California Requires Gender Pronouns

[DaveICURN]

Please re-assign if more suited in another thread. Thank you.

This Law, link below, was ratified in California. This law, as it appears to me, is an opening for many issues in a LTAC scenario. To Quote:

"The bill would require a violation of these provisions to be treated as a violation under the Long-Term Care, Health, Safety, and Security Act of 1973, the California Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Act, or specified provisions providing for the licensure and regulation of health facilities, which may include the imposition of civil penalties. By expanding the definition of existing crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program."

And,

"According to "Stories from the Field: LGBT Older Adults in Long-Term Care Facilities," a 2011 study published by the National Senior Citizens Law Center, these issues have gone unaddressed. In that study, 43 percent of respondents reported personally witnessing or experiencing instances of mistreatment of LGBT seniors in a long-term care facility, including all of the following: being refused admission or readmission, being abruptly discharged, verbal or physical harassment from staff, staff refusal to accept medical power of attorney from the resident's spouse or partner, discriminatory restrictions on visitation, and staff refusal to refer to a transgender resident by his or her preferred name or pronoun."

One of my concerns are the Patient identifiers we use before any medication or procedure. Say the Pt is giving a name as "Amy" but his/her name is "Andy" on the hospital band. Would this be considered a medication error? Are we then to perform HCG tests on all Pt. who identify as Female? Will insurance not want to pay us for using the incorrect pronouns in the nurse's notes? I'm worried about how far this rabbit hole will go.

I in my personal career use terms such as "Gal", "Bud", and "Bubby" (for children). I understand that these even are frowned on in the clinical setting, however I find that it increases the sense of moral with the Pt and Pt family when using this nomenclature.

I am interested to read all views, but am especially interested if nurses have seen this in action yet.

God Speed,

-David

Law text: Bill Text - SB-219 Long-term care facilities: rights of residents.

[Luckyyou, BSN, RN]

People deserve to be referred to by their preferred pronouns. Period.

Some people who identify as male can get pregnant. Some people who identify as female can't. If you're concerned that someone may be pregnant, take the proper precautions. You're making a big deal out of something that shouldn't be an issue.

[elkpark]

Hmmm, brand new member, first post. Is there some agenda here we should know about?

Seems to me that the scenario of an individual who is legally "Andy" but goes by "Amy" would not be that big a deal to sort out with staff, particularly in a long-term care setting, where all the staff become familiar with all the residents (might be a bigger problem in acute care, where staff and clients are coming and going all the time). Since when is identifying individuals by the name they prefer to use heading down a "rabbit hole"?

[SouthpawRN]

the key part of the bill text. willfully and repeatedly failing to use a resident's preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns,

[DaveICURN]

I thank you all for the reply. I'll hit on the most important first. Yes, I am a new poster. I am a 1 year licenced nurse and rarely post to social media. I felt this issue was part of a larger issue as I will explain next.

I agree with what you are all saying, except about a man getting pregnant. That's silly and biologically impossible. For these reasons I ask:

If this is such a easy to solve, not a big deal, just talk to your Pt. thing then why do we need to place laws demanding these requests be upheld? Why do we need to allow people the option to sue based on their preferences. I find it an unreasonable action for the state to strong arm this issue.

[bagladyrn, RN]

I thank you all for the reply. I'll hit on the most important first. Yes, I am a new poster. I am a 1 year licenced nurse and rarely post to social media. I felt this issue was part of a larger issue as I will explain next.

I agree with what you are all saying, except about a man getting pregnant. That's silly and biologically impossible. For these reasons I ask:

If this is such a easy to solve, not a big deal, just talk to your Pt. thing then why do we need to place laws demanding these requests be upheld? Why do we need to allow people the option to sue based on their preferences. I find it an unreasonable action for the state to strong arm this issue.

Okay, first of all, an individual can identify as male while still having a functioning uterus, so pregnancy as well as diseases of those organs needs to be considered.

If everyone were educated and respectful of other people's gender expression there would not be a need for such laws. Unfortunately we don't live in such a world so legislation is needed to protect patients from the behavior of the bigoted and ignorant.

[elkpark]

Okay, first of all, an individual can identify as male while still having a functioning uterus, so pregnancy as well as diseases of those organs needs to be considered.

If everyone were educated and respectful of other people's gender expression there would not be a need for such laws. Unfortunately we don't live in such a world so legislation is needed to protect patients from the behavior of the bigoted and ignorant.

^^ Exactly.

[klone, MSN, RN]

I agree with what you are all saying, except about a man getting pregnant. That's silly and biologically impossible. For these reasons I ask: .

Not silly, and has happened several times (these are three different men, in case it's not clear from the article titles).

Transgender man gives birth to boy - CNN

Transgender Man Navigates Fatherhood After Giving Birth to Baby Boy

Jewish transgender man gives birth and embraces life as a single ‘abba' | Jewish Telegraphic Agency

[DaveICURN]

These are biological females. I stayed clearly that a biological male cannot have a child. I'm not trying to start a slippery slope situation, but it amazes me how much healthcare professionals can focus More on a person's perceived gender than their biological one.

[DaveICURN]

Protect Pt from words? Look, I don't care what they call themselves but if someone starts screaming and yelling at me that I misgendered them then I'll use my therapeutic communication as usual. But to then give legal action into the hands of these easily triggered individuals sets a precedent that is dangerous for nurses in a healthcare field. The day I get taken to court for not calling a biological female Sir, I will gladly take my sentence.

[elkpark]

I stayed clearly that a biological male cannot have a child. I'm not trying to start a slippery slope situation, but it amazes me how much healthcare professionals can focus More on a person's perceived gender than their biological one.

No, you didn't. You stated it is "silly and biologically impossible" for a man to get pregnant. Other posters have posted links to reports of transgender men getting pregnant and bearing children. You just refuse to acknowledge them as men. That's where the problem here is coming from, and that's exactly what the law is addressing. Did you skip class in nursing school the day they talked about cultural competence and culturally competent care?

[klone, MSN, RN]

You just refuse to acknowledge them as men.

This exactly. As Elkpark said, it's attitudes such as yours that necessitate this law.