Dr loses job for refusing to use hypothetical preferred pronouns...

[picklemepopcorn]

Anyone seen this?

apple.news/Afntf3zVlTtOz2Tt82jpwVw

And what is kind about pandering to someone's delusion?

I'm confused. So people are allowed to refuse to provide morning after pills or abortions etc based on religious grounds but this isn't acceptable?

No need for confusion MrsxRocky that's exactly how it stands. Sometimes religion trumps and sometimes it doesn't. The winner will always be a man or a woman who loves patriarchy.

OldCrone those quotes are absolutely reasonable in my opinion and he should not lose his job for this.

It's a shame it's being raised as a Christian issue as I think just normal reasoning is enough.

I would suggest to every young person reading these boards to identify as non specific gender, the plus sign on the the LGBTQ+ if they wish to get the proper abortion services they desire.

Never mention religion. Pronouns are their.

The T plus always trumps the religion. Always.

I think the issue here like the student thrown of his social work course is the clear line between belief and actions. Currently this Doctor hasn't done anything but express his beliefs so it would be wrong to sack him. If however he refuses point blank to address someone by their legal name and title it would be another matter.
It's the pre-emptive action that's truly fightening, so I hope he wins but I wish he'd stop pontificating.

It's a shame it's being raised as a Christian issue as I think just normal reasoning is enough.

This^
Christian Legal Centre (..spoiler alert: I can’t think of a case that I had hoped they would win...) tend not to win their cases, so I don’t know if this one will turn out the be the key case that sets the precedent for defining the limits of how far an employer can compel speech.

Maya F’s case looks likely to be more widely relevant once that is concluded, as she isn’t arguing it around her rights to religious freedom and expression.

Christian Legal Centre are good at grabbing media attention though so this case will definitely be one to watch.

I do find it very odd that for other types of body dysphoria the last thing you should do is affirm the belief, eg telling an anorexic they really are as fat as they think. But with gender dysphoria there is this idea that we are all supposed to join in and confirm the delusion, nodding our heads and saying "oh yes, you are definitely a woman and that is definitely a lady penis". Why are the two similar conditions to be treated so differently?

I hope he wins and I hope he gets a lot of press coverage.

Basing the case on his religious views is an interesting angle. I'm atheist but everyone has the right to freedom of belief or lack off and he seems to be looking at a conflict of belief. So even from my atheist POV I think this is an interesting case. Neither him nor I or anyone else should have the beliefs of others forced upon us. I no more want Catholicism, (I'm Catholic apostate) forced upon me than I do gender ideology, I believe in neither as is my right.

I hope his legal team are good enough.

He doesn't have to believe they are genuinely a man or a woman, but out of professionalism and perhaps Christian kindness just treat people with respect

Where is the respect for women by men demanding to be addressed by female pronouns?

Why does the respect only go one way?

I do find it very odd that for other types of body dysphoria the last thing you should do is affirm the belief, eg telling an anorexic they really are as fat as they think. But with gender dysphoria there is this idea that we are all supposed to join in and confirm the delusion, nodding our heads and saying "oh yes, you are definitely a woman and that is definitely a lady penis". Why are the two similar conditions to be treated so differently

Spot on!

I too wish Christianity had been left out of it.

These sentences from his statement stuck out to me:

"The medic said that documents he was provided with before the course did not indicate he may be required to use pronouns 'in accordance with arbitrary choices rather than in accordance with English grammar and common sense'."

"'What I object to is being forced to do violence to language and common sense, in a ritual denial of an obvious truth, for the sake of an ideology which I disbelieve and detest."

"'I don't believe a person can change their gender. It's not scientifically or medically possible. We have a problem here of two world views that struggle to accept each other.'"

He should've stuck to"common sense, science and medicine.

So if the DWP expect the doctor to unquestioningly defer to the claimant's wishes when it comes to pronoun use and identifying as a chosen sex, why does it not extend the same courtesy to claims of illness and disabilities?

This is one to watch with interest

Very much so. I just read this on Yahoo and headed here to see if it was being discussed.

It’s utterly chilling: demanding that a doctor, who has had 30 years of daily dealings with sex/biology-based illnesses, collude in language policing that runs contrary to his medical training and personal/religious beliefs, and sanctioning him for refusing to submit - how the fuck can this be happening?

Good point seahorses.

Would article 10 of the European convention of human rights apply here?;

“(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

Or would the above be moot in the light of

“2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Self ID is not law. People with a GRC are treated as their acquired sex, people without one cannot legally demand that treatment. So in this case section a) would protect the doctors right to not be sacked for a hypothetical situation, and b) would not apply.

Thank you, TheInebriati

I kept getting genuinely confused regarding self-ID, as there seems to be a lot of deliberate obfuscation regarding its legality, such as the threat of ‘hate crime’ sanctioning for misgendering, etc.

I wonder whether he was obliged to make it a faith based objection in order to get legal representation? Perhaps he didn't have access through his union due to their excessive wokeness.

I wonder how we could find out?

for the protection of health

I'd say correct sexing is vital for this.

If this case can show that gender ideology is a faith/belief then no one can be forced to believe in it. I think this is a really important case on the basis of belief.

i hate this idea of someone owning the language someone uses when talking to you, to the extent youre legally obliged to go along with their personal beliefs and pretend you agree with them.

Totally agree Branleuse

At most, the pronoun they should be able to insist on is the neuter "it".

On a Twitter thread, someone "woke-edly" declared "I don't use any pronouns" (about themselves). A more enlightened responder pointed out that "I" is a pronoun.

Did they have too many doctors on their books and wanted one to leave?

Yes so the DWP are allowing self ID for gender but not self ID for disability.

I wonder why this might be.

Yes so the DWP are allowing self ID for gender but not self ID for disability

Quite.

This raises interesting issues of Dwp policy re transgender customers.

HOWEVER the case is really not about that. The DWP are under what’s called the Public Sector Equality Duty. The doctor is alleged discrimination on religious grounds.

While i’m GC (albeit atheist) and have huge sympathy for the doctor’s view, we musn’t mix up the case and its outcome with the important issues it raises.

The doctor himself doesn’t help by sometimes mixing gender and equality in his statements.