• Bonehead
    link
    fedilink
    -11 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      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
        link
        fedilink
        -21 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          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.

          • Bonehead
            link
            fedilink
            -21 year ago

            Just because it’s a story you don’t like doesn’t make it shock journalism…

            • Kalash
              link
              fedilink
              English
              31 year ago

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

              • Bonehead
                link
                fedilink
                -21 year ago

                Right…instead you just “interpret” it as shock journalism…

                • Kalash
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  31 year ago

                  “identified as” would be more appropriate. But it’s really almost all journalism these days.