Generating gender generalists

Many points resonated with me when I read Saul Miller’s article.¹ I am a female GP trainee and I don’t know how to communicate with the male species. Is it any wonder, when on a standard day last week, 77% of my adult appointments were with women?

I would even take the argument further and suggest that it’s difficult as a female practitioner to see any male patient. Our triage team have booking rights over our appointment slots to place patients where they deem to be most suitable. This means my slots are often filled with women and a self-perpetuating cycle ensues. Our triage system means we have removed the choice from our patients and assumes they would want to see a practitioner of the same gender. Of course, we all have a tendency towards homophily, but we will never be able to perfectly match our population’s demographics. Perhaps a move towards consulting with artificial intelligence will eliminate the propensity of male patients seeking males GPs? Or maybe it will just amplify existing sociocultural discriminations?² Another solution could be to anonymise gender from our computer systems; however, this has huge implications for screening and the way we manage risk for patients with diseases that are sex linked.

By only seeing women, I feel that I am not becoming a well-rounded GP. Does it matter? I’ll be hopeless at guiding future (male) GPs through men’s health concerns but, if nothing changes, my patient gender balance will likely persist once I qualify. It would be futile for me to learn how to do a hip replacement; is the same true for talking to men?

• © British Journal of General Practice 2023