The disgraceful RCN and Nurse Jennifer Melle

What does “far right” even mean these days? It’s become the de facto insult for anyone who doesn’t toe the progressive line, and just so overused it’s lost all impact. Which, in itself, is what’s dangerous.

Calling the Christian Legal Centre “far right” feels like a stretch. They’re socially conservative, certainly — but that’s not the same as being extreme, even if some prefer to blur that line.

In those difficult child-care cases, it’s easy to accuse them of “manipulating” families. In reality, many actively seek the CLC
support when they feel shut out by the system. You don’t have to agree with the CLC to acknowledge that.

As for the claim they “prolong suffering” — that depends entirely on your ethical and medical framework. Others would argue they’re simply helping families who aren’t ready to give up yet.

Wait, now I'm confused. So you @FlirtsWithRhinos would support HCP being required to use "they"for transgender individuals?

Even if they say it's against their religion? There were also a load of non religious objections on another thread when I suggested it...

Yeah, but since your position is that Jennifer Melle should as a HCP be expected to use words she isn't comfortable using anyway, you can't now turn round and be concerned she might not want to use "they".

Your problem is that you've been conned into thinking the balanced answer lies somewhere between trans women being entirely women, and trans women never being women.

That's a false anchor that has been set up by Genderism's incoherent claim that some men are meaningfully more like women than other men. Any step towards trans women being a bit more like women than other men is unreasonable because they simply are not, in any meaningful way, more like women at all.

The true balanced answer is either "they", or neo-pronouns reflecting a thing that is entirely unlinked to sex.

Neither is everyone comfortable lying by using wrong-sex pronouns.

@FlirtsWithRhinos "False dichotomy. "They" is also a pronoun and it can be used anywhere that a gendered pronoun would be."

It can be, however not everyone is comfortable using the gender neutral "they".

I don't know Jennifer Melle's personal viewpoint as she's only said she uses names.

However, I was thinking about the problem and solutions generally to try and balance all rights.

False dichotomy. "They" is also a pronoun and it can be used anywhere that a gendered pronoun would be.

I consider "they" to be a respectful and appropriate non-gender-specific accomodation for someone who is distressed at being seen as their actual sex.

I do not think it is necessary to go past that middle ground into accomodating a person's desire to be perceived as/treated as the sex that they are not bcause however such a person may feel, in reality they have no understanding or experience of what it is to actually be that sex, only a projected fantasy.

Paying even lip service that that fantasy is in some way meaningful as "living as" the opposite sex gives it a legitimacy it should not have. We should not allow "pretending to be a thing" and "being a thing" to become muddled because that then muddles our understanding of the people who do live as that sex and the needs and experiences they have because of their sex.

Out of interest, if the patient you refer to had not had a Phd or doctorate, but rather was a person who felt genuine mental distress at not being a doctor and had found this was relieved by adopting a social persona as a doctor, and had lived within that identity for many years with most acquaintances simply taking it at face value that they were a doctor, would you consider that meaningful enough that HCPs should be expected to call that patient "Dr"?

This is something I've been thinking about. Just from my own experience in healthcare, I don't see how a HCP could simply not use a patient's pronouns in all cases without issues. For example, by using their individual name at all time. It would work in short interactions.

On my mind, I made a formal complaint about a relative who died under NHS care. My vague recollection of forms was that they asked precisely how he should be addressed as I requested "Dr.". He had a PhD and would have wanted that. Might have had pronouns box, not sure.

(Some medical doctors object to calling non medical doctors "Dr." btw!)

I received a long and respectful report which included I.e. detailed statements from those treating him. If they had not used any third party pronouns it would have read very uncomfortably, and I imagine a relative who wanted preferred pronouns used would see it as disrespectful and upsetting.

I also found a case in the USA where a teacher was allowed not to use transgender students preferred pronouns on religious grounds, using their name instead and it didn't work out.

In these cases it's a balance of rights issues that an organisation has to consider in coming up with an overall policy to address its aims.

@JanesLittleGirl

I support the Darlington Nurses cause irrespective of their backers and I've also donated to "Faye's" Crowd justice campaign. One of her claims is indirect discrimination on grounds of religion.

I would support Jennifer Melle if she was objecting to sharing a changing room with a transwomen based on her religion as well. My concern is bringing religion personally into someone's medical care and how that is navigated. It's also about whether we want to support all causes that are "GC".

I've shared relevant further information on Christian Legal Centre and that personally I could not take money from them, in a discussion allegedly rumours of "far right Christian groups" being behind cases. They are that.

I shared an article about how their interventions had, according to doctors, been behind cases that were "prolonging suffering" of very ill children and seen as manipulating parents. You are welcome to look into it.

I am also personally opposed to discrimination based on sexual orientation and support same sex marriage. They have taken cases on these, such as a B&B owner refusing a gay couple.

Like I say, far right and not an organisation I could take money from because I would not want to be part of their publicity. I appreciate those like the Darlington Nurses were in a difficult position and their union should have taken the case.

