Debate contribution: Medical Misogyny
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Medical Misogyny
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5099320
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In a recent response to a question for written answer from the Member on the same topic, I welcomed the report by the UK Parliament's Women and Equalities Committee on women's reproductive health conditions. It highlighted the fact that women often find that their pain is normalised or dismissed when they seek medical help from the NHS in England. I am aware, through qualitative feedback received by my Department, that some women in Northern Ireland have had similar experiences. Others have reported having a positive experience when discussing issues with their healthcare provider. I fully acknowledge the range of experiences. However, to the question of whether an impact assessment has been made, unfortunately you cannot readily assess something that is not well defined and measurable. However, I recognise the importance of clinical education and the need to listen to women in this area and ensure that appropriate referrals are made and treatment decisions are taken that best meet the needs of those individuals.
163 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.06 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.73).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.94).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.73 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.94 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.05 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.75 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.25 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:07 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.