Discussion:
NHS hospital tells staff not to describe babies as ‘born’ male or female. Guidance encourages term ‘assigned’ as a more ‘accurate’ depiction
(too old to reply)
Ottavio Caruso
2024-10-11 10:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Original:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/09/nhs-hospital-in-great-yarmouth-gender-language-guidance/

Unpaywall: https://archive.is/qlP2J


## QUOTE


An NHS hospital has urged staff not to describe babies as being “born
male or female”.

Guidance developed by the James Paget University Hospitals Trust in
Great Yarmouth said its staff should use the phrase “assigned
female/male at birth” instead.

It claims this “accurately depicts the situation of what happens at
birth” and also describes other “inclusive language dos and donts” for
its staff.

The document, called Celebrating Pride, includes an “LGBTQ+ glossary”
with definitions for the range of terminology that should be used. It
also has a list of words and phrases to avoid in order not upset patients.

For example, the term “ladies and gentlemen” should not be used to
address a group of people but instead staff are encouraged to say
everyone, folks or honoured guests.

It says people should be described as “gay” instead of “homosexual”
because this “often connotes a medical diagnosis or a discomfort with
gay/lesbian people”.

It also tells staff to avoid terms like “both genders” and “opposite
sexes” because it implies there are only two – as well as titles such as
mailman, fireman, and policeman.

Biologically accurate language

Helen Joyce, the director of advocacy at Sex Matters, a human rights
charity, said it was “hard to fathom that any hospital is still
promoting trans activist language more than two years after the then
Health Secretary instructed the NHS to return to biologically accurate
language”.

Ms Joyce said: “It is also frankly embarrassing to see a hospital – a
place where medical knowledge matters – making the ridiculous argument
that people are “assigned” female or male at birth rather than simply
being female or male, as a matter of material reality.

“The leadership at James Paget Hospital needs to get a grip, say no to
its trans-activist staff and return to recognising that accurate
language about the two sexes matters in healthcare.”

Kate Barker, the chief executive of LGB Alliance, the charity and
advocacy group, said lesbian, gay and bisexual people “are not offended
by the term man or woman”.

“In fact, as same-sex attracted people, the sex binary is pretty central
to who we are. This tired old nonsense benefits no one, other than to
justify the pay of ‘diversity’ consultants,” she said.

Rupert Lowe, the Reform UK MP for Great Yarmouth, criticised the
hospital and said his “constituents would prefer this inaccurate and
confusing woke nonsense was left out of the hospital”.


## UNQUOTE

Apart from the inevitable political theater that this kind of news will
attract, isn't this blatantly offensive for those (presumably the a
majority) who don't agree with this terminology?
--
Ottavio Caruso
Jon Ribbens
2024-10-11 10:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ottavio Caruso
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/09/nhs-hospital-in-great-yarmouth-gender-language-guidance/
Unpaywall: https://archive.is/qlP2J
## QUOTE
...
Post by Ottavio Caruso
Helen Joyce [...]
...

