here's a thought.

ren wrote: I don't know there's ever been such a study.

Meaning there is no concrete evidence to support the theory that breast cancer is caused by bras either.

ren wrote: regarding your example I'm sorry if I extrapolated without explaining, I'd been reading about a similar issue in Saudi Arabia, where the women there demanded to be seen by all-female staff. In your example if I remember correctly it's only once the staff was female that it became OK to do those health checks, sounds to me like they weren't OK with taking their kit off in front of people unless those people were other women....
Therefore disrespecting the male doctor (or nurse or radiographer, etc) by judging them on the basis of their sex and not their medical expertise.

You really don't understand do you. Its not about disrespecting the doctor. its about the fear and shame of the patient. The culture dictates that it is shameful for a woman to be seen naked by a man who is not her husband. Ie. if a man, even a doctor sees her naked SHE is shamed because exposing her body is somehow shameful.


Also,

Brenna wrote: Next we launched community projects to help facilitate better understanding about the realities of breast cancer and its treatments, including the need for non gender bias when it came to medical staff, and in the last 4 years the need to have female only staff in the screening units has dissipated.

It can be changed. When you make the effort to understand peoples perspectives and address it from that angle.

I'm only talking about biology here. I have no idea what these socially constructed races are. I have never heard of a poor race, a ghetto race, an urban race and whatnot. The ones I am more familiar with always seem to make reference to external traits or geographical area, much like many other animal species and subspecies.

Brenna wrote:

ren wrote: I don't know there's ever been such a study.

Meaning there is no concrete evidence to support the theory that breast cancer is caused by bras either.

ren wrote: regarding your example I'm sorry if I extrapolated without explaining, I'd been reading about a similar issue in Saudi Arabia, where the women there demanded to be seen by all-female staff. In your example if I remember correctly it's only once the staff was female that it became OK to do those health checks, sounds to me like they weren't OK with taking their kit off in front of people unless those people were other women....
Therefore disrespecting the male doctor (or nurse or radiographer, etc) by judging them on the basis of their sex and not their medical expertise.

You really don't understand do you. Its not about disrespecting the doctor. its about the fear and shame of the patient. The culture dictates that it is shameful for a woman to be seen naked by a man who is not her husband. Ie. if a man, even a doctor sees her naked SHE is shamed because exposing her body is somehow shameful.


Also,

Brenna wrote: Next we launched community projects to help facilitate better understanding about the realities of breast cancer and its treatments, including the need for non gender bias when it came to medical staff, and in the last 4 years the need to have female only staff in the screening units has dissipated.

It can be changed. When you make the effort to understand peoples perspectives and address it from that angle.

i understand perfectly well. As I said it is another culture with other concepts of what is respectful or disrespectful. If I refused treatment from a woman because I'd rather have it from a man, it's considered disrespectful in my culture, which is what this topic clearly is about.

I have no desire to understand or otherwise change their culture. It's another place, different people. It does not concern me one bit, they can live the way they like as far as I am concerned.

ren wrote:
I have no desire to understand or otherwise change their culture. It's another place, different people. It does not concern me one bit, they can live the way they like as far as I am concerned.

But it happens in "your" culture too. Are you not interested in understanding and making changes there?

ren wrote: I'm only talking about biology here. I have no idea what these socially constructed races are. I have never heard of a poor race, a ghetto race, an urban race and whatnot. The ones I am more familiar with always seem to make reference to external traits or geographical area, much like many other animal species and subspecies.

*deep breath*

THE POINT WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT "BIOLOGICAL RACE" IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS.

"Race" means the phenotypical differences among human beings, which are, by definition, the same species.
If you're referring to anything other than superficial phenotypical differences--for example, differences in culture, language, hairstyle, whatever--that is an ethnicity, not a race.


ETA - Dalton Conley gives a great explanation:

While race and ethnicity share an ideology of common ancestry, they differ in several ways. First of all, race is primarily unitary. You can only have one race, while you can claim multiple ethnic affiliations. You can identify ethnically as Irish and Polish, but you have to be essentially either black or white. The fundamental difference is that race is socially imposed and hierarchical. There is an inequality built into the system. Furthermore, you have no control over your race; it's how you're perceived by others. For example, I have a friend who was born in Korea to Korean parents, but as an infant, she was adopted by an Italian family in Italy. Ethnically, she feels Italian: she eats Italian food, she speaks Italian, she knows Italian history and culture. She knows nothing about Korean history and culture. But when she comes to the United States, she's treated racially as Asian.

