High Court Battle - pronouns

[PigeonLittle]

Not sure if this is being discussed here, couldn't see it after a brief look.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10507853/Christian-doctor-David-Mackereth-sacked-trans-views-fight-High-Court.html

I hope he wins, gets loss of earnings, damages, everything.
Thank goodness for the Christian Legal Centre.

Dr Mackereth, an A&E doctor with 28 years' experience, was sacked as a medical assessor for the Department of Work and Pensions in 2018 after refusing to identify clients by their chosen gender instead of their biological sex.

but... This NEVER happens. Amiright.

I hope he wins too. I bet they'd take a different attitude if it was a Muslim doctor going to court.

Good on him

Clash of rights again, but not sure the bible has anything on transgender, though TRA's should be able to dig something up. Interesting

I don't understand how it links to religion? Am I missing something? I had expected the argument to be around science.

I apologise, I misread the DM article, I thought he was also refusing to refer trans patients to a clinic - that wasn't the case. My point about MF and pronouns stands though.

It has to be religion because that is the other protected characteristic. I suspect that because Dr Macrereth asked that anyone trans be seen by another doctor would put him in a position of being reasonable, whereas the NHS insistence was unreasonable given the doctors faith.

Genesis 1:27:

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them male and female he created them.

FWIW I think this doctor is an ass. If a patient introduced herself to me as “Lady Jane Gray” or “Captain Kibble” I’d use that, regardless of what I privately thought. I might struggle to use the right pronouns, not out of intent, but because modifying language is hard. But I’d give it my best shot.

If you’re the patient’s psychiatrist then challenging them may be in your clinical remit. Otherwise? Address people how they want, because a medical consultation is about them, not you.

@Motorina

Genesis 1:27:

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them male and female he created them.

FWIW I think this doctor is an ass. If a patient introduced herself to me as “Lady Jane Gray” or “Captain Kibble” I’d use that, regardless of what I privately thought. I might struggle to use the right pronouns, not out of intent, but because modifying language is hard. But I’d give it my best shot.

If you’re the patient’s psychiatrist then challenging them may be in your clinical remit. Otherwise? Address people how they want, because a medical consultation is about them, not you.

But why should you subject yourself to such cognitive dissonance just to validate someone else's fantasy?

As the doctor himself says:

'My case affects everyone, not just me and Bible-believing Christians, but anyone who is concerned by compelled speech and transgender ideology.'

@everythingcrossed

I apologise, I misread the DM article, I thought he was also refusing to refer trans patients to a clinic - that wasn't the case. My point about MF and pronouns stands though.

Ask to get your previous comment deleted then as it is spreading misinformation.

When I worked in mental health, we had a patient who thought he was Napoleon and liked to be addressed as your imperial highness

We didn’t go along with that of course because he obviously wasn’t Napoleon. Why should someone in their work place be compelled to so something that they know is false ie refer to a man by female pronouns?

This man is a doctor. He currently works as one in an NHS a&e.

Is he expected to refer to patients by 'their chosen sex' in an emergency too? Is it ok to acknowledge bio sex at the point of looking up their blood results or considering likely diagnoses?

If you can be sacked for not being validating enough (colluding in the patients' belief) where is that line drawn? Patients turn up at a&e convinced someone is chasing them, convinced they shouldn't eat, convinced they should harm themselves.

The article gives no real detail. Did he wilfully and deliberately offend people, persistently using a name they asked not to be called or did he have a hypothetical conversation in which he expressed his difficulty with what was being expected?

If it's more the former and less the latter then maybe he was tricky with patients and made them and colleagues uncomfortable etc. If it's more the latter and less the former then we are all potentially in trouble.

It's interesting that he lost his job for one government employer but he is presumably securely employed by the NHS and there's been no concern from the GMC. Makes me think it's more the latter than the former.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-49904997

This is the original judgement he’s appealing against. In predates Maya. He was working for DWP assessing claims for disability benefits

I am still struggling to understand (Monday morning). If someone looked like a man but wanted to be referred to as madam, how does that contravene the Bible. For a start Dr could not be sure they were male and so addressing them as madam would be the logical thing. If however because as a Dr they has reason to examine the individual and knew they were male I can understand the argument to not address them as madam for scientific reasons.

There are plenty of females who look masculine and they could be thought to be men and addressed as such but that would be wrong. I have a female friend who is always referred to as Sir.

I have a female friend who is always referred to as Sir.
She isn't forcing people to call her sir against their will though is she.

this man is refusing to [use the patient’s choice of pronouns] and he is in a position of power over his trans patients.

But he is not abusing his position. He is not refusing treatment. He simply refuses to collude with the patient’s fantasy.

What if they are unable to work because of mental health issues? How do you unpick which things you challenge and which you completely let go? What if they're involved in the work issues?

(I say all of this as someone who uses preferred pronouns but, I am concerned by the lack of clarity these judgements bring )

@everythingcrossed

He was refusing to refer adult patients to transgender clinics which seems a violation to me (and I'm GC). The Forstater case seemed to hinge in part on the fact that she said that she would always use chosen pronouns etc as a courtesy, even if she didn't believe that someone's acquired gender was credible, this man is refusing to do that and he is in a position of power over his trans patients.

Where did you get that from? He was an assessor for the DWP. He was not in a position to refer anyone anywhere.

@Jewel1968

I am still struggling to understand (Monday morning). If someone looked like a man but wanted to be referred to as madam, how does that contravene the Bible. For a start Dr could not be sure they were male and so addressing them as madam would be the logical thing. If however because as a Dr they has reason to examine the individual and knew they were male I can understand the argument to not address them as madam for scientific reasons.

There are plenty of females who look masculine and they could be thought to be men and addressed as such but that would be wrong. I have a female friend who is always referred to as Sir.

The bible is clear that we are all made in God's image and that He knew us entirely before we were even born. That means we are all perfect just as we are and were from the moment of conception. The idea that your body is wrong, that a mistake was made is unbiblical. God doesn't make mistakes. It's an important principle as it means we are all equal before God regardless of race, disability, sexuality, and sex. Undermining that takes us back to the bad old days where evil people thought being disabled was punishment from God, or being black meant is was ok to enslave you.

When talking to someone why does it hurt? Anyway there's an obvious solution, use the person's name rather than he/she much better anyway.

There's lots of issues around trans but whether to appease a patient in clinic and say she isn't the cross to die on - it's devalues the important issues like shared spaces because it lumps genuine concerns in with a right to be called a name or she which doesn't actually matter

@gogohm

When talking to someone why does it hurt? Anyway there's an obvious solution, use the person's name rather than he/she much better anyway.

There's lots of issues around trans but whether to appease a patient in clinic and say she isn't the cross to die on - it's devalues the important issues like shared spaces because it lumps genuine concerns in with a right to be called a name or she which doesn't actually matter

It matters.

Jane was unhappy and felt left out because the girls didn't want her to share their changing room.

Jane was unhappy and felt left out because the girls didn't want him to share their changing room.

Same individual. Completely different connotations. We need to be able to name the problem.

fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/