Ah, well, there you go.
Post by Ottavio Caruso
Apart from the inevitable political theater that this kind of news will
attract, isn't this blatantly offensive for those (presumably the a
majority) who don't agree with this terminology?
Is "no" not the obvious answer? Along with the observation that your
presumption is, er, presumptuous?
JNugent
2024-10-11 12:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ottavio Caruso
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/09/nhs-hospital-in-great-yarmouth-gender-language-guidance/
Unpaywall: https://archive.is/qlP2J
## QUOTE
An NHS hospital has urged staff not to describe babies as being “born
male or female”.
Guidance developed by the James Paget University Hospitals Trust in
Great Yarmouth said its staff should use the phrase “assigned
female/male at birth” instead.
It claims this “accurately depicts the situation of what happens at
birth” and also describes other “inclusive language dos and donts” for
its staff.
The document, called Celebrating Pride, includes an “LGBTQ+ glossary”
with definitions for the range of terminology that should be used. It
also has a list of words and phrases to avoid in order not upset patients.
For example, the term “ladies and gentlemen” should not be used to
address a group of people but instead staff are encouraged to say
everyone, folks or honoured guests.
It says people should be described as “gay” instead of “homosexual”
because this “often connotes a medical diagnosis or a discomfort with
gay/lesbian people”.
It also tells staff to avoid terms like “both genders” and “opposite
sexes” because it implies there are only two – as well as titles such as
mailman, fireman, and policeman.
Biologically accurate language
Helen Joyce, the director of advocacy at Sex Matters, a human rights
charity, said it was “hard to fathom that any hospital is still
promoting trans activist language more than two years after the then
Health Secretary instructed the NHS to return to biologically accurate
language”.
Ms Joyce said: “It is also frankly embarrassing to see a hospital – a
place where medical knowledge matters – making the ridiculous argument
that people are “assigned” female or male at birth rather than simply
being female or male, as a matter of material reality.
“The leadership at James Paget Hospital needs to get a grip, say no to
its trans-activist staff and return to recognising that accurate
language about the two sexes matters in healthcare.”
Kate Barker, the chief executive of LGB Alliance, the charity and
advocacy group, said lesbian, gay and bisexual people “are not offended
by the term man or woman”.
“In fact, as same-sex attracted people, the sex binary is pretty central
to who we are. This tired old nonsense benefits no one, other than to
justify the pay of ‘diversity’ consultants,” she said.
Rupert Lowe, the Reform UK MP for Great Yarmouth, criticised the
hospital and said his “constituents would prefer this inaccurate and
confusing woke nonsense was left out of the hospital”.
## UNQUOTE
Apart from the inevitable political theater that this kind of news will
attract, isn't this blatantly offensive for those (presumably the a
majority) who don't agree with this terminology?
The very word "assigned" suggests the sex of the baby is somehow unclear
and that an estimate (of some sort) has been resorted to. So it's an
abuse the language as well.

Or that even if it is clear (as it almost always is), that is somehow
"better" not to recognise and relay the obvious truth.

And that, of course, is what *some* people want, for their own reasons.

The only other explanation is that it's some relative or acolyte of Sir
Kier who is in charge.
GB
2024-10-11 12:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
The very word "assigned" suggests the sex of the baby is somehow unclear
and that an estimate (of some sort) has been resorted to. So it's an
abuse the language as well.
Or that even if it is clear (as it almost always is), that is somehow
"better" not to recognise and relay the obvious truth.
In a small number of cases the gender of the baby is either unclear or
indeed wrongly identified. Or, there could be ambiguity, duality, etc.
It could be argued on those technical grounds that 'assigned' is a
reasonable word to use?
The Todal
2024-10-11 19:28:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by JNugent
The very word "assigned" suggests the sex of the baby is somehow
unclear and that an estimate (of some sort) has been resorted to. So
it's an abuse the language as well.
Or that even if it is clear (as it almost always is), that is somehow
"better" not to recognise and relay the obvious truth.
In a small number of cases the gender of the baby is either unclear or
indeed wrongly identified. Or, there could be ambiguity, duality, etc.
It could be argued on those technical grounds that 'assigned' is a
reasonable word to use?
I think "assigned" ought to be regarded as implicit. Otherwise it
probably ought to apply throughout one's life. In any employment or
medcal questionnaire I might describe myself as assigned male just in
case I come to realise that I am non-binary or trans, at some future date.

There might be a market in greeting cards. Congratulations on your
Assigned Male baby!

I am sure it's well-meaning but it's trying too hard to please.
GB
2024-10-12 15:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by JNugent
The very word "assigned" suggests the sex of the baby is somehow
unclear and that an estimate (of some sort) has been resorted to. So
it's an abuse the language as well.
Or that even if it is clear (as it almost always is), that is somehow
"better" not to recognise and relay the obvious truth.
In a small number of cases the gender of the baby is either unclear or
indeed wrongly identified. Or, there could be ambiguity, duality, etc.
It could be argued on those technical grounds that 'assigned' is a
reasonable word to use?
Remembering that that was allowed in my post (hence "as it almost always
is"), what percentage would you be talking about?
Very small.

