Government drops doctor who denied gender can be changed

[BiologyIsReal]

Article on page 11 of print version of D. Tel that I can't find the online version of, which is annoying.

Paraphrasing: a doctor has had his contract terminated as a govt. medical assessor after refusing to renounce his Christian belief that gender is fixed at birth.

Dr David Mackereth has worked for 26 y ears as an NHS doctor but was told he could not become a DWP disability assessor if he refused to identify patients by their preferred gender.

DWP spokeswoman said the Equality Act made it unlawful to discriminate on grounds of a protected characteristic such as gender reassignment.

Not a surprising result from our 'woke' Westminster bubble persona of course. But what really struck me was that in an article that was a whole column long and a page lead the world 'sex' does not appear once. It is gender, gender, gender all the way.

This is probably the most outstanding example I've seen so far of the complete replacing of the word 'sex' by this Humpty Dumpty (as in Alice through the Looking Glass) word by the meaningless construct word 'gender'.

It makes it so clear what is going on. In order to promulgate the big lie that sex can be changed, which no one of any basic intelligence gives credence to, you invent a new meaning to replace it - the word gender - than stealthily use it to replace the correct word - sex.

If you want to promulgate a lie, the simplest way is to spread confusion.

Link to the Sunday Telegraph's article:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/08/government-drops-doctor-says-gender-given-birth/

OP, I agree with you that past conflation sex with gender and now replacement of sex by gender is a big problem.

This doctor is reported as saying that "gender and sex are determined at birth".

I think even though he implies that gender is not sex, this is too vague. I assume that he probably means gender identity because this is an article related to his attitudes towards transgender people.

I am becoming very much more pedantic about the use of the word "gender" because lazy use of words and deliberate distortion of words are weapons that are enabling the removal of rights and protections from women and girls. Therefore, I say:

Sex is unchangeably determined by biology at conception.
Sex role is assigned by society at birth.
Sex role is also called gender role.
Gender role is how society treats someone's femaleness or maleness.
Gender identity is how female and/or feminine and/or male and/ masculine someone feels. Gender identity is not assigned, it is an internal feeling.
Gender expression is how someone expresses their femininity or masculinity.

Gender is used as an adjective in too many non-sex-related terms for it to be an accurate synonym for the noun sex.

told he could not become a DWP disability assessor if he refused to identify patients by their preferred gender

But you can be one if you ask mentally ill people why they haven't attempted suicide yet.

Says it all really.

What happens when he gets a TW who requires PIP because of mets from prostate cancer? How do they deal with that if sex is no reality?

Thanks for sharing OP. It looks like they might be using "sex" now, too?

Dr David Mackereth has worked for 26 years as an NHS doctor but was told he could not be employed as a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) disability assessor if he refused to identify patients as being of a sex that they did not see themselves as.

The 55-year-old father of four believes sex is genetic and biological, so established at birth.

“I’m not attacking the transgender movement. But, I’m defending my right to freedom of speech, and freedom of belief. I don’t believe I should be compelled to use a specific pronoun. I am not setting out to upset anyone. But, if upsetting someone can lead to doctors being sacked then, as a society we have to examine where we are going.”

Was this guy probably being impolite? Yeah.
Should you do your best to use the preferred name and pronouns? Sure.
Should you minimize any awkwardness around the sex/gender mismatch? Probably.
But should you actively deny the reality of someone's biological sex if you are a DOCTOR?! F*CK NO! In fact, I think you should have to re-sit your medical exams if you're denying the existence of sex. That's such a fundamental part of anatomy and physiology that you're not safe to practice if you think sex makes no difference.

This is authoritarian, biology-denying, and quite frightening.

I think if doctors can’t do the job that is required of them because they have beliefs that are incompatible then they should reconsider the job they are applying for/are not suitable for the job.

I feel that way about my mother who is a GP who refuses to refer patients who want an abortion - don’t do the job if your beliefs inhibit your ability to do it, there are plenty of different jobs you could do with a medical degree.

This seems like Dave Rubin TBH and his ‘two genders’ videos I.e. not conflating sex and gender at all but actually being part of the authoritarian religious right which believes that both sex and gender are biological.

