Doctor took one for the team, he isn't happy about pregnant people

It’s not a win at all if we just end up with a resurgence of gender based oppression from the Christian Right who believe that restrictive gender roles are innate and part of God’s plan...

^For the “just” there is a resurrection to everlasting life, but for
the “unjust” there is everlasting torment in Hell. It is not a mercy
killing to precipitate a person into Hell.^

His reason for not agreeing with euthanasia is that it will mean some people go to 'everlasting torment in Hell' sooner than they may otherwise have done.

Give it up, twofingers. He's a total fruitcake.

www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/31/we-dont-know-enough-about-death

Nutjob.

Worth posting this again... the team he has ‘taken one’ for is certainly not one I support... It’s the origin of the oppression of women by gender!

looktwofingers a third of Irish people - mainly the hardcore religious - voted to keep abortion illegal. Have a guess what category this guy is likely to fall into.

I don't understand why people feel the need to defend a nutjob just because their views happen (for completely different reasons) to coincide on one thing.

I'd be interested in knowing what his views are about homosexuality and abortion.

This is the problem - if you ally with this sort of shitbag on the trans issue, it gives them broader legitimacy. And that in turn bolsters their influence in areas where the real-world potential for harm is (I would argue) far greater.

Offred, well, quite.

I’d bet my life he’s come from general practice where doctors are more able to get away with this shit due to being contractors.

Wouldn't surprise me if he'd moved on pushed out of that either.

I also find it amusing that his ‘conscientious objection’ due to his Christian faith is about using pronouns and he has no problem with working for DWP doing these assessments...

Offred, I wouldn't be surprised, but I've only read this thread and article and haven't trawled the internet for his whinging. I wouldn't be surprised if the Christian Institute or whatever they're called are probably sticking their oar in, too. I think he's in the wrong. I'm irritated that this sort of nonsense is lumped in with GC arguments, without any nuance at all, but that's the way things go. At the end of the day, everyone is free to have and state objections to anything they like for whatever reason, and sometimes that means you won't be able to do a job. As long as no lies are involved, that's that.

Well no, he’s complaining all over the internet that DWP didn’t want to hire him once they discovered he was going to be practicing Christian activism as well as doing medical assessments... I’d bet my life he’s come from general practice where doctors are more able to get away with this shit due to being contractors.

This isn’t a great article, particularly as it only touches on a narrow range of points. GPs I know are concerned that changes to legislation could allow patients to demand that all trace of their natal sex be deleted from their records. This would then mean transgender women miss out on prostate screening and transgender men cervical and breast screening, and would therefore pose a risk to patients’ health.

I would be surprised if this GP wasn’t also concerned about such issues, which I don’t think have been significant in the past because the older generation of transsexuals have gone about things very differently than current trans activists.

This article does raise important questions about free speech and the right to express it in the course of your job, but it unfortunately gives the impression that all people of faith are going to have similar views, which is patently not the case. I am a Christian, and a feminist and I believe that we are created male and female, with biological differences which have been used to oppress women for centuries. I also believe gender is performative - rooted in differences between the sexes but socially constructed. I suspect the Dr quoted in this article would have much more conservative views, particularly given the conflation of sex and gender in the article.

reallybadidea, I think you may have misunderstood my use of conscience objection here. I'm not suggesting he should be able to do the job and ignore the rules because of his conscience. I'm saying he should be free to say 'I can't do that's and then accept it means he can't do the job. Which, apart from some sad facing in the Mail, appears to be what has happened.

I'm not sure that I agree with doctors being allowed to be able to use their "conscience" as a get-out clause. If they don't feel that they can do the job then they shouldn't be doing it, rather than being allowed to opt-out of particular parts of it. And I think treating all patients with respect (and I think using preferred pronouns is respectful) is part of the job. (I also think that doctors who don't want to prescribe contraception or carry out abortions should work in a specialty where this isn't an issue).

I was a librarian - our code was a librarian has no religion, no politics and no morals. There should be a line between the professional and personal.
I have bought and promoted books I abhor. If you are in a position of power you shouldn't be prioritising your beliefs.

RE the OP, there isn't a 'team'.
It isn't about sides and the suggestion that there is primarily comes from TRAs, deliberately.
I do acknowledge that it can also be a turn of phrase.

I mean honestly, who actually wants a Christian activist doctor who believes their Christianity is as central to the practice of medicine as science? Doing medical assessments for DWP?

There has already been a thread about this.

He didn’t get fired. He went to a temp agency and did the training, made his claims, and note he says his faith says ‘gender is determined biologically’ and the DWP said they didn’t want to hire him.

This is not a conflation of sex and gender this is the same bullshit oppression we have always had from the Christian Right who believe gender and sex are biological...

He will be nearing the end of his career and looking for easy, well paid work TBH... I don’t buy the sob story about his ‘career’.

This is not conscienscous objection, this is another example of a Doctor arrogantly believing they can hide behind conscientious objection when they find they can’t impose their beliefs on patients in a professional capacity.

reallybadidea I don't disagree with your substantive point, but for him it is a conscience issue. I don't think he's in the right, but I don't think he is being malicious. And, as a conscience issue for him, he has made it clear he can't compromise and therefore the job is no longer his. That's unfortunate, but he's not curtailed anyone's freedoms but his own.