There are academic papers about hermaphrodites. There are also false
hermaphrodites, where the baby has one set of gonads, but they resemble
those of the opposite sex.

In cases of false hermaphrodites, it is possible to mistake the sex of
the child. So, if you are told your child's sex, how do you know 100%
that no mistake has been made?
And why would it mean that the sex of all newborns were somehow in doubt?
It can't happen! Oh, yes, it can! Here's an interesting case of a 22
year old man, who turned up at hospital, because he had an enlarging
mass in his abdomen. He was 26 weeks pregnant.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2376060520305009



If you are interested in following this up, here's another link to get
you started.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8079415/
JNugent
2024-10-13 00:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by GB
Post by JNugent
The very word "assigned" suggests the sex of the baby is somehow
unclear and that an estimate (of some sort) has been resorted to. So
it's an abuse the language as well.
Or that even if it is clear (as it almost always is), that is
somehow "better" not to recognise and relay the obvious truth.
In a small number of cases the gender of the baby is either unclear
or indeed wrongly identified. Or, there could be ambiguity, duality,
etc. It could be argued on those technical grounds that 'assigned' is
a reasonable word to use?
Remembering that that was allowed in my post (hence "as it almost
always is"), what percentage would you be talking about?
Very small.
Indeed.
Post by GB
There are academic papers about hermaphrodites. There are also false
hermaphrodites, where the baby has one set of gonads, but they resemble
those of the opposite sex.
In cases of false hermaphrodites, it is possible to mistake the sex of
the child. So, if you are told your child's sex, how do you know 100%
that no mistake has been made?
Hermaphrodite characteristics are not unknown (the concept has been
recognised since antiquity and for a couple of hundred years at least in
the UK), but they are also hardly common.
Post by GB
And why would it mean that the sex of all newborns were somehow in doubt?
It can't happen! Oh, yes, it can! Here's an interesting case of a 22
year old man, who  turned up at hospital, because he had an enlarging
mass in his abdomen. He was 26 weeks pregnant.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2376060520305009
If you are interested in following this up, here's another link to get
you started.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8079415/
No thanks. It's not the same issue at all.
Max Demian
2024-10-13 09:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by GB
Post by JNugent
The very word "assigned" suggests the sex of the baby is somehow
unclear and that an estimate (of some sort) has been resorted to. So
it's an abuse the language as well.
Or that even if it is clear (as it almost always is), that is
somehow "better" not to recognise and relay the obvious truth.
In a small number of cases the gender of the baby is either unclear
or indeed wrongly identified. Or, there could be ambiguity, duality,
etc. It could be argued on those technical grounds that 'assigned' is
a reasonable word to use?
Remembering that that was allowed in my post (hence "as it almost
always is"), what percentage would you be talking about?
Very small.
There are academic papers about hermaphrodites. There are also false
hermaphrodites, where the baby has one set of gonads, but they resemble
those of the opposite sex.
In cases of false hermaphrodites, it is possible to mistake the sex of
the child. So, if you are told your child's sex, how do you know 100%
that no mistake has been made?
And why would it mean that the sex of all newborns were somehow in doubt?
It can't happen! Oh, yes, it can! Here's an interesting case of a 22
year old man, who  turned up at hospital, because he had an enlarging
mass in his abdomen. He was 26 weeks pregnant.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2376060520305009
If you are interested in following this up, here's another link to get
you started.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8079415/
As you say, genuine doubt as to a baby's sex is very rare and is not the
cause of this "assigned at birth" nonsense, which is trans politics
which is likely to evaporate eventually.
--
Max Demian
Norman Wells
2024-10-11 20:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Original: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/09/nhs-hospital-in-
great-yarmouth-gender-language-guidance/
Unpaywall: https://archive.is/qlP2J
## QUOTE
An NHS hospital has urged staff not to describe babies as being “born
male or female”.
Guidance developed by the James Paget University Hospitals Trust in
Great Yarmouth said its staff should use the phrase “assigned female/
male at birth” instead.
It claims this “accurately depicts the situation of what happens at
birth”
Is a Sorting Hat involved?
BrritSki
2024-10-12 07:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Original: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/09/nhs-hospital-in-
great-yarmouth-gender-language-guidance/
Unpaywall: https://archive.is/qlP2J
## QUOTE
An NHS hospital has urged staff not to describe babies as being “born
male or female”.
Guidance developed by the James Paget University Hospitals Trust in
Great Yarmouth said its staff should use the phrase “assigned female/
male at birth” instead.
It claims this “accurately depicts the situation of what happens at
birth”
Is a Sorting Hat involved?
No, but a word that rhymes with that is.
Jeff Layman
2024-10-12 07:56:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ottavio Caruso
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/09/nhs-hospital-in-great-yarmouth-gender-language-guidance/
Unpaywall: https://archive.is/qlP2J
## QUOTE
An NHS hospital has urged staff not to describe babies as being “born
male or female”.
Guidance developed by the James Paget University Hospitals Trust in
Great Yarmouth said its staff should use the phrase “assigned
female/male at birth” instead.
(snip)

