Because we shouldnāt assume that the absence of a vagina makes a man. Or that all men are attracted to vaginas.
Because people train for over a decade before they can call themselves a fully qualified gynaecologist, and if we only allowed doctors into a speciality if they were affected by said disease, weād have nowhere near enough doctors. They are expected to be held to strict rules of conduct regarding their patients, regardless of their gender, sexuality, age, race, class etc.Ā
Because nudity and genitals do not have to be inherently sexual, nor is all contact with genitalia inherently sexual. Context is everything. Iām a cis female doctor. Iāve dealt with more penises (and vaginas) than I can count, or choose to remember. Thereās nothing remotely exciting about handling penises at work, even if I consider myself (in general) attracted to men.Ā When youāre there, looking after someone who feels vulnerable and scared, and whoās come to you because they have a problem, itās not a titilating experience; which may be hard to understand if your only relationship with other peopleās genitalia is through consensual sexual acts. We donāt care about the size or shape or hair, or level of grooming. We see almost everything, so thereās literally very little that can shock us, even about genitalia. We just want to focus on the tast at hand (examination, taking a sample, catheterisation, etc) whilst keeping the patient as comfortable as possible.
Itās OK if you donāt feel comfortable with a male doctor examining you intimately; you can usually request a woman; lots of people do. If youāre a man, you can still request a male doctor for intimate examinations, if youād prefer. You can ALWAYS request a chaperone, too, whatever your gender. You can always refuse an intimate examination (or any examination). If someone does anything in an examination which makes you feel uncomfortable, you have the right to ask them to stop, and to leave. You have a right to be treated with dignity, without being sexualised or touched inappropriately or made to feel uncomfortable.
Even if we are thinking about the comfort of women, itās not as straightforward as it sounds. Some women prefer to be examined by male doctors, perhaps because of bad experiences with female ones. Sometimes trans people have a preference for the gender of the person examining them intimately, too. Cases of abuse or sexual misconduct canāt all be attributed to one gender, and itās important for us to respond appropriately whenever cases arise, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator. Women can perpetrate acts of abuse, too. And some of the victims of abuse Iāve talked to have requested and preferred male doctors specifically because of this; and thatās OK.
There are plenty of reasons why it might be problematic to suggest that we ban an entire broad group of people from any particular job, based not on qualifications but on characteristics outside of their control (in this case their gender), and thereās nothing inherently feminist about implying that men are inherently predatory. Toxic masculinity and misogyny and rape culture arenāt inherently male, they are learned behaviours that have to be unlearned, discouraged and punished where necessary. Itās no more appropriate than suggesting paediatricians or teachers shouldnāt be male just because men represent a bigger proportion of people who harm children. By implying that rape and inappropriate behaviour are an immutable and inherent part of maleness, which then needs to be removed from the equation altogether, we are in the long run condoning the view that this behaviour is natural when it is not. Thereās a place for all-female spaces where things cannot be regulated, but medical spaces should, if organised appropriately be highly regulated spaces.
I find it hard to believe that going down that path would help minorities in the long run. In fact, itād make life immediately more difficult for women, as patients and as doctors. Why? Because if you kicked out all the male gynaecologists, how would you suddenly replace them all? Youād probably also end up with quite a few less gynaecologists, therefore making it harder for people with vaginas to access decent care. Gynaecology as a profession already seriously struggles to recruit enough doctors because itās a tough job.
And what would that mean for female doctors? Perhaps the sudden expectation that weād have to go into gynaecology because men werenāt allowed to train in that field. Surely women doctors wouldnāt deserve to be pressured into a field they didnāt otherwise want to do, purely because someone has to do it. As a female doctor whoās worked in general practice (family medicine) Iāve seen firsthand that because patients (and male doctors, if their patients are uncomfortable) prefer female doctors to carry out gynae procedures, female doctors in the community end up shouldering a disproportionate amount of the burden of gynaecological care and examination. Itās fine if like me you are comfortable with these kinds of examination. But plenty of female doctors who went into GP to see and treat a wide range of thing donāt want to be relegated purely to intimate examinations because there arenāt enough female doctors around.Ā And people are better at sensitive conversations and intimate examinations if itās something they are passionate about doing. I know lots of people (male, female, straight, lesbian etc) who are in a specialty which requires them to perform intimate examinations, and those people regardless of their gender and sexuality are absolutely people Iād be happy to be examined by.
As someone whoās also a patient sometimes and not a stranger to flashing bits of my body at doctors as a patient, I can relate to the feeling of vulnerability intimate examination brings out. What we have issues with, as people who are intimately examined, is abuse and inappropriate behaviour, and there need to be the right protections in place (chaperones) and the right support in place for anyone affected by abuse.
