Christian Doctor “sacked over trans beliefs”

[Frankenterfer]

Just saw this article on the BBC website which appears to boil down to the fact that the doctor in question was unsuitable to work for DWP because he could not in good conscience use a persons preferred pronouns. This seems strange to me because I have always understood that doctors are allowed to choose not to perform certain women’s procedures based on their religious beliefs and I doubt they are ever regarded unsuitable for employment because of this. What am I missing?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-48924966

What am I missing?

1. This is not a tenant of Christianity. It's a tenant of grammar. I suspect it's not going to fly as a religious belief.

1. They were not forcing him to believe that men are women, just enforcing a standard of courtesy.

That does not mean I think they are right. I do think compelling speech in this way is a form of discrimination against beliefs, I just don't think the law will agree.

They were forcing him to pretend to believe it, which amounts to the same thing. Nobody is obliged to participate in someone else's fantasy.

What am I missing

People needing abortions are female.

This is compelled speech. That should be illegal.

Compelling the use of incorrect sex pronouns is not courtesy, it is gaslighting. It's forcing people to affirm something they know is untrue.

The only way to address a person in the English language is the pronoun 'You', which is genderless. He/she are used when talking about somebody, not to somebody. What right has a person to tell me how I should talk about them?

For me, his role as a DWP assessor is analogous to the registrars who did not want to marry same sex couples or do civil partnerships. Each of them has the right to their beliefs but not when they are undertaking an ‘official’ role acting on behalf of the state.

Surely the doctor could have done what lots of posters do here and avoided pronouns by using ‘the claimant said etc’?

His job has nothing to do with whether or not he believes they are the gender they are though. He is assessing their ability to work. Which pronoun he uses in his report shouldn't alter that. We don't have compulsory make up your own pronouns in this country

Is anyone seeing anything striking here? Get rid of academics who refuse to say what they are told, get rid of doctors who refuse to say what they are told...

I thought this was going to be about the student who was thrown out of uni for their religious (i think) thoughts about gay marriage while on a social work course.

Seems that's a different situation...

The only way to address a person in the English language is the pronoun 'You', which is genderless. He/she are used when talking about somebody, not to somebody. What right has a person to tell me how I should talk about them?

Exactly, when talking to thevperson he would use you which is a universal address. When talking about them to another person he is not addressing them directly so how is he causing them offence?

There was a really good article regarding the rohypnol or pronouns maybe someone has a link?

Here you are Former. It was by Barracker. I think the original article was deleted but you can read it via the cached link.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3603320-Pronouns-are-Rohypnol?pg=2

‘You’ is fine for the actual assessment - the doctor still would have to write a report, hence my suggestion he wrote ‘the claimant’ if he did not want to use a person’s preferred pronouns.

Thanks Nettie

'The claimant' in formal reports makes sense but a bit cumbersome in speech.

If only Dr. Mackereth had been on duty when this female transgender person had come in to the hospital.

metro.co.uk/2019/05/20/pregnant-transgender-mans-baby-died-because-nurse-didnt-realize-he-was-in-labor-9613972/

The baby may have survived.

Doctors are allowed to refuse to perform abortions because of their religious beliefs. But they must be compelled to state that human beings can change sex.

It's not courtesy, it's coercion. Pronouns indicate sex. Using the wrong one is not just a lie, it's misleading, And can have all sorts of implications. Implications which are hidden, if the sex is hidden.

It's a huge power to hand to someone. To let them know they can get someone fired if they don't adhere to their personal fantasy.

I only hope the people who made the decision, are not subject to the same rank dominance themselves at some point.

An update here : www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-49904997

This a pretty scary ruling tbh. Compelled speech. I can only hope he wins the appeal

"A lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism in our judgment are incompatible with human dignity and conflict with the fundamental rights of others," the judgement said

jesus, this is scary

let's hope the appeal goes differently

It's not only compelled speech, it's compelled belief, according to that judgement:

"A lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism in our judgment are incompatible with human dignity and conflict with the fundamental rights of others," the judgement said.

Thoughtcrime exists. There we have it.

Damn I thought this might be about that obnoxious tv dr that's had the plastic surgery I think his first name is Christian

Fucking hell. Since when did anyone have a right to force someone else to use specific (and medically incorrect) language? If that’s a human right it’s the first I heard of it. Incompatible with human dignity is also an incredibly forceful way of describing the surely quite low-level “issue” that this doctor won’t use someone’s preferred pronouns.

I totally understand they’ve tried to go with the religious aspect because it’s a protected characteristic but I almost wish it wasn’t part of their case to be honest. It’s almost a red herring. The issue is one of free vs compelled speech and the fact that A MEDICAL DOCTOR should be allowed to correctly sex anyone they come into contact with in a professional (and personal, but that’s not what we’re dealing with here) setting.

It was a tribunal - who sits in judgement on those? I can only hope this doesn't infiltrate further.

This judgement is absolutely fucking terrifying.

"A lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism in our judgment are incompatible with human dignity and conflict with the fundamental rights of others,"

Men declaring themselves to be women and being validated as such by laws and the state is in direct conflict with the fundamental rights of others ie the sex based rights of women and girls.

Why am I not surprised that once again females don't count.

And as to a lack of belief in transgenderism... are incompatible with human dignity, what does that even mean ???

I don't believe in it. So I'm a threat to human dignity??