Personally I find that as offensive as the TRA rhetoric that believes gender is biological and sex is socially constructed.

Interesting.
Hmmmm. Making a few calls to colleagues for this.

There is a shortage of docs in many areas at the moment so I doubt he'll be unemployed. I'm glad I'm a self employed GP so I don't have to subscribe to new think gender policies.
Having said that I'm socialised to be nice so usually call my patients by preferred pronoun (not a big thing in Fife) whilst thinking of them as being their biological sex.
It's a bit like not challenging my psychotic patients too much on their voices.

Yup, wording has been amended.... interesting.

But you can be one if you ask mentally ill people why they haven't attempted suicide yet.

Says it all really.

Indeed. And wasn't our friend Harrop one?

I think if doctors can’t do the job that is required of them because they have beliefs that are incompatible then they should reconsider the job they are applying for/are not suitable for the job.

See, I struggle with this question. Part of me agrees with you. Obviously the patient is paramount and their wishes should be the number one priority. But the other part feels that actually everyone should have a right to conscientiously object if they genuinely cannot comply with something in good faith. I think it's an important failsafe to have. Of course, the healthcare provider has a duty to make sure the patient is well-looked after by someone else who will provide that service. They should absolutely explain the objection politely and in a way that doesn't stigmatize the patient. But if I were a GP and parents came in asking me to refer their 5 year old to a gender identity clinic... I think I would want to at least have the option to ask them to see one of my colleagues... And if I was good at all the other aspects of the job, I don't know why this conscientious objection should mean I have to find another field of medical practice.

believes sex is genetic and biological,

Believes? Science is not some sort of magic, cult or religion. It is based on facts.

TBH I think if your beliefs don’t stop you from working for an organisation that holds beliefs you object to and requires you to fulfill duties you object to then it’s really dubious to expect that you can exempt yourself from performing those particular duties when required.

‘Conscientious objection’ is a sanitising term when applied in this context IMO. Doctors are not being forced into this work that they object to against their will. What they are doing is covering the fact they are using patient’s lives to make a political point about their own personal beliefs and they are able to do so because they have a high degree of personal power.

TBH I think if your beliefs don’t stop you from working for an organisation that holds beliefs you object to and requires you to fulfill duties you object to then it’s really dubious to expect that you can exempt yourself from performing those particular duties when required.
I do see your point, but I still disagree. Firstly, because you could be super passionate about a particular field, and really good at your job, and you and the state have invested tons of time, money, and experience in your career but ethically disagree with something and I think there should be some form of ability to express the diversity in ethical opinion. I worry about everyone being completely conforming in any profession. Secondly, the organisation's policies could shift, and changes to NHS policies could absolutely be politically motivated. But if you want to enter the medical profession in the UK, you don't really have a choice except to work within the NHS. Hypothetical example: the NHS decides that actually it would be better if they offered FGM as a service, because it would be safer for the girls involved and minimize long-term risk. Now, I would want people to be able to object the policy if they think it's against their moral beliefs, because such a policy I would find reprehensible. I don't see how a stance that tells doctors that they must comply or find another profession is helpful in such a scenario. If the options are allowing people to say "for that one thing, I will not comply - here is why," or telling them to up sticks to Australia or go into banking. I know I'd prefer that the objectors still be allowed to work as my doctors.

In the example above, I grant you that I can see the justification for an employer to sack you if they've specifically sent you to some training, but you haven't accepted it. In this case, I am sure the doctor was being rude and there could be reason to think his refusal to use preferred pronouns might cause some patients distress. He'll find another job. But I am mainly concerned about where we will draw the line, and how far this will spread. Because if doctors start being forced to say things like "female penis," or risk losing their jobs, I will pull all my hair out.

Like another poster wrote
It's a bit like not challenging my psychotic patients too much on their voices.
Of course, and you treat your patient with respect. But you also don't pretend the voices are real to you.

It’s simply a difference in where we personally draw the objection line IMO.

I don’t believe really that doctors, who are high status employees, who will work for an organisation which requires them to do things they feel their ideology prohibits them from doing are properly described as ‘conscientiously objecting’.

This stuff has particularly pervaded the NHS re GPs for it’s entire existence, hence why they are still contractors...

