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?

Fucking hell!

That's another rabbit hole we fell down!

it’s not the court’s role to rule on what is true.

That's right. I suppose part of what I'm trying to highlight is where the right to hold certain beliefs clashes with anti-discrimination law, particularly when it comes to employment. I think people who are opposed to the (false) tenets of trans ideology are on increasingly shaky ground, because 'gender identity' has been recognised as a protected category in discrimination law in many jurisdictions (as well as in hate crime legislation), despite the fact that it has no objective definition beyond superficial sex-role stereotypes, and in flagrant disregard for the way it essentially extinguishes another protected category, sex.

By protecting 'gender identity' as a category akin to race or disability, governments have made it difficult for people to publicly challenge trans ideology. They've erroneously equated the expression of sex-role stereotypes with an immutable characteristic of the body (like race or sex), so that if others won't fully participate in a trans-identifed person's self-image (to quote Dave Chapelle), they are said to have violated the dignity of this person as a human being.

That's why I worry that Maya will lose her case, as this doctor has here. I think it's outrageous that she lost her job for stating very reasonable and fact-based views, and she has every right to take her employer to court over it. As long as 'gender identity' is enshrined in law though, employers will continue to force people to play along with it, and the courts will likely back them up.

But doesn't discrimination have to rely on singling that person out from other people in order to uphold it?

I wouldn't discriminate over to whom I was refusing to deny reality. I would refuse to deny it to both someone who was trans and someone who wasn't. I wouldn't treat them any less favourably than I would anyone else over that specific issue.

Dr Mackereth's claim was based on a mix of religion and other beliefs as well as scientific facts.

6. He further relies [ET1/5], cumulatively or alternatively, on the following religious and/or philosophical beliefs:
a. “His belief in the truth of the Bible, and in particular, the truth of Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” It follows that every person is created by God as either male or female. A person cannot change their sex/gender at will. Any attempt at, or pretence of, doing so, is pointless, self-destructive, and sinful.(“Belief in Genesis 1:27”)
b. Lack of belief (i) that it is possible for a person to change their sex/gender, (ii) that impersonating the opposite sex may be beneficial for an individual’s welfare, and/or (iii) that the society should accommodate and/or encourage anyone’s impersonation of the opposite sex (“lack of belief in Transgenderism”)
c. Belief that it would be irresponsible and dishonest for e.g. a health professional to accommodate and/or encourage a patient’s impersonation of the opposite sex (“conscientious objection to Transgenderism”)”
...
41. In his witness statement Dr Mackereth refers to “Transgenderism” and “gender fluidity” as having no sound medical or scientific basis [DM/28] and refers to “Transgenderism” as a “delusional” belief” [DM/30].

I think it may have been unwise for him to describe transgenderism as delusional, because this is used against him in the judgement.

195. We thus turn to the Grainger criteria. We accept that the belief in Genesis 1:27, lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism [ET1/5a-c] are genuinely held and that the belief in Genesis 1:27 and the first aspect (b)(i) of lack of belief in transgenderism are beliefs that relate to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour and attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. We say that because given the low threshold we find that (b)(i) may follow from (a).

I think they're comparing a belief in Genesis 1:27 to a 'belief' that humans cannot change sex.

196. As to (b)(ii) notwithstanding the low threshold, we find that the lack of belief impersonating the opposite sex may be beneficial for an individual’s welfare, and/or (b)(iii) that the society should accommodate and/or encourage anyone’s impersonation of the opposite sex are opinions or viewpoints predicated on the assertion that Transgenderism in Dr Mackereth’s words is a “delusional belief[s]” by reference to the use of the word “impersonation” [DM/30] and do not relate to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour or attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance because of the narrowness of the issue they represent.

I'm having difficulty making sense of this. I think it's saying that his use of the words "delusional" and "impersonation" imply that this is not an important part of his life. If they consider that these "do not relate to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour" for the hypothetical trans person, I don't think they'd have ruled against Dr Mackereth.

197. Irrespective of our determinations above, all three heads, belief in Genesis 1:27, 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, specifically here, transgender individuals.

I'm sure Christians will be interested that the court views belief in Genesis 1:27 is incompatible with human dignity and conflicts with the fundamental rights of others.

Maya will correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure her case is pleaded in the alternative: either transgenderism is a belief that Maya doesn’t share, or her gender critical beliefs are not shared by her employer.

Hi PHB.... Yes something like that -- the claim is that either my gender critical belief is protected or my lack of gender identity belief is (similar to atheism being protected).

Note that "Grainger vs Nicholson" which is where the criteria on protected belief comes from was a case about belief in man-made climate change. Mr Nicholson's belief was that climate change is both real.and important , and he showed that the belief effects his daily life.

But this doesn't mean that climate change is just a belief , or that belief or disbelief in climate change should be viewed as equally valid in scientific terms, just that people shouldn't face discrimination for belief or lack of belief.

I always thought this particular case was weak because of the power imbalance. People trying to access the benefits system are already vulnerable and their needs should really be central. It's more like a Christian nurse praying over an atheist, it's an imposition. So I expected him to lose.
But the rationale for the judgement has gone way beyond that. It's not a careful balancing of rights it's a direct attack on freedom of thought and speech.