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

Re. the blood transfusion risk, i found this relatively recent study

https://haematologica.org/article/view/haematol.2023.283550

Which I've only skimmed. It seems the risk is small, poorly understood but real.

And this from the National Blood Transfusion service

https://www.blood.co.uk/news-and-campaigns/the-donor/call-for-more-men-to-give-blood/

As the NHS allows patients to self ID, it seems to be causing a glaring problem (one of many). Men will also be called to give blood more frequently. I'm assuming this will include all 'men'.

Anyway, back to thread. I'm glad I read the Victoria Smith article because she perfectly articulated something about the Judge's decision that had rankled me. That the truth for women (but not too much) remains in the gift of men. At the root of the entire court case.

would he want potential prostate problems ignored,

If he insists he's a woman, shouldn't he/she just have to put up with that?

The blood transfusion thing confused me. There are many examples where sex at birth is highly relevant - would he want potential prostate problems ignored, for example, or how he would feel if his likely infertility was investigated as a female problem - but I didnt think blood transfusion was one of them.

I see the blood transfusion risk quoted on here a lot, but the largest ever study of 8700 people, published in NEJM 2023 showed no increased risk. Blood transfusions are not sex-matched.

I've often wondered whether Russell is a secret TERF. She's done more for the cause than most.

Good point. So the Judge's ruling seems to go against the Forstater judgement? Also, basic truth. Either Sandie Peggie is expected to tell the truth as she sees it using normal language or the court can compel her to lie. Which is it? Using correct sex third person pronouns is not hateful, it's normal English.

And we have Forstater, which held that even if someone had a GRC, an individual is still entitled to believe they remain their birth sex. And if you have that belief, you’d want to use the birth sex pronouns. It’s not harassment. It’s a reasonable extrapolation from that belief being protected.

At the time of the complaint Dr Upton could not have legitimately had a GRC as he hadnt "lived as a woman" for long enough. If he didnt have one then but has acquired once since what is the court meant to do then? Perhaps they allow "he" when referred t the time of the complaint but use she for now?

Even if he has a GRC requiring me to address him as she in court is requiring me to lie in court. That is not legal in England and should not be legal in Scotland.

"At any moment, Peggie’s right to state her own reality can be withdrawn, dismissed as unimportant in a way that Dr Upton’s “truth” never will be."
This really resonated with me as an example of the bias in the court system.

She is SO good. Wields words like a scalpel cutting through dickheadery.

It's a v important point - not being compelled to use transpronouns for someone without a GRC is less of a victory (but still significant) than not having to for someone without a GRC

And that's why it has to go

@SerendipityJane - I don't think it's a magic spell, just that it would be the GRA, not NHS Fife who would have reclassified them as frmale

Just shows the GRA is a pig's ear of a law. Legal fictions are ridiculous. Especially when they're set up to discriminate against particular protected characteristics as this so clearly does.

I'm sure we have all learned not to take any conclusion regarding this issue for granted, but I'm getting the overwhelming feeling that this is going be an absolute annihilation.

A sense of entitlement that big on that lack of a foundation is going to be a gift.

If the Dr had a GRC it would mean he is legally recognised as a women and I would think the tribunal judge would insist that his legal status be recognised in the court room. The fact that the judge has had to state that the he/his pronoun can be used but only in an acceptable fashion suggests that the Dr doesn't have a GRC.

It's all looking a bit Taliban adjacent when it's so clearly described that way, isn't it? Yes, the other end of the sliding scale but the principle that either men or patriarchal systems set up by men (e.g. the courts) get to define / adjudicate on women's reality, not women themselves, is the same.

Yes, in the UK a few women (e.g. Judges) have got into the men's club, but your normal woman - like Sandie Peggie - is just not allowed to define her own reality or even use the normal expression of the standard language of the land. No, even language is policed by men / patriarchal systems.

I particularly dislike the vagueness too, so forcing women to walk on eggshells without knowing clearly what would - in the judge's opinion - cross the line. It's all a bit handwavy and almost designed to restrict freedom of expression.

So a GRC is a magic spell that can force everyone to do exactly what the holder wishes ?

I know it's controversial, but a man with a GRC saying they are a woman will to me always be a man with a GRC saying they are a woman. No less, but certainly no more.

I understand - and accept that it means in cases of discrimination it enables some equity and relief for the holder. But that is a different kettle of fish as to what I may (or most likely may not) think.

I preume Dr Upton has a GRC, in which case

“unless otherwise stated, other acts are to be interpreted so as to deem GRC-holders’ sex to have changed”

Hard to blame NHS Fife when it's the GRA that has mandated it.

So NHS Fife claim that the doctor's sex and gender identity are female. So they would be happy to receive a blood transfusion from a pregnant woman? Or are they not so female that it wouldn't kill them? So only female in the pretend sense.

Looking forward to their defence in court.

Victoria Smith in the Critic

https://thecritic.co.uk/making-the-patriarchy-progressive/

Nails it

[I]t struck me that Peggie’s case is a perfect illustration of how gender actually functions as opposed to how Butlerians like to pretend it does. To the latter, Dr Upton is smashing the binary, defying gender norms, living her truth etc. But here’s what’s actually happening: one man, Judge Kemp, is deciding that a woman’s right to describe her own experiences will be contingent on whether he feels the woman is doing it nicely enough or has sufficient need to do so. At any moment, Peggie’s right to state her own reality can be withdrawn, dismissed as unimportant in a way that Dr Upton’s “truth” never will be.

Something a pp said triggered a very vague memory, haven't HCPs been disciplined before for offering to pray for someone?

That rings a bell - certainly it popped up in AIBU a while back.

My rather snarky response was "How would you know ?"

Something a pp said triggered a very vague memory, haven't HCPs been disciplined before for offering to pray for someone?

Re. TT, their content must have always been scrupulously factual or examples would have been presented of them being partisan. That the brief wanted them excluded because of what some other party might say about their objective reporting would start us down a very dangerous road toward censorship.

Why is this male any different because of his beliefs?

You wouldn't let a random Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/Sikh/other religion/belief system male change with females because of their beliefs They'd be labelled various unsavoury things.

True! All of the applications we’ve heard about in this case have been about stifling openness and honesty - Dr Upton should remain anonymous, the case should be heard privately, TT shouldn’t report, all parties should have to use preferred pronouns etc.