Just now, studiot said:

What makes you think I haven't *already* done that ?

I did not want to offend anyone, it was a simple query.

Lets return to the original topic.

56 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

I see what your saying (At this point everyone's just gonna DV me), but there should be no restrictions on men being mammographers.

Doesn’t the patient’s emotional comfort matter?

Also, is this restriction worldwide? I don’t think it is. That brings up the question of what countries restrict them, and what cultural and possibly legal influences come into play.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Doesn’t the patient’s emotional comfort matter?

Also, is this restriction worldwide? I don’t think it is. That brings up the question of what countries restrict them, and what cultural and possibly legal influences come into play.

To echo some of the things mentioned, in the medical field techs are typically overwhelmingly female in general (similarly so with lab techs). That is, even if we ignore mammography a quick google suggests that about 80% of the folks doing similar jobs are female. Even without regulations, there would be a small pool of men who could specialize in mammography.

A quick search also suggests that while in the UK gender is considered a occupational requirement, it does not appear to be the case in the US or Canada, for example.

In addition to men tending not enter fields dominated by women, there’s a phenomenon called gender flight, where men start leaving a field once women reach a certain level of participation

3 hours ago, studiot said:

is this just stuff you are digging up to prolong the discussion?

Standard sealioning and debate obsessives

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Standard sealioning and debate obsessives

Your feedback is useless, feel free to actually engage in the debate

1 hour ago, swansont said:

In addition to men tending not enter fields dominated by women, there’s a phenomenon called gender flight, where men start leaving a field once women reach a certain level of participation

Its not specific to men, its whenever a gender leaves an area dominated by the opposite gender. It also includes sports, habits etc, its not specific to jobs

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Doesn’t the patient’s emotional comfort matter?

Also, is this restriction worldwide? I don’t think it is. That brings up the question of what countries restrict them, and what cultural and possibly legal influences come into play.

Of course it matters, if a women requests a female tech then the hospital should provide it.

My point is that the profession should not have a required gender occupation or limitations on men, they should be granted the same permissions as women if they choose to pick the profession. They should not also have to face any stigma. @iNow demonstrated why these stigmas should not exist.

8 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

the profession should not have a required gender occupation or limitations on men

It doesn’t

8 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

they should be granted the same permissions as women

They are

20 minutes ago, iNow said:

It doesn’t

It does, perhaps instead of downvoting every word I say read the references I provided

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

They are

They are not.

Congress notes that the essential characteristic of the NHS breast screening programme is that it is a single-sex service. Due to the nature of the role, there is a “genuine occupational qualification” for radiographers to be female, as an exception to the Equality Act 2010.- Society of Radiographers

1 hour ago, iNow said:

It doesn’t

They are

Uploading Attachment...

1 hour ago, iNow said:

It doesn’t

They are

9 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

My point is that the profession should not have a required gender occupation or limitations on men, they should be granted the same permissions as women if they choose to pick the profession. They should not also have to face any stigma

As I pointed out, this is only the case in some countries, rather than being true in general. Was there any debate/discussion when Britain made this exclusion, that attempts to justify it?

9 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

It does, perhaps instead of downvoting every word I say read the references I provided

They are not.

Congress notes that the essential characteristic of the NHS breast screening programme is that it is a single-sex service. Due to the nature of the role, there is a “genuine occupational qualification” for radiographers to be female, as an exception to the Equality Act 2010.- Society of Radiographers

Uploading Attachment...

How is it possible that Congress, the legislative assembly of the USA, “notes” that there is an exception to the UK’s 2010 Equality Act, in relation to a breast screening programme of the British National Health Service? What is Congress doing poring over British laws and health practices , suddenly?

Furthermore, at the risk of repeating myself, there is no limitation on men in radiography in general, in the UK. It is purely that they do not take part in the national free breast screening programme which is offered to all women, in order to reassure and reduce any psychological barriers that may inhibit women from getting themselves screened.

Edited May 2May 2 by exchemist

2 hours ago, swansont said:

As I pointed out, this is only the case in some countries, rather than being true in general. Was there any debate/discussion when Britain made this exclusion, that attempts to justify it?

From what I do know is that it is ongoing, I want to formulate an argument that encapsulates the sensitivity of the procedure in nature. However, I do want to point out that it is idiotic to place restrictions or exclude half the worlds population from a medical field when there is a shortage. Outright ban occurs in most Gulf states, Southwest Asia, and Arabia for likely religious reasons.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Furthermore, at the risk of repeating myself, there is no limitation on men in radiography in general, in the UK.

