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

@GreenWhiteViolet and in that context I agree 100%.

But that’s not the context.

The context is:

“Good morning Mr Smith. Tell me how your back troubles stop you working…”

Or

“Good morning Mrs Smith (ignores beard). Tell me…”

I agree I’d the trans issue is impacting on fitness to work it may need to be explored. If not? Not the time or place for a doctor to be imposing their religious beliefs on the patient.

Being compelled to say or agree with things that you don't think are true can be harmful though.

For this reason, I don't join in with uttering the Lord's Prayer in church, I go quiet rather than saying the responses to prayers at the school carol service, I don't buy Mother's Day cards with "best grandma" on for neglectful mil...

There was research somewhere that showed dealing with conflict at work affected productivity and ability to concentrate for a period of time after each interaction. Who knows how much brain space a HCP is using to reorder their speech that should be going on the job in hand instead.

He was sacked because his boss asked him whether he would address a 6 foot bearded man as a woman if asked to. He makes it clear in the article that people need to be able to trust doctors to tell the truth - the scientific truth. Lying about the existence of biological sex undermines the place of doctors in society. Why should we then expect them to tell the truth about Covid, for instance?

"Everyone in the NHS should be able to say publicly without fear that a person cannot change sex, but instead we are being forced to accept a massive change to our concept of the medical reality of sex, with no scientific basis for that change.

'No doctor, or researcher, or philosopher, can demonstrate or prove that a person can change sex.

'Without intellectual and moral integrity, medicine cannot function and my 30 years as a doctor are now considered irrelevant compared to the risk that someone else might be offended.

'If we are to tell patients that they need to "follow the science", then we must not tell them that they can change sex.'

So basically he's suing in order to defend his right to make vulnerable people uncomfortable while in a position of power over them? He sounds like an utter horror show. I have had disability assessments and they are so stressful at the best of times - I can't imagine how much worse it would be if my assessor had started off by explaining that their religious beliefs meant they need to tell me, for example, that my sexuality wasn't real or the Holocaust was a hoax or something. Or, indeed, if they couldn't use my normal every day name because they can only use the name on my birth certificate.

I just don't see how he could do that job and retain any kind of credibility or have any of his decisions respected once he'd gone down that path.

’It is a difficult issue for everyone in the NHS. There has been an explosion of patients identifying as transgender. The ideology to affirm them is enforced in a complex, coercive, and threatening way.’

Given what we know about training sessions and Stonewall and the advice given about what to do if a TW is on a female ward I think this is probably right. If he wins it might have wider (imo positive) repercussions across the NHS.

Interesting you think he’s go on some diatribe about religion - why would he do that?

And why have you brought up sexuality & the Holocaust? Nowhere does it say he exhibits homophobic views or that he is anti Semitic

He’s asking for the right not to be compelled to say a man is a woman

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.

afaict, this isn't something that he's done. He was asked hypothetical questions by a manager and he gave his answers.

Dr Mackereth said during proceedings that he was asked in a conversation by his line manager: 'If you have a man six foot tall with a beard who says he wants to be addressed as 'she' and 'Mrs', would you do that?'

Dr Mackereth, who now works as an NHS emergency doctor in Shropshire, said that in good conscience he could not do this. His contract was subsequently terminated over his refusal.

@owlinnahat

So basically he's suing in order to defend his right to make vulnerable people uncomfortable while in a position of power over them? He sounds like an utter horror show. I have had disability assessments and they are so stressful at the best of times - I can't imagine how much worse it would be if my assessor had started off by explaining that their religious beliefs meant they need to tell me, for example, that my sexuality wasn't real or the Holocaust was a hoax or something. Or, indeed, if they couldn't use my normal every day name because they can only use the name on my birth certificate.

I just don't see how he could do that job and retain any kind of credibility or have any of his decisions respected once he'd gone down that path.

But where does ‘making someone comfortable’ lead? Are we giving cervical smear tests to those that haven’t even had surgery in order to make them really ‘feel’ accepted? Are we completely changing all maternity documents and charts (to the detriment of 99% of those that need them) in order to prevent a pregnant TM catching an unhappy glimpse of something that reminds them of reality?

There’s a massive difference between giving a religious lecture to a gay person or an unmarried mother, and in objecting to being told by your employer to do something that you consider unethical and harmful to your patients or service users.

