Christian Doctor “sacked over trans beliefs”

I’m no legal expert, but I cannot fathom this. If it’s ok to compel a religious person to believe in transgenderism to avoid being incompatible with human dignity, is it ok to compel a transgender person to believe in the other person’s religion to avoid being incompatible with human dignity?

Bloody hell. It's no longer compel speech, it's compelled belief. Actual belief.

That's insane.

Yeah fraggling check the dignity of the misgendered rams or whatever

Ffs it’s bonkers.

I know ppl in real life know nothing about this bullshit but really really

OK I've stayed away from the Orwell stuff for my own reasons

But

'lack of belief in transgenderism... are incompatible with human dignity'

That's thought crime.

Is it better to think your eyes are going to be eaten by rainbow rats?

What the fuck do these people do when buying pet rabbits or mice for the kids. If they don't want to end up with 500?.

Check their inner fucking essence.

Bollocks. Everyone knows what male female is. Man woman. Boy girl.

If I put a ram in a field with a bunch of ewes but spray it pink first it's not going to get them pregnant, right? Meanwhile that ewe that's always been a bit bolshy will be AOK in with a ram, and great to go in with the ewes if there are to be lambs next season...

'But a panel ruled his biblical view of what it is to be male and female was "incompatible with human dignity."'

!!!

Male female sperm egg dick cunt babies

As seen across mammals, and with male female sperm egg babies across most other creatures on earth

This fact of mammalian life apparently Is a' biblical' nutso extreme religious position and to be cast aside.

Amirite.

Are they even listening to what they are saying.

It's nuts.

I don't believe in it. So I'm a threat to human dignity??

This judgement is absolutely fucking terrifying.

"A 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,"

Men declaring themselves to be women and being validated as such by laws and the state is in direct conflict with the fundamental rights of others ie the sex based rights of women and girls.

Why am I not surprised that once again females don't count.

And as to a lack of belief in transgenderism... are incompatible with human dignity, what does that even mean ???

It was a tribunal - who sits in judgement on those? I can only hope this doesn't infiltrate further.

Fucking hell. Since when did anyone have a right to force someone else to use specific (and medically incorrect) language? If that’s a human right it’s the first I heard of it. Incompatible with human dignity is also an incredibly forceful way of describing the surely quite low-level “issue” that this doctor won’t use someone’s preferred pronouns.

I totally understand they’ve tried to go with the religious aspect because it’s a protected characteristic but I almost wish it wasn’t part of their case to be honest. It’s almost a red herring. The issue is one of free vs compelled speech and the fact that A MEDICAL DOCTOR should be allowed to correctly sex anyone they come into contact with in a professional (and personal, but that’s not what we’re dealing with here) setting.

Damn I thought this might be about that obnoxious tv dr that's had the plastic surgery I think his first name is Christian

It's not only compelled speech, it's compelled belief, according to that judgement:

"A 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," the judgement said.

Thoughtcrime exists. There we have it.

"A 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," the judgement said

jesus, this is scary

let's hope the appeal goes differently

This a pretty scary ruling tbh. Compelled speech. I can only hope he wins the appeal

An update here : www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-49904997

It's not courtesy, it's coercion. Pronouns indicate sex. Using the wrong one is not just a lie, it's misleading, And can have all sorts of implications. Implications which are hidden, if the sex is hidden.

It's a huge power to hand to someone. To let them know they can get someone fired if they don't adhere to their personal fantasy.

I only hope the people who made the decision, are not subject to the same rank dominance themselves at some point.

If only Dr. Mackereth had been on duty when this female transgender person had come in to the hospital.

metro.co.uk/2019/05/20/pregnant-transgender-mans-baby-died-because-nurse-didnt-realize-he-was-in-labor-9613972/

The baby may have survived.

Doctors are allowed to refuse to perform abortions because of their religious beliefs. But they must be compelled to state that human beings can change sex.

Thanks Nettie

'The claimant' in formal reports makes sense but a bit cumbersome in speech.

Here you are Former. It was by Barracker. I think the original article was deleted but you can read it via the cached link.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3603320-Pronouns-are-Rohypnol?pg=2

‘You’ is fine for the actual assessment - the doctor still would have to write a report, hence my suggestion he wrote ‘the claimant’ if he did not want to use a person’s preferred pronouns.

The only way to address a person in the English language is the pronoun 'You', which is genderless. He/she are used when talking about somebody, not to somebody. What right has a person to tell me how I should talk about them?

Exactly, when talking to thevperson he would use you which is a universal address. When talking about them to another person he is not addressing them directly so how is he causing them offence?

There was a really good article regarding the rohypnol or pronouns maybe someone has a link?

I thought this was going to be about the student who was thrown out of uni for their religious (i think) thoughts about gay marriage while on a social work course.

Seems that's a different situation...

Is anyone seeing anything striking here? Get rid of academics who refuse to say what they are told, get rid of doctors who refuse to say what they are told...

His job has nothing to do with whether or not he believes they are the gender they are though. He is assessing their ability to work. Which pronoun he uses in his report shouldn't alter that. We don't have compulsory make up your own pronouns in this country

For me, his role as a DWP assessor is analogous to the registrars who did not want to marry same sex couples or do civil partnerships. Each of them has the right to their beliefs but not when they are undertaking an ‘official’ role acting on behalf of the state.

Surely the doctor could have done what lots of posters do here and avoided pronouns by using ‘the claimant said etc’?

The only way to address a person in the English language is the pronoun 'You', which is genderless. He/she are used when talking about somebody, not to somebody. What right has a person to tell me how I should talk about them?