"NHS Fife nurse allowed to call trans doctor a man during employment tribunal"

more heat than light in the deleted post to be honest, we shan't miss it

Ah, I see. That poster lived up to the last part of their user name!

And the particularly dogshit thing about that article is that it doesn't mention that Sandie Peggie was SUSPENDED FROM HER JOB for complaining about having to share the women's changing room with a man. That's what the case is about! It made it sound as if she'd just spontaneously got up a campaign to take him to court.

Biology and anatomy are indicators of sex, not gender.

The Edinburgh ET email to apply for online access is
[email protected]

The hearing bas been moved to Dundee. The Edinburgh ET email may still work to get an answer The email for Dundee is:
[email protected]

For subject line:
Re: 4104864/2024 - Peggie v Fife Health Board

More details on "NHS Fife tries to silence nurse" thread

Mic drop. This should be on a t-shirt😂

Heads up: the tribunal’s 10-day hearing is scheduled to begin on February 3rd

Baroness Nicholson refers to the "Legal Fiction of a Gender Recognition Certificate", but even if Dr Upton has obtained one now, he certainly didn't have one at the time of Ms Peggie's complaint, so male pronouns should be perfectly acceptable because that is what he was (and still is).

Brava

She is absolutely right. Thank you Baroness.

What do you think our chances are of observing remotely next week?

If I'm ever in court under these circs, I really hope I'll have the ovaries to say OK, so you want me to swear the oath, or lie as commanded? Pick one.

This is what I've alwayd had an issue with.
You swear that you are going to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, apart from the bits where the defendant might get hurty feelz when you are compelled to lie.

And this is especially important in a healthcare setting. If a patient who has a history of male violence, is Muslim or a myriad of other reasons and who needs single sex HCPs is in a meeting with others describing Upton as 'she' they won't realise they are talking about a man. They won't realise until they're in a room with him. It's deception about his sex, which is really quite important in his job.

Deceiving patients about the sex of their potential HCPs is lying, manipulation and a safeguarding failure. And will stop women seeking appropriate healthcare because once you've lost trust on something like that, it's difficult to regain it.

It's a complete failure of professional ethical standards in the NHS.

And the courts are so bloody misogynist not noticing this obvious fact, it's so depressing.

The obfuscation purpose is anti-safeguarding. It is very much one of the points along with the compulsion and positioning the special pronoun person as more important than the person being compelled. In a court, positioning one side of the argument as superior is biased.

In the Miller case where a trans identified male abucted a female child the judge said his dressing as a woman likely affected the child's decision to get in the car with him. Wrong sex pronouns attempt sex deception, which undermines safeguarding.

I hope I'm never in this position but if I'm ever compelled to use wrong sex pronouns in court I will say that I'm lying every single time. Because it will be lying.

THIS

I was once talking to a mother and her trans-identified child. She was bending over backwards for this child all the time, paying vast sums of money (and they weren't rich) for all sorts of support but she would occasionally accidentally misgender and then immediately correct herself. This was a woman who had unimaginable financial, personal pressures and was also going through menopause and just occasionally used the standard English she'd been using for 50 years or so. Of course he'd been told by online wankers that her accidental 'misgendering' was equivalent to a Nazi war crime further undermining his already poor mental health and weaking the relationship between this boy and the one person in the world who actually loved him unconditionally and would do anything for him.

The system and the state didn't really care, nor do anything, for that child.

It's so bloody evil.

I’d agree with this. I think it’s also particularly important to recognise that difference in belief in a court setting where people are under oath, or owe professional duties to the court, and so must tell the truth. It would be particularly distressing in that setting to ask someone to use wrong sex pronouns.

He added that Peggie and her lawyers “may wish to reflect” on whether it was “necessary or appropriate” to misgender Dr Upton, even though they are legally permitted to do so

Reflected. It is. Next.

I would say that preferred pronouns are always used gratuitously. Their main purpose is to compel the speech of others, which means there is also an element of coercion involved. Their other use is to obfuscate. They serve no useful purpose.

While I agree that any constraint on using same sex pronouns naturally is a chilling power imbalance, I think we've heard examples of genderists using 'preferred' pronouns gratuitously and sometimes offensively. Even quite bland tv shows can have that gratingly twinkly overemphasis on they when referring to 'non-binary' characters.

How do you rule on tone of voice though?!