To think that for medical reasons it is important that transgender people are correctly sexed

[MenstruatorExtraordinaire]

Saw this doctor on This Morning being called a bigot by Piers Morgan

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7227479/Doctor-sues-government-sacked-trans-views.html

Religious views aside, I think he raises an important point.

I've seen several cases recently where transgender people have been incorrectly identified by medical staff leading to their death/serious injury or the death of a baby.

Surely the solution is to retain their correct sex on medical records, birth certificate etc with a TG marker.

So AIBU to think that for medical reasons alone it is important that transgender people are correctly sexed?

Right - so they've fired him for an attitude that is going to pervade his work.

He's used Christianity as an excuse for his beliefs, so I would expect a Dr saying that they will treat patients having sex outside of a marriage in accordance with his religion to be equally sanctioned.

How does it affect his work to understand that sex and communication of sex is viable to avoid the chance of harm?

He's used Christianity as an excuse for his beliefs, so I would expect a Dr saying that they will treat patients having sex outside of a marriage in accordance with his religion to be equally sanctioned.

Except of course a Doctor IS allowed to refuse to treat biological women where the treatment contradicts their religion without fear of being sacked

Except of course a Doctor IS allowed to refuse to treat biological women where the treatment contradicts their religion without fear of being sacked

Are they? I thought the only thing they could do was refuse to be involved in arranging or providing a termination. Even then, they have to refer to another colleague and would need to be professional whilst doing this - not repeating how much they disagree with the woman's choice.

So why can't this doctor refer such cases to someone else rather than getting sacked?

Termination, morning after pill, contraception.

This doctor hasn't refused to treat or refer anyone remember.

Shall we start on skewing statistics now?

How that will directly affect the funding streams for many treatments, research etc etc

He's been fired for refusing to agree to hypothetically use the pronouns demanded.

How bloody minded. Still, if he won't agree in principle what else can they do? It would be like a doctor stating upfront that s/he will not acknowledge a same-sex marriage and will instead refer to the patient or their next of kin as the "boyfriend" amd not husband.

Rightly or wrongly, there are protected characteristics and discrimination laws that have to be complied with. And if a doctor is bloody-minded enough that they cannot just use a word, even if they personally do not agree with it, then people's hands are going to get tied.

There is no law that says you have to be compelled to lie about someone's sex.

This is ridiculous. Sorry I haven't RTFT and my point isn't directly about this case ...

I was registering for a new doctor today for myself and my male children.

Amongst the totem options were Ms, Mr, Mx, other ...

Proceed to 'gender' (not 'sex'): male, female (maybe other here too).

At the end of mine but not DSs was extra questions for female patients only. These asked about smear test history and if I'd had a hysterectomy. Completely reasonable. BUT as they'd only asked gender and not sex, how the hell can this comprehensively cover everyone? A female who identifies as a Mr, a Mx with an 'other' gender, a male who identifies as a female would then automatically be invited for a smear test if they'd (you would expect) never had one.

This is a case of medical safety being trumped by over sensitivity. Bonkers.

There is no law that says you have to be compelled to lie about someone's sex.

Asking you to use words that you think ought to denote biological sex, in a different way, is not asking you to lie about anyone's biological sex.

JAPAB

I agree.

In any other example no one would defend the Dr.

Asking you to use words that you think ought to denote biological sex, in a different way, is not asking you to lie about anyone's biological sex.

Denoting biological sex is not an optional thing. It is what it is. You can't change it.

It is not something that you can identify out of.

Course it's lying about someone sex. Which is why men identifying as women can go on all women shortlists, play in female sport, etc.

Asking you to use words that you think ought to denote biological sex,

Lol.

Asking people to use words that have a defined meaning, you mean?

But what words does the GP want to use that he feels that he can't?

The scientifically accurate ones with understood biological identifying meaning.

The scientifically accurate ones with understood biological identifying meaning.

Such as? Only other posters have said misgendering or being compelled to lie about a person's sex. A Dr with a patient in front of them has to make a special effort to misgender someone don't they? Why would the Dr have any need to use any other term than the patient's name?

The actual scenario that they envisaged, isn't reported.

You know back on what page was it now, about the loss of meaning of words being straight out of the totalitarian play book and it meaning that power is removed from the population because people can no longer describe abuses of power?

Well lets go back to that

What with this thread constantly going around and around in circles with one side totally unable to define bloody anything.

Whats that? A hfsymfh.

Whats a hfsymfh?

Well a hfsymfh is what a hfsymfh says it is. How dare you question its feelings. A hfsymfh is a hfsymfh! People who don't affirm hfymfh identity are bigots.

You are hfsymfhist.

No I'm a gfsguru.

This doctor wasn't fired for refusing to put any patient of his into medical danger: he was fired because he claims his Christian religion forbids him to address a woman as Mr or a man as Ms. That was the only thing under discussion: how he would (in a hypothetical situation) directly address a (hypothetical) patient. Why in such a situation would you not humour someone if not doing so might upset them?

As for the Christian take, all I can say is- let's hope he never reads any medieval theology: it would totally freak him out.

corythatwas

Exactly.

Whatever the scenarion you have to admit that IWs take on it is startlng (stunning and brave, obvs!) These days god owuld be fine with it:

We wouldn't change wine into water but men into women and women into men.

Ya see IW... we didn't do anything, GOD did. That's the point of religion!

If you want an analogy MAN is telling us to do something and WOMEN are saying, meh let's not!

Why in such a situation would you not humour someone if not doing so might upset them?

OK MN - all back to page 1... hurry on up now.. move along, no pushing, madame/sir/ze, hold up a moment, let the little ones through... All back to page one... All back to page 1.

I think the original question was about the importance of knowing what biological sex someone was. I think it's been hijacked really this thread because the reference to the doctor was by the way.