Jennifer Melle wins settlement from NHS

Because it shows she “deserved it innit”… of course… poor male only lashed out because of the most important aspect of “hurty feels”… they allow for all retaliation…

Yes, didn't you know? Victims of misogyny and racism should learn not to provoke men by being "inflammatory", as in consulting their medical records and correctly sexing them in a medical context.👀

https://forwomen.scot/05/02/2025/rules-of-misogyny/

At a glance, 1,2,4 and 8 seems to fit here...

None of which are relevant here as this person didn't use any of those threats. They did use horrific racist language which I haven't excused at all.

As a professional person I wouldn't choose to call any person who has communicated their desire to be referred to as female as "Mr". It is inflammatory. Particularly when by all accounts that person is already agitated and unstable.

If it was an error that's different, but it obviously wasn't as the nurse told this already riled up, dangerous person that her Christian beliefs prevented her from using preferred pronouns and titles.

I maintain that this was not the time not the person with whom to make a stand. You take an already agitated and upset person and wind them up further. It doesn't matter that the person is a horrible person. You can escalate or de-escalate. This nurse escalated an already precarious situation with a volatile and upset person.

She did not deserve to be racially abused, but getting some kind of heightened response from this person in the situation was pretty predictable.

Yeah, nah.

The sex of a person may indeed be of paramount importance in certain medical situations. There are ways and ways of saying that in situations where it is important. One could say "the patient in cubicle 5 who is a trans woman, born male" or "Susan Jones, who is transgender". You don't have to say "Mr Jones".
She could even have said "Susan Jones, who was previously male". None of those are disrespectful.

Having read the times article above it's clear that she wasn't asking about what specific treatment was needed for a male bodied person. She was reporting that the patient wanted to leave. She could have said "Susan Jones in cubicle 5 is asking to self-discharge".

Doesn't excuse the racism, but you nonetheless felt compelled to mention it anyway. Are you going to tell us why it's relevant in any way, shape or form?

No. I haven't changed my opinion.

It's the difference between having a belief and the way one enacts that belief.

I would suggest that a nurse can privately think what they like. I accept and endorse that there are times when to know natal sex or trans status is vital in medical situations. I don't think it's professional to use for ANY trans patient the title they have clearly rejected for themself, or the pronouns they have rejected. It's easy enough to avoid saying "Mr Jones". In fact I can't think of an occasion when my title has been used by a doctor or nurse in a hospital, I am always plain Emma Smith in bay 3. They probably haven't asked if it's Miss Smith, Ms Smith, Mrs Smith or Dr Smith for that matter.

My baseline presumption, is that you cannot control someone's thoughts; they are entirely free to think that it's a load of bollocks, but there's no need to agitate patients in general by using "factual-but-rejected" titles and pronouns. You can thinks it's bollocks, but enacting that is unprofessional. I believe that was actually mentioned in the WORIADS judgement, that deliberate misgendering was unlikely to be treated with impunity.

It's particularly inflammatory to decide to use a "factual-but-rejected" title with a person who is clearly a) violent and under restraint and b) already agitated and upset.

The trans person was racially abusive, but only AFTER being referred to as "Mr". That doesn't excuse it. But it was inflammatory behaviour from the nurse in my view. She could have simply said "the patient in cubicle 5" or "Susan Jones". She didn't have to say "Mr Jones".

I agree with the trust that neither racial abuse nor breaching patient confidentiality is ok.

Ah, so we've reached the "she provoked him" part now.

Carry on...

The patient was recorded as male in their medical records.

Looking at the patient’s medical records, she saw that the patient was recorded as male, not female or ‘transgender’. On the name board next to the bed, it simply gave the feminine name.

You've changed your argument. Initially you seemed to be arguing as a point or principle that Melle should have referred to the male patient as "she".

Now you seem to be arguing for pragmatic reasons that she should have referred to him as "she" to avoid provoking him.

Do you see the difference? They're entirely different arguments.

None of which are relevant here as this person didn't use any of those threats. They did use horrific racist language which I haven't excused at all.

As a professional person I wouldn't choose to call any person who has communicated their desire to be referred to as female as "Mr". It is inflammatory. Particularly when by all accounts that person is already agitated and unstable.

If it was an error that's different, but it obviously wasn't as the nurse told this already riled up, dangerous person that her Christian beliefs prevented her from using preferred pronouns and titles.

I maintain that this was not the time not the person with whom to make a stand. You take an already agitated and upset person and wind them up further. It doesn't matter that the person is a horrible person. You can escalate or de-escalate. This nurse escalated an already precarious situation with a volatile and upset person.

She did not deserve to be racially abused, but getting some kind of heightened response from this person in the situation was pretty predictable.

Yeah, nah.

The sex of a person may indeed be of paramount importance in certain medical situations. There are ways and ways of saying that in situations where it is important. One could say "the patient in cubicle 5 who is a trans woman, born male" or "Susan Jones, who is transgender". You don't have to say "Mr Jones".
She could even have said "Susan Jones, who was previously male". None of those are disrespectful.

Having read the times article above it's clear that she wasn't asking about what specific treatment was needed for a male bodied person. She was reporting that the patient wanted to leave. She could have said "Susan Jones in cubicle 5 is asking to self-discharge".

Think @AlwaysNuance said Jennifer was being inflammatory… re the provoking…. You know the type that therefore = righteous statements like-
”behead all terfs*
”die in a grease fire”
and the lovely threatening baseball bats wrapped in barbed wire type of responses?

You don't think a woman can ever be vocally racist or physically aggressive?