Why is "sex" still required on birth certificates? What, perhaps in
terms of equality and/or discrimination, makes it necessary to define an
individual's sex at birth anyway?
--
Jeff
Max Demian
2024-10-12 16:44:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Layman
Post by Ottavio Caruso
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/09/nhs-hospital-in-great-yarmouth-gender-language-guidance/
Unpaywall: https://archive.is/qlP2J
## QUOTE
An NHS hospital has urged staff not to describe babies as being “born
male or female”.
Guidance developed by the James Paget University Hospitals Trust in
Great Yarmouth said its staff should use the phrase “assigned
female/male at birth” instead.
(snip)
Why is "sex" still required on birth certificates? What, perhaps in
terms of equality and/or discrimination, makes it necessary to define an
individual's sex at birth anyway?
Because boys and girls are different.
--
Max Demian
Jeff Layman
2024-10-12 19:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max Demian
Post by Jeff Layman
Post by Ottavio Caruso
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/09/nhs-hospital-in-great-yarmouth-gender-language-guidance/
Unpaywall: https://archive.is/qlP2J
## QUOTE
An NHS hospital has urged staff not to describe babies as being “born
male or female”.
Guidance developed by the James Paget University Hospitals Trust in
Great Yarmouth said its staff should use the phrase “assigned
female/male at birth” instead.
(snip)
Why is "sex" still required on birth certificates? What, perhaps in
terms of equality and/or discrimination, makes it necessary to define an
individual's sex at birth anyway?
Because boys and girls are different.
Biologically. But why is it a requirement to state that on official
forms? What is it used for?
--
Jeff
Max Demian
2024-10-13 09:54:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Layman
Post by Max Demian
Post by Jeff Layman
Why is "sex" still required on birth certificates? What, perhaps in
terms of equality and/or discrimination, makes it necessary to define an
individual's sex at birth anyway?
Because boys and girls are different.
Biologically. But why is it a requirement to state that on official
forms? What is it used for?
I don't know what the official reasons are, but it's something people
want to assert, like nationality or religion.
--
Max Demian
GB
2024-10-12 15:41:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Layman
Post by Ottavio Caruso
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/09/nhs-hospital-in-great-
yarmouth-gender-language-guidance/
Unpaywall: https://archive.is/qlP2J
## QUOTE
An NHS hospital has urged staff not to describe babies as being “born
male or female”.
Guidance developed by the James Paget University Hospitals Trust in
Great Yarmouth said its staff should use the phrase “assigned
female/male at birth” instead.
(snip)
Why is "sex" still required on birth certificates? What, perhaps in
terms of equality and/or discrimination, makes it necessary to define an
individual's sex at birth anyway?
Is "Parents still arguing about this" allowed as the name?
Max Demian
2024-10-13 09:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by Jeff Layman
Why is "sex" still required on birth certificates? What, perhaps in
terms of equality and/or discrimination, makes it necessary to define
an individual's sex at birth anyway?
Is "Parents still arguing about this" allowed as the name?
I think the name on the birth certificate can be changed shortly after
registration.
--
Max Demian
miked
2024-10-12 00:11:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ottavio Caruso
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/09/nhs-hospital-in-great-yarmouth-gender-language-guidance/
Unpaywall: https://archive.is/qlP2J
## QUOTE
An NHS hospital has urged staff not to describe babies as being “born
male or female”.
Guidance developed by the James Paget University Hospitals Trust in
Great Yarmouth said its staff should use the phrase “assigned
female/male at birth” instead.
i visited a hospital recently. They had male and female sections of each
ward. There were signs. There were also various equipment marked for
male or female patients. Surely this must be offensive to gender
activists as well?