@JellySaurus I didn't report your post, didn't even see it. I am guessing it was about some men dressing in women's clothes for sexual gratification? Don't know if any women do.

Oh sorry missed your post a few minutes before.

In my deleted message I explained - perhaps somewhat bluntly - that a trans-identified male often did not experience prolonged distress related to their sex, and seeks to alleviate this distress by "transitioning", but that there were frequently other factors involved in his choice to transition. Other factors that did not cause him any distress.

I do not think I broke any of the guidelines.

@BeLemonNow If a man genuinely felt deep distress at being a white British man and needed to live as a Chinese woman to relieve it, would you expect a HCP to validate his identity as a Chinese woman, or as a British woman?

Agree.

Bee, do you think the use of preferred pronouns is “healthcare”? If you don’t, I don’t see how the comparison with a health provider’s religious objections to abortion is close enough to be meaningful.

Yet you also say "People can and are required by their role to act in a way that they do not view as compatible with their religion or values."

So whether you realise it or not, you have imposed a personal scale on which "values" it is reasonable to respect even if this causes a patient distress and which it is not. And I strongly suspect that personal scale is one which aligns to your own values, one in which (as is typical and usual for our culture) the value of female people is greatly located in the degree to which they put the comfort others ahead of their own needs or desires.

Try and imagine the scenario from the outside. A member of a historically oppressed and marginalised group, one who has been represented in stereotypes and assumed to be less capable, infantile even, simply because of how they were born, one whose literal body has been seen as temptation and used as property, is being expected to play along with the idea that actually their body isn't relevant to their lives, actually all those stereotypes and social constructs are the reality of who they are.

You clearly have a "reasonable" line that sexism falls one side of and the above falls the other. I don't think you could fit a cigarette paper between them.

There is a yawning gap between one poster on this thread and the majority of others but having read another thread where that poster is active, the issue is Jennifer's religion and the identity of her backers which appear to render her unworthy of our support.

I think the yawning gulf between you and others here is about the trans person’s self perception.

You are envisaging a patient who has been pandered to, affirmed, is a poor waif of a person who needs to be perceived as vulnerable and the opposite sex. So to fail to affirm them directly and to their family is an act of awful cruelty. It’s actually a little infantilising, but not unrealistic.

Others perceive the trans patient as one of those boundary breaking men who are thrilled at the opportunity to impose their fantasy life on all who come across them, including nurses.

The pedophile prisoner is likely the second type, but yes there could feasibly on another occasion be the first type as well.

However, both types arise from the culture of toxic affirmation we’ve seen for the last decade. In a world where people are not affirmed for denying reality, where trans people are aware that however they present they have a sexed body which will be taken into account where ever relevant, then a medic using sex based pronouns is not committing a terrible act of cruelty. Personally I think the latter approach by far the most respectful of trans people. And nurses, regardless of their religion.

I can’t see that the nurse’s faith, religion or reasons for calling a man a man are important in the slightest.

I am also coming to the conclusion from this thread that patient-centred care is a crock of shit. At least if it’s not, people should stop using it as an excuse for justifying TRA activism.

What a brilliant post!

Honestly, my bingo card is so worn out I need a new one. You’re following the same pattern as every other ideologue who comes here trying to persuade/bully women into agreeing with you. You start off all wide eyed and reasonable, you put forward several straw man fallacies, you then start making things up, and when you’re met with calm, well researched facts and reasoned arguments you become rude, patronising and borderline abusive.

We don’t agree with you, people can’t change sex. For me, GI is regressive, misogynistic and homophobic. It’s harmful to young people, especially girls, and the medicalisation of these children is barbaric and has no place in a civilised society.

Your anger is best directed towards the people who have sold you, and all the other people, the lie that GI is anything other than a social construct, and affects people with a MH issue or a fetish.

@RapidOnsetGenderCritic I should really go to bed but fyi "Jennifer Melle" appears as a Trustee for Morning Star International Church in Croydon.

@RapidOnsetGenderCritic I appreciate Christians even within a congregation have different views and yes are ethnically diverse. Apologies if this came across as condescending.

Was just looking up the Catholic latest, and found Pope Francis used preferred pronouns:

The woman, Francis said, had undergone gender reassignment surgery and had then married a woman. "He wrote me a letter saying that, for him, it would be a consolation to come [see me] with his wife," the pope said, clarifying: "He that was her but is he."

I quite like the last phrase. Might be of interest.

I'm a member of the CofE and I don't agree with everything that is said and done in its name. The CofE is a very broad church indeed, with members and local churches within it that are liberal, evangelical, and catholic. My own parish church has all those theological flavours within its congregation, along with members who don't have a strong affiliation to any of those. This makes for some interesting dynamics when it comes to a discussion about what we mean by being inclusive! We also have quite an ethnic mixture, and I can assure you that some of the views of people from particular ethnic backgrounds do not match commonly held stereotypes. Jennifer Melle seems to be evangelical, but that doesn't necessarily mean that her views are not nuanced or surprising.