• Kalash@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ok, so you didn’t read the article.

      Yes, he wrote that. As a response to the google review her boyfriend left after the encounter.

      • Bonehead@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        “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.

        There’s the article…

        • Kalash@feddit.ch
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          “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

          • Women enters doctors office

          • Doctor tells her “I only treat only real women”.

          • Bonehead@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Kalash@feddit.ch
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

                • Kalash@feddit.ch
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  True, my personal feelings about the story do in fact not change how this article was written.