Christian Doctor “sacked over trans beliefs”

I always thought this particular case was weak because of the power imbalance. People trying to access the benefits system are already vulnerable and their needs should really be central. It's more like a Christian nurse praying over an atheist, it's an imposition. So I expected him to lose.
But the rationale for the judgement has gone way beyond that. It's not a careful balancing of rights it's a direct attack on freedom of thought and speech.

Maya will correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure her case is pleaded in the alternative: either transgenderism is a belief that Maya doesn’t share, or her gender critical beliefs are not shared by her employer.

Hi PHB.... Yes something like that -- the claim is that either my gender critical belief is protected or my lack of gender identity belief is (similar to atheism being protected).

Note that "Grainger vs Nicholson" which is where the criteria on protected belief comes from was a case about belief in man-made climate change. Mr Nicholson's belief was that climate change is both real.and important , and he showed that the belief effects his daily life.

But this doesn't mean that climate change is just a belief , or that belief or disbelief in climate change should be viewed as equally valid in scientific terms, just that people shouldn't face discrimination for belief or lack of belief.

Dr Mackereth's claim was based on a mix of religion and other beliefs as well as scientific facts.

6. He further relies [ET1/5], cumulatively or alternatively, on the following religious and/or philosophical beliefs:
a. “His belief in the truth of the Bible, and in particular, the truth of Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” It follows that every person is created by God as either male or female. A person cannot change their sex/gender at will. Any attempt at, or pretence of, doing so, is pointless, self-destructive, and sinful.(“Belief in Genesis 1:27”)
b. Lack of belief (i) that it is possible for a person to change their sex/gender, (ii) that impersonating the opposite sex may be beneficial for an individual’s welfare, and/or (iii) that the society should accommodate and/or encourage anyone’s impersonation of the opposite sex (“lack of belief in Transgenderism”)
c. Belief that it would be irresponsible and dishonest for e.g. a health professional to accommodate and/or encourage a patient’s impersonation of the opposite sex (“conscientious objection to Transgenderism”)”
...
41. In his witness statement Dr Mackereth refers to “Transgenderism” and “gender fluidity” as having no sound medical or scientific basis [DM/28] and refers to “Transgenderism” as a “delusional” belief” [DM/30].

I think it may have been unwise for him to describe transgenderism as delusional, because this is used against him in the judgement.

195. We thus turn to the Grainger criteria. We accept that the belief in Genesis 1:27, lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism [ET1/5a-c] are genuinely held and that the belief in Genesis 1:27 and the first aspect (b)(i) of lack of belief in transgenderism are beliefs that relate to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour and attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. We say that because given the low threshold we find that (b)(i) may follow from (a).

I think they're comparing a belief in Genesis 1:27 to a 'belief' that humans cannot change sex.

196. As to (b)(ii) notwithstanding the low threshold, we find that the lack of belief impersonating the opposite sex may be beneficial for an individual’s welfare, and/or (b)(iii) that the society should accommodate and/or encourage anyone’s impersonation of the opposite sex are opinions or viewpoints predicated on the assertion that Transgenderism in Dr Mackereth’s words is a “delusional belief[s]” by reference to the use of the word “impersonation” [DM/30] and do not relate to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour or attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance because of the narrowness of the issue they represent.

I'm having difficulty making sense of this. I think it's saying that his use of the words "delusional" and "impersonation" imply that this is not an important part of his life. If they consider that these "do not relate to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour" for the hypothetical trans person, I don't think they'd have ruled against Dr Mackereth.

197. Irrespective of our determinations above, all three heads, belief in Genesis 1:27, lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism in our judgment are incompatible with human dignity and conflict with the fundamental rights of others, specifically here, transgender individuals.

I'm sure Christians will be interested that the court views belief in Genesis 1:27 is incompatible with human dignity and conflicts with the fundamental rights of others.

But doesn't discrimination have to rely on singling that person out from other people in order to uphold it?

I wouldn't discriminate over to whom I was refusing to deny reality. I would refuse to deny it to both someone who was trans and someone who wasn't. I wouldn't treat them any less favourably than I would anyone else over that specific issue.

it’s not the court’s role to rule on what is true.

That's right. I suppose part of what I'm trying to highlight is where the right to hold certain beliefs clashes with anti-discrimination law, particularly when it comes to employment. I think people who are opposed to the (false) tenets of trans ideology are on increasingly shaky ground, because 'gender identity' has been recognised as a protected category in discrimination law in many jurisdictions (as well as in hate crime legislation), despite the fact that it has no objective definition beyond superficial sex-role stereotypes, and in flagrant disregard for the way it essentially extinguishes another protected category, sex.

By protecting 'gender identity' as a category akin to race or disability, governments have made it difficult for people to publicly challenge trans ideology. They've erroneously equated the expression of sex-role stereotypes with an immutable characteristic of the body (like race or sex), so that if others won't fully participate in a trans-identifed person's self-image (to quote Dave Chapelle), they are said to have violated the dignity of this person as a human being.