mike
Jon Ribbens
2024-10-16 11:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by miked
i visited a hospital recently. They had male and female sections of each
ward. There were signs. There were also various equipment marked for
male or female patients. Surely this must be offensive to gender
activists as well?
Must it? Why?
Max Demian
2024-10-16 12:21:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by miked
Post by Ottavio Caruso
Guidance developed by the James Paget University Hospitals Trust in
Great Yarmouth said its staff should use the phrase “assigned
female/male at birth” instead.
i visited a hospital recently. They had male and female sections of each
ward. There were signs. There were also various equipment marked for
male or female patients. Surely this must be offensive to gender
activists as well?
Did the signs indicate whether they referred to biological sex, or
preferred gender identity?
--
Max Demian
GB
2024-10-16 12:48:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by miked
Post by Ottavio Caruso
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/09/nhs-hospital-in-great-
yarmouth-gender-language-guidance/
Unpaywall: https://archive.is/qlP2J
## QUOTE
An NHS hospital has urged staff not to describe babies as being “born
male or female”.
Guidance developed by the James Paget University Hospitals Trust in
Great Yarmouth said its staff should use the phrase “assigned
female/male at birth” instead.
i visited a hospital recently. They had male and female sections of each
ward. There were signs. There were also various equipment marked for
male or female patients. Surely this must be offensive to gender
activists as well?
People get their nickers in a twist about all sorts of things. Was the
equipment actually earmarked for particular genders of patients? It's
hard to see a medical need for that.

OTOH, equipment might be earmarked for the male and female sections -
say a blood pressure monitor for each section - and that would need to
be marked, so it doesn't wander.
Post by miked
mike
jon
2024-10-16 17:53:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by GB
Post by miked
Post by Ottavio Caruso
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/09/nhs-hospital-in-great-
yarmouth-gender-language-guidance/
Unpaywall: https://archive.is/qlP2J
## QUOTE
An NHS hospital has urged staff not to describe babies as being “born
male or female”.
Guidance developed by the James Paget University Hospitals Trust in
Great Yarmouth said its staff should use the phrase “assigned
female/male at birth” instead.
i visited a hospital recently. They had male and female sections of
each ward. There were signs. There were also various equipment marked
for male or female patients. Surely this must be offensive to gender
activists as well?
People get their nickers in a twist about all sorts of things. Was the
equipment actually earmarked for particular genders of patients? It's
hard to see a medical need for that.
OTOH, equipment might be earmarked for the male and female sections -
say a blood pressure monitor for each section - and that would need to
be marked, so it doesn't wander.
Post by miked
mike
Never use a male catheter on a woman.
BrritSki
2024-10-17 07:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by jon
Post by GB
Post by miked
Post by Ottavio Caruso
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/09/nhs-hospital-in-great-
yarmouth-gender-language-guidance/
Unpaywall: https://archive.is/qlP2J
## QUOTE
An NHS hospital has urged staff not to describe babies as being “born
male or female”.
Guidance developed by the James Paget University Hospitals Trust in
Great Yarmouth said its staff should use the phrase “assigned
female/male at birth” instead.
i visited a hospital recently. They had male and female sections of
each ward. There were signs. There were also various equipment marked
for male or female patients. Surely this must be offensive to gender
activists as well?
People get their nickers in a twist about all sorts of things. Was the
equipment actually earmarked for particular genders of patients? It's
hard to see a medical need for that.
OTOH, equipment might be earmarked for the male and female sections -
say a blood pressure monitor for each section - and that would need to
be marked, so it doesn't wander.
Post by miked
mike
Never use a male catheter on a woman.
Apparently:
Male catheters are usually up to 40cm long. Female catheters are usually
up to 20cm long. Some women, particularly those who are larger or less
mobile, prefer to use a male length catheter as they can access the
outer funnel end of the catheter more easily.
<https://www.continenceproductadvisor.org/catheters#:~:text=Male%20catheters%20are%20usually%20up,of%20the%20catheter%20more%20easily.>