Congress notes that the essential characteristic of the NHS breast screening programme is that it is a single-sex service. Due to the nature of the role, there is a “genuine occupational qualification” for radiographers to be female, as an exception to the Equality Act 2010.- Society of Radiographers

I am just going to continue repeating myself.

12 hours ago, iNow said:

It doesn’t

They are

2 worded responses are not the most helpful.

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Congress notes that the essential characteristic of the NHS breast screening programme is that it is a single-sex service. Due to the nature of the role, there is a “genuine occupational qualification” for radiographers to be female, as an exception to the Equality Act 2010.- Society of Radiographers

I am just going to continue repeating myself.

2 worded responses are not the most helpful.

This is the second time you have responded with identical text. Is this a quotation, then? If so you should reference the source. Can you provide a link? Because, as I say, it seems very odd for the US legislature to be discussing British law and health policy.

Just now, exchemist said:

This is the second time you have responded with identical text. Is this a quotation, then? If so you should reference the source. Can you provide a link? Because, as I say, it seems very odd for the US legislature to be discussing British law and health policy.

https://www.sor.org/news/trade-union-ir/radiographers-call-for-breast-screening-to-be-carr

7 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

https://www.sor.org/news/trade-union-ir/radiographers-call-for-breast-screening-to-be-carr

Aha. Alles klar. So “Congress” in this case refers to the British Trade Union Congress, which in 2017 was evidently arguing for the regulations on the UK national breast screening programme to be changed to allow male radiographers to do it, while still allowing women to ask for a female radiographer if they prefer. Very good. And now it seems, according to the BBC report, the British Dept. Of Health is considering this.

Fine.

Edited May 2May 2 by exchemist

I would like to use this opportunity to suggest folks to contextualize their discussions appropriately. We have members from multiple countries, in some cases divided by the same language. Especially when talking about laws and regulations the jurisdiction is incredibly important.

33 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Aha. Alles klar. So “Congress” in this case refers to the British Trade Union Congress, which in 2017 was evidently arguing for the regulations on the UK national breast screening programme to be changed to allow male radiographers to do it, while still allowing women to ask for a female radiographer if they prefer. Very good. And now it seems, according to the BBC report, the British Dept. Of Health is considering this.

Fine.

Yes I am aware. Your just repeating my whole argument numerous times.

28 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I would like to use this opportunity to suggest folks to contextualize their discussions appropriately. We have members from multiple countries, in some cases divided by the same language. Especially when talking about laws and regulations the jurisdiction is incredibly important.

Ok

2 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

From what I do know is that it is ongoing, I want to formulate an argument that encapsulates the sensitivity of the procedure in nature. However, I do want to point out that it is idiotic to place restrictions or exclude half the worlds population from a medical field when there is a shortage. Outright ban occurs in most Gulf states, Southwest Asia, and Arabia for likely religious reasons.

“Idiotic” is a subjective assessment, i.e. your opinion, and an argument should be objective.

2 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Congress notes that the essential characteristic of the NHS breast screening programme is that it is a single-sex service. Due to the nature of the role, there is a “genuine occupational qualification” for radiographers to be female, as an exception to the Equality Act 2010.- Society of Radiographers

I am just going to continue repeating myself.

Repeating doesn’t rebut the statement, since they made a different point than what you’re rebutting.

It also gives the appearance that you’re not reading/comprehending things, which is probably not the impression most people want to give, and adds unnecessary friction to the discussion

7 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Your just repeating my whole argument numerous times.

Actually this is the first time your argument has been made clearly so that the rest of us can understand it. Thank you @exchemist.

26 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Yes I am aware. Your just repeating my whole argument numerous times.

The point is that none of us were aware of the background to what you were quoting. You did not make any of this clear. Furthermore it seems remarkably pointless for you to rehearse, on this forum, an argument from the British TUC Congress from 2017, without providing any context and introducing a number of misunderstandings in the process.

21 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Actually this is the first time your argument has been made clearly so that the rest of us can understand it. Thank you @exchemist.

Perhaps ask than for clarification. My points are clear.

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

The point is that none of us were aware of the background to what you were quoting. You did not make any of this clear. Furthermore it seems remarkably pointless for you to rehearse, on this forum, an argument from the British TUC Congress from 2017, without providing any context and introducing a number of misunderstandings in the process.