That's why I worry that Maya will lose her case, as this doctor has here. I think it's outrageous that she lost her job for stating very reasonable and fact-based views, and she has every right to take her employer to court over it. As long as 'gender identity' is enshrined in law though, employers will continue to force people to play along with it, and the courts will likely back them up.

Fucking hell!

That's another rabbit hole we fell down!

And while I agree that basic facts about Male & Female are true, not merely a belief, unfortunately it’s not the court’s role to rule on what is true.

However the scientific facts should be used all the time for those arguing this in the public square.

Human dignity is being wilfully misunderstood. It’s about the basic rights accorded by virtue of being a member of the human family.

Nothing to do with preferred pronouns! See the UN Convention on Human Rights.

This is Christian Concern, of gay cake and other tendentious episodes:

That said, this ruling is troubling:

christianconcern.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CC-Resource-Judgment-Mackereth-DWP-Others-ET-191002.pdf

Mackereth cliamed that his protected religious beliefs were contravened, but:

"He further relies [ET1/5], cumulatively or alternatively, on the following"

Belief that it would be irresponsible and dishonest for e.g. a health professional to accommodate and/or encourage a patient’s impersonation of the opposite sex (“conscientious objection to Transgenderism”)”

You can belive people can't change sex but still use everyone's preferred pronouns and also this belief is not central to being a Christian.

But compelling him to use preferred pronouns is compelled speech, which is a breach of his right to not have to state beliefs he doesn't hold. The judgement goes further, because it say that his 'lack of belief in transgenderism' is 'incompatible with human dignity'. This breaches his right to freedom of belief, because he is being told what he must believe. It's like telling an atheist not just that they must declare a belief in God, but that their failure to do so is 'incompatible with human dignity'.

You can belive people can't change sex but still use everyone's preferred pronouns

How come pronouns are a relatively recent issue? Putting them in emails, on badges, bios.

Is it because it's gone from being a courtesy for transsexuals who were vanishingly rare, to validation for the explosive number of AGPs/cross dressers?

In which case, why should anyone, ever, be compelled to use pronouns that are part of an arousal mechanism?

You can belive people can't change sex but still use everyone's preferred pronouns

And what about all the people who can't use wrong sex pronouns. As ever there is a complete disregard for how difficult this is in practise and how much of a burden it places on people who actually are vulnerable.

Imagine this case was reversed and it was the doctor who believed in trans ideology. A doctor who will be dealing with highly vulnerable people including those with learning disabilities and mental health problems. If this is allowed to stand those people, already some of the most vulnerable in society, will be at risk of losing vital support due to not complying with compelled speech they may not understand.

So that other ruling, the court have decided that a woman is no different to a surgically alleged man.

Most people really do think women are essentially short weak men with tits who are innately drawn to femininity.

This is misogynist bollocks.

FWIW I'm not sure that it is right for a person working with potentially vulnerable people to ignore or deliberately refute parts of who they feel they are. OTOH if it's 100% you're female then the list of jobs will include ones that have exemption for sex discrimination eg certain types of carer etc.

Whole thing is a mess tbh.

That part about saying it beaches human dignity to not believe that men become women literally if they say they are... No one believes that. The ones who say they do are being kind, or have changed what male female mean in their heads to make it fit.

If a prison officer is not comfortable with a male sex offender in prison with women, they are breaching the sex offenders dignity even if that thought is never expressed.

Is that really what they mean? Because it's what they said.

But why. Why can't I make him adhere to mine?

Because your belief hurts their feelings. And that's more important than truth apparently.

I think there are a couple of problems with his case . You can belive people can't change sex but still use everyone's preferred pronouns and also this belief is not central to being a Christian. I bet lots of Christians do belive you can change sex.

StinkyHouse85

That paragraph 82 is all over the place.

So where does it end? A man can believe he's a woman and I can believe he isn't. And if my reality based belief doesn't hold more water, he can make me adhere to his belief. But why. Why can't I make him adhere to mine?

Datun Agreed, which is why I hope her case succeeds under the first limb: that transgenderism is a belief.

her gender critical beliefs are not shared by her employer.

I'm guessing that's what donkey means tho pygmy, the premise of gender criticism isn't a belief, it's a fact. Humans can't change sex. Males aren't females. Pronouns relate to sex and words haven't been redefined to say they aren't.

And I agree. SayIng it's s belief means people can contest it. But it isn't. You can't contest reality.

I feel like these legal cases (including, unfortunately, Maya's), play into this reversal. If we frame the reality-based position as a 'belief' we will inevitably lose because courts and other authorities will, as they have here, decide that the right to express this 'belief' doesn't outweigh the trans-identified person's 'right' to have their false belief validated.

Well, beliefs are legally protected under the Equality Act and there's no distinction given between beliefs which are provable and those which are not. There is equal protection for an employee who is fired for professing a belief in evolution and an employee who is fired for professing a belief in creationism. So I don't think trying to frame it as something other than a belief would be helpful.