If you are my ex-GP brother you might have mentioned you were here ;)
Roger Hayter
2024-10-17 08:50:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by jon
Post by GB
Post by miked
Post by Ottavio Caruso
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/09/nhs-hospital-in-great-
yarmouth-gender-language-guidance/
Unpaywall: https://archive.is/qlP2J
## QUOTE
An NHS hospital has urged staff not to describe babies as being “born
male or female”.
Guidance developed by the James Paget University Hospitals Trust in
Great Yarmouth said its staff should use the phrase “assigned
female/male at birth” instead.
i visited a hospital recently. They had male and female sections of
each ward. There were signs. There were also various equipment marked
for male or female patients. Surely this must be offensive to gender
activists as well?
People get their nickers in a twist about all sorts of things. Was the
equipment actually earmarked for particular genders of patients? It's
hard to see a medical need for that.
OTOH, equipment might be earmarked for the male and female sections -
say a blood pressure monitor for each section - and that would need to
be marked, so it doesn't wander.
Post by miked
mike
Never use a male catheter on a woman.
Male catheters are usually up to 40cm long. Female catheters are usually
up to 20cm long. Some women, particularly those who are larger or less
mobile, prefer to use a male length catheter as they can access the
outer funnel end of the catheter more easily.
<https://www.continenceproductadvisor.org/catheters#:~:text=Male%20catheters%20are%20usually%20up,of%20the%20catheter%20more%20easily.>
Yes. Attempting to use a female catheter for a man seems more fraught to me.
Post by BrritSki
If you are my ex-GP brother you might have mentioned you were here ;)
--
Roger Hayter
Jethro_uk
2024-10-17 09:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Hayter
Post by BrritSki
Post by jon
Post by GB
Post by miked
Post by Ottavio Caruso
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/09/nhs-hospital-in-great-
yarmouth-gender-language-guidance/
Unpaywall: https://archive.is/qlP2J
## QUOTE
An NHS hospital has urged staff not to describe babies as being
“born male or female”.
Guidance developed by the James Paget University Hospitals Trust in
Great Yarmouth said its staff should use the phrase “assigned
female/male at birth” instead.
i visited a hospital recently. They had male and female sections of
each ward. There were signs. There were also various equipment
marked for male or female patients. Surely this must be offensive to
gender activists as well?
People get their nickers in a twist about all sorts of things. Was
the equipment actually earmarked for particular genders of patients?
It's hard to see a medical need for that.
OTOH, equipment might be earmarked for the male and female sections -
say a blood pressure monitor for each section - and that would need
to be marked, so it doesn't wander.
Post by miked
mike
Never use a male catheter on a woman.
Male catheters are usually up to 40cm long. Female catheters are
usually up to 20cm long. Some women, particularly those who are larger
or less mobile, prefer to use a male length catheter as they can access
the outer funnel end of the catheter more easily.
<https://www.continenceproductadvisor.org/
catheters#:~:text=Male%20catheters%20are%20usually%20up,of%20the%20catheter%20more%20easily.>
Post by Roger Hayter
Yes. Attempting to use a female catheter for a man seems more fraught to me.
Male catheterisation is a more complicated business than female. A lot
more piping to follow with the increased risk of penetrating the urethra.
Plus the added thrill of the prostate.

Loading...