Rather than taking on the burden of their own views they are choosing to burden the patients and then hiding behind their individual interpretation of their religious belief - because it is usually religious belief when doctors claim conscientious objection...

I believe objection properly equals withdrawal of labour, not bringing your ideology to work, when you have accepted said work in full knowledge of the conditions of it.

If conditions are changed then there are various ways to withdraw labour and to object. I have more sympathy re changing conditions TBH but this is why I supported the junior doctor’s strike despite it impacting patient care in the pursuit of political principle.

This doctor wasn’t sacked. The DWP simply told him that his views were incompatible with the job they were expecting him to do and so declined to hire him.

This is a goady attempt to whip up the Christian Right IMO.

The point of the NHS is to ensure standardised care which is evidence based and of a high quality and is available to all. This principle has already been eroded by marketisation TBH and it is the worst possible time for a resurgence of goady fuckery from the Christian Right re ‘conscientious objection’.

And the institutional issues and problematic philosophy underpinning these medical assessments is bad enough, do we really want Christian activism in in too?

Well done to the government, then. Religion and science have no compatibility, and gender isn't fixed.

It’s simply a difference in where we personally draw the objection line IMO.
Absolutely, and I do really see your point. I think I am speaking to the broader issue, not just the example given by OP. I am no fan of the Christian right, but I think allowing a mechanism for saying no is important. I guess I see it as the lesser of two evils, really. Because I think people should retain freedom of conscience and some agency over their own decisions, whether the motivation is religious or otherwise. I can't really say that I should be allowed to say "no" to something I just don't agree with, but a doctor should always be forced to play along. Again, who knows how policies might change? What happens if so many people object that we lose out on a significant part of the workforce? Are the people who always say yes to everything their superior demands of them really the kind of people we want as our doctors?
I think that enforcing a stance that an organisation is always correct, their word is final, and telling people that if you disagree, you should find somewhere else to work (even if you either can't, due to a monopoly, or don't want to because you agree with like 99.9% of the principles of the job) feels unfair. To be honest, I think I'd rather have the critics within the system itself, in order to provide some diversity of opinion and possibly a check should things go too far. Because the NHS is controlled by the government, it's not apolitical or fair or always right. There is a top-down culture. We already know that the NHS treats people who are "whistleblowers" quite poorly, that scandals get covered up, even when the violations are clearly on medical/scientific grounds. I think enforcing a "conformity culture" even more strongly is not a great move in the long run, precisely because criticism may be even more suppressed, even when it's valid.
Conscientious objection might be misused by the Christian Right, especially on the abortion issue. I do think that's troublesome. However, I still think getting rid of it completely removes an important ability to say "I just don't think that's right" on moral grounds. Imagine we're living in an age when lobotomies are considered a miracle cure, I've trained as a psychiatrist, and the NHS said I must now refer patients for the procedure. Let's say medical consensus is that psychosurgery is a good thing (as the profession did). Now, I'd like to have the ability to be able to say no, with no other justification needed than my strong beliefs/morals (as I would not yet have enough medical grounds to support my objection). And I would like to be able to continue within my profession, care for patients, talk to my colleagues, and maybe even collect data to be able to challenge the policy. I would not wish to go into private healthcare, another country, or take up another job altogether, just because I refused to refer someone for a lobotomy. A system that allows for me to object to certain things from within is better than one I am forced out of, in my opinion. So even though the principle of conscientious objection is being hijacked by the Christian Right, I do still believe in the importance of the idea itself.
And on the issue of gender, the philosophy underpinning transgenderism is an ideology in and of itself. It's not been scientifically proven. In fact, gender identity is completely unfalsifiable as it relies only on a person's subjective belief. It is like saying there is a God. You cannot prove or disprove it. The example the OP gave is complicated because the doctor is a Christian, so it is two different ideologies clashing. However, I can guarantee you that most doctors will agree that biological sex is a real thing and matters much more than gender to your medical treatment. In fact, your internal gender identity is not going to be relevant to your medical history, unless you use it to flag up whether someone is on hormones, has undergone surgery, or is at risk of mental health conditions such as depression.
An ideology that says that sex doesn't matter is clearly ascientific, and will clash with medical knowledge, no matter what the doctor's personal beliefs are.