I am speaking generally and pointing out various restrictions and outright exclusion regarding male mammographers, I included various sources and provided context regarding the situation. I clearly pointed out my statements.

24 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Actually this is the first time your argument has been made clearly so that the rest of us can understand it. Thank you @exchemist.

With all due respect, considering you use "Stop being an ass" and "Says you 😂" in your previous arguments, I'm good!

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

“Idiotic” is a subjective assessment, i.e. your opinion, and an argument should be objective.

Repeating doesn’t rebut the statement, since they made a different point than what you’re rebutting.

It also gives the appearance that you’re not reading/comprehending things, which is probably not the impression most people want to give, and adds unnecessary friction to the discussion

Understood, but my main points remain clear.

On 5/1/2025 at 10:23 AM, CharonY said:

There is a steeper gender gap in urology. In the US, only 10% of urologists are women https://www.nature.com/articles/s41585-023-00777-4#ref-CR1

Finding a female urologist would be challenging. A lower gender gap is among Ob/Gyns which about a third being men. I think especially for mammography it is a bit of a historic and cultural issue. It is a female dominated discipline, which discourages men from entering. As such, in many countries it simply became the norm. I am not sure if there are regulatory requirements outside of the UK.

Within various Islamic countries there are. What makes you think it is a cultural issue? :)

On 5/1/2025 at 9:50 AM, exchemist said:

Because it is what women prefer. They, by and large, don’t fancy having their tits groped by some guy.

Still waiting for you to formally retract this statement.

On 5/1/2025 at 9:50 AM, exchemist said:

Men, on the other hand, tend not to be quite so shy about exposing their bodies to women.

Still waiting for you to formally retract this statement.

34 minutes ago, swansont said:

“Idiotic” is a subjective assessment, i.e. your opinion, and an argument should be objective.

It lacks logic whilst there is a shortage. Perhaps this statement is better fitting?

10 minutes ago, exchemist said:

The point is that none of us were aware of the background to what you were quoting. You did not make any of this clear. Furthermore it seems remarkably pointless for you to rehearse, on this forum, an argument from the British TUC Congress from 2017, without providing any context and introducing a number of misunderstandings in the process.

I referenced a variety of studies supporting and summarizing my points, have you read them? Do you need me to re link them perhaps?

23 hours ago, iNow said:

The OP posts as if he has an agenda, sowing division apparently one of them. Not your fault

Is this forum in an online war? "Sowing division?" Still waiting for my agenda of course.

16 minutes ago, exchemist said:

and introducing a number of misunderstandings in the process.

With all due respect since you have been on this forum significantly longer than I have, you used terminology which has the strict definition of "
feel or f***** (someone) for s***** pleasure, especially against their will."

I likewise think that is a misunderstanding of how a mammogram works.

17 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

With all due respect since you have been on this forum significantly longer than I have, you used terminology which has the strict definition of "
feel or f***** (someone) for s***** pleasure, especially against their will."

I likewise think that is a misunderstanding of how a mammogram works.

And this was describing someone who works in medicine

20 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

With all due respect, considering you use "Stop being an ass" and "Says you 😂" in your previous arguments, I'm good!

What in the fuck are you rambling about now?

For someone who seems to wish to remain on this site for the long term, I can tell you from experience that your current behavior is not likely to be conducive to that goal.

17 hours ago, CharonY said:

A quick search also suggests that while in the UK gender is considered a occupational requirement, it does not appear to be the case in the US or Canada, for example.

There I believe it also exists in the majority of Islamic countries. Even in the US and Canada you would likely receive stereotypes as shown with @iNow

Just now, zapatos said:

What in the fuck are you rambling about now?

You're proving my existing point, maintain your tone neutral as it will likely have the best outcome.

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

For someone who seems to wish to remain on this site for the long term, I can tell you from experience that your current behavior is not likely to be conducive to that goal.

Feel free to point out where my behavior has been poor in this thread.

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What in the fuck are you rambling about now?

Amazing behavior for someone who wants to "stay" on this forum.

1 minute ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

You're proving my existing point,

You are lying about things I've said. Retract the accusation or back it up with the proper quotations.

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

You are lying about things I've said. Retract the accusation or back it up with the proper quotations.

I don't have the time, but I was reading them yesterday and can personally guarantee a moderator can reference them. Stop trying to be hostile with a person who can reach the same levels.

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You are lying about things I've said.

No, no I am not. Using terminology such as "fuck" or "ass" isn't going to win you the argument, is it?

Yesterday I had the distinct feeling this thread would go tits up.