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

Yes I agree. And with @SerendipityJane. I’m not saying I agree with the warning, just that I can see why perhaps the judge decided to include it. The judge needs to be impartial and to create an environment where everyone can give their evidence. I think it’s good the ruling didn’t mandate preferred pronouns and see that as a win. Didn’t the bench guidelines say previously that preferred pronouns should be used by everyone?

but I think it’s the judge perhaps acknowledging that it might be distressing for Dr Upton and saying that the court won’t allow something that is crossing into deliberate provocation.

I suspect that if the good Dr. insisted that his pronouns were "The Honourable Lord Upton"" the judge would have a very different view.

Who is defining how many he/him's are too much? Clearly in a court situation where you are being asked direct questions about someone you are naturally as part of the english language going to use pronouns a lot.

Barrister: Can you describe what Dr Upton did that day?

Claimant: Yes, he did this, then he did that, afterwards he said xyz, then I saw him the later that day and he also did.....so on and so on.

Potentially loads of he/him's as part of normal speech.

I think the ‘gratuitously’ thing is because the doctor/ NHS’s application was on the basis Dr Upton said that male pronouns were distressing and he felt harassed by their use. I agree it’s eyebrow raising that one could be accused of using pronouns gratuitously, but I think it’s the judge perhaps acknowledging that it might be distressing for Dr Upton and saying that the court won’t allow something that is crossing into deliberate provocation. I think it’s an attempt at balance although I understand why people find it worrying.

I don’t think Naomi Cunningham or the nurse in the case are likely to go out of their way to ‘excessively’ use male pronouns or so anything that could (objectively!) be described as harassing the other party’s witness, so hopefully it’s just an acknowledgment that the court doesn’t want any witness to feel harassed and nothing further will come of it.

edit for typos

How, exactly, do you use pronouns "gratuitously and repeatedly"? I mean, they'll be repeated every time he's referred to. Who decides whether or not that's "gratuitous"? On what grounds or basis is this decision going to be made? And what sanction would the court use if it did decide that "he" was being used "gratuitously and repeatedly" by a witness? Order the use of another pronoun, under threat of Contempt of Court? Fine the witness?
I can see the defence barrister constantly objecting over this, breaking the flow of testimony, hoping that one of his objections will stick if he throws enough out. Hopefully the court won't indulge him.

Or like Maria MacLachlan, the judge might punish the victim for telling the truth by reducing compensation.

Absolutely!

👏 👏 the tide is really turning!!

Oh thank goodness. I saw some coverage earlier in the week about the application that had been made and thought it was quite concerning that a court was being asked to mandate language in this way. The warning about using it ‘gratuitously’ is odd, but I’m pleased there’s no (for now) mandated language.

“used gratuitously and offensively on a repeated basis with no good reason to do so”.

and then what, the tribunal will force everyone to start saying she!!!!

Dr Upton is a man. The correct pronouns for a man, under the rules of the English language, are he/him/his. I suppose I can forgive people using their preferred language. However, they categorically should be allowed to use correct English language.

But he warns the tribunal, being held in Edinburgh, will not hesitate to intervene if male pronouns are “used gratuitously and offensively on a repeated basis with no good reason to do so”.

This sounds like something off of a comedy sketch. What they going to do, employ a "he/him" counter to make sure no-one exceeds their pronouns per minute allowance?