Brenna wrote:

ren wrote:
I have no desire to understand or otherwise change their culture. It's another place, different people. It does not concern me one bit, they can live the way they like as far as I am concerned.

But it happens in "your" culture too. Are you not interested in understanding and making changes there?

In our case it's either part of our culture or it's not. If it is (should be), then it is protected by treaty and I could take it as far as suing the british government. In the case of the NHS, "shareholders" are deciding who to employ based on personal preferences, and if that's allowed for one organization then it should be allowed for all. The NHS is the largest employer in europe (5th in the world).

steamboat28 wrote: *deep breath*

THE POINT WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT "BIOLOGICAL RACE" IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS.

"Race" means the phenotypical differences among human beings, which are, by definition, the same species.
If you're referring to anything other than superficial phenotypical differences--for example, differences in culture, language, hairstyle, whatever--that is an ethnicity, not a race.

Dictionary definition it is, then.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/race#race-2

race2
Line breaks: race
Pronunciation: /reɪs /
NOUN

1Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics:
people of all races, colours, and creeds
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
1.1 [MASS NOUN] The fact or condition of belonging to a racial division or group; the qualities or characteristics associated with this.
EXAMPLE SENTENCES
1.2A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group:
we Scots were a bloodthirsty race then
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS
1.3A group or set of people or things with a common feature or features:
some male firefighters still regarded women as a race apart
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS
1.4 Biology A population within a species that is distinct in some way, especially a subspecies:
people have killed so many tigers that two races are probably extinct
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
1.5(In non-technical use) each of the major divisions of living creatures:
a member of the human race
the race of birds
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
1.6 literary A group of people descended from a common ancestor:
a prince of the race of Solomon
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS
1.7 [MASS NOUN] archaic Ancestry:
two coursers of ethereal race
Although ideas of race are centuries old, it was not until the 19th century that attempts to systematize racial divisions were made. Ideas of supposed racial superiority and social Darwinism reached their culmination in Nazi ideology of the 1930s and gave pseudoscientific justification to policies and attitudes of discrimination, exploitation, slavery, and extermination. Theories of race asserting a link between racial type and intelligence are now discredited. Scientifically it is accepted as obvious that there are subdivisions of the human species, but it is also clear that genetic variation between individuals of the same race can be as great as that between members of different races

Origin

early 16th century (denoting a group with common features): via French from Italian razza, of unknown ultimate origin.

Usage

In recent years, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, it is now often replaced by other words which are less emotionally charged, such as people(s) or community.

.

Exterminate all [strike]rational thought[/strike] suffering. That is the conclusion I have come to.

LOL, but with that attempt at humour in mind, the patient's concerns should be catered for by the professional service being offered. The staff should not take offence at gender preference of patients, as there is no way to identify or approach true quantification of a patients entire complex of suffering.

But accepting then an inability to comprehend the extent and nature of someones suffering in this regard, you could still then ask what constitutes acceptable suffering for gender discrimination, and then further to what extent does that suffering need to be explained to serve as some justification. But IMO it should be the medical staff's 'job' to reduce patient suffering as much as practical/possible and this includes any nature of discomfort which is not required to achieve a successful medical procedure, IMO. I think its just part of the job description, and they should accept it or get a different job.

So that example is not a good example I don't think for gender discrimination of that type being introduced in part by OP, also especially not the breast example specifically, as in western societies female breasts are usually considered private.

Quite a few men only club's had to close up or allow women, but I notice there are women only gym's etc. I always thought it was only religious institutions that were allowed to bypass certain anti-discrimination law. So on reflection 'health' must have an angle in there also.... I do not mind a bit of positive discrimination so long as it's transparent and available to both genders to meet the same types of need.

I can't count how many times I've had a hernia exam performed by a woman doctor. So it's ok for them to squeeze our genitals, but we can't touch their breast. Oh wait that sounds a lot liked everyday life.

I say the post about gay and lesbian. One everyone forgets is Bisexual. That's very few ever know unless they tell you.