Doctor took one for the team, he isn't happy about pregnant people

[LookTwoFingers]

Lost his career by the looks of this.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5952625/Christian-doctor-fired-saying-people-choose-gender-reveals-speak-out.html

Why did he take the job? He knew it would be a requirement.

He took the job to help disabled people.

As a Christian he knows the maxim, "Render to God, that which is God's and render to Caesar that which is Caesar's". He took a job from Caesar and should obey Caesar's instructions. The parallel for me is a Catholic GP. According to Catholic beliefs, s/he should not prescribe contraceptives but obviously that wouldn't be right for a GP.

Personally, there is no way as a matter of conscience I would have anything whatsoever to do with how the DWP treats disabled people.

I doubt he took the job to help disabled people, not convinced working for DWP helps disabled people. I'd have more respect for him if his argument was based on science and not personal religious views which a professional in his position should put to one side. Also he went to the Daily Fail. Glad he's not my GP!

The problem is, S0upertrooper, much of the support for the trans-critical position comes from fundamentalist Christianity, and from the otherwise-arseholish conservative right-wing. This makes it difficult for me - as someone whose gut says that your side of the argument is right - to embrace it wholeheartedly.

thedancingbear - even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
He's only been fired from the DWP - no doubt a blow to his career, but he hasn't been struck off. The NHS is so short of GPs I'm pretty sure he'll still be able to find employment; otherwise he could set up a private practice.

This is a curious thread...

Interesting to look at the up/down votes on the comments on that article.

No-one wants to be seen to agree with the religious aspect, but it seems that many think that being sacked for not calling a man "she" or a woman "he" is ridiculous.

The DM comments section gives a good idea of how the (silent) great British public feels about transgender issues.

The DM comments section gives a good idea of how the (silent) great British public feels about transgender issues.

No it's not. It gives you a good idea what Daily Mail readers think. See also racism, deep-seated misogyny etc etc.

The Daily Mail is not the friend of decent people. If you find yourself aligning with it or its readership, that should set alarm bells ringing, no?

I should probably have said "any newspaper article that allows comments" as there are similar comments and voting on any article about trans issues in many newspapers.

Obviously it's less noticeable on those articles where the comments are obviously censored in advance.

A frustrating read with the use of gender rather than sex. And, tbh, given that gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, I rather think he didn't have a leg to stand on here. I'm sure he doesn't agree with homosexuality, or gay marriage, but he would still have to acknowledge the partner of a gay patient.

I'm sure many doctors disapprove of the choices their patients make, but conscience clauses are for things like life or death stuff, abortion, euthanasia etc. Not just stuff you feel uncomfortable about.

However, if he wishes to make a principled decision that he cannot do the job because it goes against his conscience, then he is entirely within his rights to do that and I'll not criticize on that score.

Oh, and as an aside, I couldn't give a monkey's that it's the DM. I get the simple snobbery about it, but I despise the various campaigns to shut it down because of an editorial stance unpopular with some people. If there are views you don't like in the public square, you refute them, you don't say "Ew, those political views are too, too horrible. Why can't everyone read the Guardian!" Because censorship is fine and dandy when it shuts down the stuff you don't like, but it's an uncontrollable genie, and once you rub the lamp, it won't be 'reasonable'.

The Daily Mail is not the friend of decent people. If you find yourself aligning with it or its readership, that should set alarm bells ringing, no?

Perhaps, but as much as I dislike it myself I know a good few very decent people who read the daily mail!

Sorry, but I think,the doctor comes across as a bit of a dick

Addressing patients by their preferred gender has nothing to do with his conscience and everything to do with being polite and treating patients with respect. He's coming across as a dick and like others have said, I think his reasons are very different from those of gender-critical feminists. Christians of his ilk aren't renowned for standing up for women's rights.

reallybadidea I don't disagree with your substantive point, but for him it is a conscience issue. I don't think he's in the right, but I don't think he is being malicious. And, as a conscience issue for him, he has made it clear he can't compromise and therefore the job is no longer his. That's unfortunate, but he's not curtailed anyone's freedoms but his own.

There has already been a thread about this.

He didn’t get fired. He went to a temp agency and did the training, made his claims, and note he says his faith says ‘gender is determined biologically’ and the DWP said they didn’t want to hire him.

This is not a conflation of sex and gender this is the same bullshit oppression we have always had from the Christian Right who believe gender and sex are biological...

He will be nearing the end of his career and looking for easy, well paid work TBH... I don’t buy the sob story about his ‘career’.

This is not conscienscous objection, this is another example of a Doctor arrogantly believing they can hide behind conscientious objection when they find they can’t impose their beliefs on patients in a professional capacity.

I mean honestly, who actually wants a Christian activist doctor who believes their Christianity is as central to the practice of medicine as science? Doing medical assessments for DWP?

RE the OP, there isn't a 'team'.
It isn't about sides and the suggestion that there is primarily comes from TRAs, deliberately.
I do acknowledge that it can also be a turn of phrase.

I was a librarian - our code was a librarian has no religion, no politics and no morals. There should be a line between the professional and personal.
I have bought and promoted books I abhor. If you are in a position of power you shouldn't be prioritising your beliefs.

I'm not sure that I agree with doctors being allowed to be able to use their "conscience" as a get-out clause. If they don't feel that they can do the job then they shouldn't be doing it, rather than being allowed to opt-out of particular parts of it. And I think treating all patients with respect (and I think using preferred pronouns is respectful) is part of the job. (I also think that doctors who don't want to prescribe contraception or carry out abortions should work in a specialty where this isn't an issue).

reallybadidea, I think you may have misunderstood my use of conscience objection here. I'm not suggesting he should be able to do the job and ignore the rules because of his conscience. I'm saying he should be free to say 'I can't do that's and then accept it means he can't do the job. Which, apart from some sad facing in the Mail, appears to be what has happened.

This isn’t a great article, particularly as it only touches on a narrow range of points. GPs I know are concerned that changes to legislation could allow patients to demand that all trace of their natal sex be deleted from their records. This would then mean transgender women miss out on prostate screening and transgender men cervical and breast screening, and would therefore pose a risk to patients’ health.

I would be surprised if this GP wasn’t also concerned about such issues, which I don’t think have been significant in the past because the older generation of transsexuals have gone about things very differently than current trans activists.

This article does raise important questions about free speech and the right to express it in the course of your job, but it unfortunately gives the impression that all people of faith are going to have similar views, which is patently not the case. I am a Christian, and a feminist and I believe that we are created male and female, with biological differences which have been used to oppress women for centuries. I also believe gender is performative - rooted in differences between the sexes but socially constructed. I suspect the Dr quoted in this article would have much more conservative views, particularly given the conflation of sex and gender in the article.

Well no, he’s complaining all over the internet that DWP didn’t want to hire him once they discovered he was going to be practicing Christian activism as well as doing medical assessments... I’d bet my life he’s come from general practice where doctors are more able to get away with this shit due to being contractors.

Offred, I wouldn't be surprised, but I've only read this thread and article and haven't trawled the internet for his whinging. I wouldn't be surprised if the Christian Institute or whatever they're called are probably sticking their oar in, too. I think he's in the wrong. I'm irritated that this sort of nonsense is lumped in with GC arguments, without any nuance at all, but that's the way things go. At the end of the day, everyone is free to have and state objections to anything they like for whatever reason, and sometimes that means you won't be able to do a job. As long as no lies are involved, that's that.

I also find it amusing that his ‘conscientious objection’ due to his Christian faith is about using pronouns and he has no problem with working for DWP doing these assessments...