agreed upon suspect class... technically.

The U.S. Supreme Court uses a three-tiered system of judicial review under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for government classifications. Suspect Classifications (such as race and national origin) face strict scrutiny, requiring a "compelling state interest". Quasi-Suspect Classifications (including sex/gender) are subject to intermediate scrutiny, demanding "important governmental objectives" and an "exceedingly persuasive justification"

So you have to try religion, because there are only 4 universally agreed up suspect classes, with things like; sex, orientation, identity, age, disability, wealth, political preference, veteran status, political affiliation, or criminal conviction being quasi-suspect classes left up the STATE to define.

In New York, discrimination protection and suspect classes extend the 14th amendment to orientation and identity, and NY also invokes The Federal Wiretap Act in its one party consent laws. 

As far as New York is concerned, her rights have been violated (through bullying and harassment) and she was within her rights to record them in that state...  Well if the judge accepts recording yourself unconscious as meeting the criteria of "one party consent."

But if its admissible, and her quasi-suspect status can have New York discrimination laws shit on by the THIS *eyeroll* of a Supreme Court (eventually),  It's destined to set an unfortunate precedent for all those other quasi-suspect classes of debatable status.

It's never the shiny noticable wrapping with these topics and related Heritage Foundation takeover, that's just to distract everyone so they can invalidate all the precedent that's related.

Only one court this is going to...

[Maxmars]

I'm starting to think that this  is a lawsuit that should never be...

Secretly recording private conversations to establish 'evidence' is fruit of the poisoned tree in NY...
unless it has changed you require consent to legally obtain voice recording evidence... otherwise it is subject to - as was said - very convincing reasoning to a judge...

This is a hard sell from the start, and sadly has the ancestry of many such "I was harassed" complaints that reflect mostly a demand for respect of a personal dignity (which they certainly deserve, as we all do.)

I fear this is a lawsuit with a message... shooting itself in the foot as the media runs with it.

[DBCowboy]

Here's a fun one.  

A man, living as a woman, has stage 4 metastatic rectal cancer and had a lung tumor removed at a hospital.   He somehow secretly recorded what the surgeons were talking about during his surgery.   He is claiming discrimination because while he was anesthetized the doctors referred to him as 'him/he' and that they said they didn't understand trans and that he still had 'man parts'.   The hospital defends the doctors and staff saying it's a private conversation that they are allowed to have and recording them violates their privacy, and that they weren't mocking anyone during the recording.  The trans person also claims that the hospital changed his records to say 'he' instead of she, which the hospital denies.

It should be noted that most of the audio is not able to be understood because of the poor quality of the recording.

Trans Patient Recorded Surgeons During Tumor Removal


The hospital staff were having a normal conversation and weren't mocking anyone.   If they had made snide comments about penis size then that would be mocking, but saying you don't understand the whole trans thing and that he still had man parts is not mocking.   Also, it's natural to use the pronoun 'he' when dealing with a biological male because that what he is.

Then there is this ...


The staff used the trans pronouns in documents and to the mans face.   While in private conversation they called him what he is ... a 'he'.   That's private conversation.

It might have worked if Lamalla had won and we were a socialist woke nation full of communists.

But biology is still biology.

You can pretend to be a woman all you want, but at 50, you still need to get your prostate checked.

[FlyersFan]

You can pretend to be a woman all you want, but at 50, you still need to get your prostate checked.

That pretty much says it all.
When you pretend to be the opposite sex, you put yourself at risk medically.
A man, pretending to be a woman, still can get prostrate cancer,
no matter how much denial he is in about his true gender.

[midicon]

Save his life and he sues! Maybe shoulda let him go lol.

Sad about the cancer but these people are mental.