The French doctor admitted he didn't have the training or knowledge to treat trans patients - as experts say there's no need for a trans woman to visit a gynaecologist at all.
“I only treat real women” - that’s what French gynaecologist Victor Acharian told a 26-year-old transgender woman he refused to treat in his clinic in the south-west of the country recently.
The transgender woman, accompanied by her boyfriend, went to a gynaecological appointment when, after minutes of waiting, the secretary told her that the doctor had refused to see her.
“I only treat real women” - that’s what French gynaecologist Victor Acharian told a 26-year-old transgender woman he refused to treat in his clinic in the south-west of the country recently.
Yes … that’s what we call “editorialized”. He did say that, but not when he refused her treatment, but way later. You need to read the whole thing.
What actually happened (as per reading the FULL adticle):
Women enters doctors office
Doctor politley refused her and offers to refer her
Women throws a fit, insults staff
Boyfriend writes google review
Doctor replys with the “I only treat only real women”.
This is very different from what the editorialized title and first paraghraph imply, which is
If the story is “editorialized”, then you don’t know exactly what happened just as much as I do. So your interpretation is just that…an interpretation. But we do know that the doctor was a dick about it after the fact, so he likely was a dick about it when it happened.
Sure, we don’t know what actually happened because everyone interview could have been lying. That’s not the point.
The headline and first paragraph, which acts as a summary are editorialized. That means they are inentionally hyperbolic and try to make the story as “shocking” as possible, because that gives you clicks.
Unfortunatly that is all most people read as is evident by this comment section.
There’s the article…
Yes … that’s what we call “editorialized”. He did say that, but not when he refused her treatment, but way later. You need to read the whole thing.
What actually happened (as per reading the FULL adticle):
Women enters doctors office
Doctor politley refused her and offers to refer her
Women throws a fit, insults staff
Boyfriend writes google review
Doctor replys with the “I only treat only real women”.
This is very different from what the editorialized title and first paraghraph imply, which is
Women enters doctors office
Doctor tells her “I only treat only real women”.
If the story is “editorialized”, then you don’t know exactly what happened just as much as I do. So your interpretation is just that…an interpretation. But we do know that the doctor was a dick about it after the fact, so he likely was a dick about it when it happened.
Sure, we don’t know what actually happened because everyone interview could have been lying. That’s not the point.
The headline and first paragraph, which acts as a summary are editorialized. That means they are inentionally hyperbolic and try to make the story as “shocking” as possible, because that gives you clicks.
Unfortunatly that is all most people read as is evident by this comment section.
Just because it’s a story you don’t like doesn’t make it shock journalism…
True, my personal feelings about the story do in fact not change how this article was written.
Right…instead you just “interpret” it as shock journalism…
“identified as” would be more appropriate. But it’s really almost all journalism these days.