And even if you did, there's some really unhelpful stuff from the ECtHR in Goodwin v UK which suggests that you can effectively change sex (after all who cares about chromosomes?) so I don't think you'd be onto a winner with that strategy. Here's the quote:

"82. While it also remains the case that a transsexual cannot acquire all the biological characteristics of the assigned sex (Sheffield and Horsham, cited above, p. 2028, § 56), the Court notes that with increasingly sophisticated surgery and types of hormonal treatments, the principal unchanging biological aspect of gender identity is the chromosomal element. It is known however that chromosomal anomalies may arise naturally (for example, in cases of intersex conditions where the biological criteria at birth are not congruent) and in those cases, some persons have to be assigned to one sex or the other as seems most appropriate in the circumstances of the individual case. It is not apparent to the Court that the chromosomal element, amongst all the others, must inevitably take on decisive significance for the purposes of legal attribution of gender identity for transsexuals (see the dissenting opinion of Thorpe LJ in Bellinger v. Bellinger cited in paragraph 52 above; and the judgment of Chisholm J in the Australian case, Re Kevin, cited in paragraph 55 above)."

Maya will correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure her case is pleaded in the alternative: either transgenderism is a belief that Maya doesn’t share, or her gender critical beliefs are not shared by her employer.

'A lack of belief in transgenderism'??

Disbelieving that humans can change sex.

The thing is, though, that he was fighting this specifically on the grounds that the tenets of gender identity ideology conflict with his Christian beliefs - he was arguing that his employer was trying to force him to profess something that he doesn't believe, rather than that they were trying to force him to profess something that isn't true (which is what was actually happening).

The difference is critical and this is what worries me about not only this ruling, but about Maya Forstater's case and any legal challenge that seeks to cast the factual position (humans can't change sex) as a 'belief' akin to a religious or political conviction, instead of a scientifically demonstrable truth.

In Australia recently we had the case of rugby player Israel Folau, who was sacked after he posted a meme on Facebook that said that homosexuals, fornicators, liars, thieves, atheists and idolators were all going to Hell. It was the 'homosexuals' bit that got Folau sacked, as Rugby Australia said he had breached their anti-discrimination policy (or, in today's jargon, their 'inclusion' policy, natch). He is now taking them to court for discriminating against him for expressing his Christian beliefs.

He might win, but he could just as easily lose, because Rugby Australia do have a strong case, I think, that in expressing this particular belief, Folau was creating a hostile environment for his gay colleagues. The court may well find that the employer-enforced position that gay and lesbian people are welcome in rugby should take precedence over Folau's right to express the fundamentalist Christian position that they are going to Hell.

Unlike the trans debate, the Folau case really IS a matter of conflicting beliefs. It's a political opinion that gay and lesbian people have the right not to be impugned because of their sexual orientation, and Folau's position that they are going to Hell is just that - a belief or opinion, with no basis in fact (no one can demonstrate that Hell exists, let alone which people will be going there).

The so-called 'GC' position is not at all akin to a religious belief. It's a provable fact that humans can't change sex, like the fact that we need oxygen to breathe. It's a reversal to claim that this is a 'belief', when it's the trans position that relies on evidence-free opinion and faith-based mantras. The fact that humans can't change sex is no more a belief than the fact that we will die if we don't get enough oxygen. Both are simply observable facts about human biology. And it creates all sorts of harm to pretend that fundamental properties of human biology don't exist.

I feel like these legal cases (including, unfortunately, Maya's), play into this reversal. If we frame the reality-based position as a 'belief' we will inevitably lose because courts and other authorities will, as they have here, decide that the right to express this 'belief' doesn't outweigh the trans-identified person's 'right' to have their false belief validated.

I think rather we should argue our case on the basis that what we say is TRUE. Sex is real and socially relevant. It impacts on our lives in many ways, and trying to deny this - or worse, forcing people to deny it - causes real harms, as the judge in the Freddy McDonnell case found.

Disclaimer: I haven't read the judgment (which is presumably an ET decision for unfair dismissal and discrimination). I haven't been able to find it online yet.

From the summary I would think that the "incompatible with human dignity" ruling would be unlikely to survive an appeal. The obvious case to compare this with is Ladele v Islington - the registrar who was fired for refusing to carry out civil partnerships due to her religious convictions. In that case the Court of Appeal did not find her religious views to be incompatible with human dignity, but did find that the council was within their rights to fire her. I was expecting a similar decision here.

If it is just an ET decision then it doesn't set a precedent. I have seen some really stupid ET decisions get overturned on appeal. I am not worrying too much about this aspect of the judgment tbh.

please god save pp of faith from insanity.
plus save atheist from insanity too.

Isn't this a breach of his human rights?

Article 9: Freedom of thought, belief and religion

Article 10: Freedom of expression

'A lack of belief in transgenderism'??

Disbelieving that humans can change sex.

A DWP spokeswoman said: "We acted to protect claimants from behaviour that would have failed to treat them with dignity, so we welcome this ruling. We expect all assessors to approach their work sensitively."

What about claimants who refuse to mis-sex one of your assessors, you short-sighted, one eyed dingbats. What are you going to do about your claimants' dignity, when you've forced them to, not just call a man a woman, but to actually believe it???

Rank idiocy.