@Theeyeballsinthesky

Interesting you think he’s go on some diatribe about religion - why would he do that?

And why have you brought up sexuality & the Holocaust? Nowhere does it say he exhibits homophobic views or that he is anti Semitic

He’s asking for the right not to be compelled to say a man is a woman

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was thinking of religious beliefs that I know are out there which I would find very upsetting to be brought up in a fitness for work assessment, just as a trans person would find the religious belief that you can't change gender upsetting to be brought up, which is what the person in this case clearly wants to do.

He is asking for the right to impose his religious beliefs on vulnerable people he is in a position of power over. And I think that's hugely inappropriate and means he shouldn't be able to do that job, just like I would disapprove of a registrar who didn't believe in gay marriage and wanted the right to make that clear to a gay couple or a midwife who didn't believe in abortion. Some religious beliefs are not compatible with taking on certain roles.

He's not asking for the right to impose his religious beliefs on anyone. He's asking for the right to not have their beliefs imposed on him.

@BringBackCoffeeCreams

He's not asking for the right to impose his religious beliefs on anyone. He's asking for the right to not have their beliefs imposed on him.

Agreed. If he were asking for the right to impose his beliefs on others, I'd object to that.

He was asked a hypothetical question. afaik, the DWP assessments don't involve physical examinations. It would actually be straightforward for him to go through the assessment without once using the name or pronouns in which he doesn't believe. It wouldn't be my idea of a courteous process but I would suppose that's the least of the issues with them. I assume the difficulty might occur with the report write-up if the name hasn't been pre-filled for him and if he's summarising any conversation that he had with the client.

A midwife who doesn't believe in abortion is protected in law to not play a part in any termination services.

Their obligation is to find another HCP to take over caring for that patient. As far as I read this article, that's what he was asking to do.

The tribunal ruling stated: 'In so far as those beliefs form part of his wider faith, his wider faith also does not satisfy Grainger [the requirement of being worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not in conflict with the fundamental rights of others].

So they ruled that Christianity is not worthy of respect in a democratic society. I'm an atheist but this is an appalling statement for a court to make in a predominantly Christian country. I'm very happy that all that Maya went through is helping to fight such totalitarian dictats.

He was sacked for refusing to lie. This is what it boils down to.

It will be interesting to see how this ties in with the Forstater case. If I remember correctly, in the Forstater ruling, the judge said that gender critical beliefs were protected in law, but that this didn't extend to using the "wrong" pronouns.

Of course this claimant is using religious belief rather than gender-critical beliefs, and it is potentially very interesting because of the clash of rights: do religious beliefs that there are only two sexes override the apparent right of people with gender reassignment to be called what they want? It's obviously very tricky because the judge will have to consider a) whether a belief in transgender identity contradicts Christian beliefs b) what exactly gender reassignment means in this context (I'm assuming the person in question didn't have a GRC).

(I'm assuming the person in question didn't have a GRC).

In the hypothetical question from the manager or was there an actual incident?

@highame

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

Genesis - God created male and female and declares them good.

Obviously Christian interpretation will vary but there will be a significant number of Christians who take issue with the idea that our bodily sex is irrelevant.

The obvious solution to clash of rights is to allow him freedom of conscience and refer transgender clients to another person.

Sacking him was punitive not protective

@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

Why would you be using pronouns when talking to someone? I personally think it is a cross to die on. The 'be kind, it's just pronouns, it doesn't harm anyone' has led us to where we are today.

I suppose it depends on whether Mr and Mrs are ‘names’ like any other names, however silly they may seem - so something someone could choose for themselves and expect to be called.

But what about someone calling themselves ‘Colonel’ or ‘Princess’ as their name regardless of their position or sex? Would that mean someone had a legal right to expect them to be used? Mr and Mrs are titles too.

@owlinnahat

Did you seriously mean to equate stating biological fact with Holocaust denial?

Why can't people be sensible about all this?

He should be able to refer to people by their name if he does not wish to refer to their chosen gender.

It is also important in medical matters to know the sex of the person you are dealing with, so its important anyone reading a patient's notes knows their sex as well as their chosen gender.

This should not be an issue. It should be possible to accommodate everyone's position.

So according to the TRAs, it’s illegal to be Christian now? Wow, that’s constitutionally complicated in England.

Interesting to me how the TRAs always, always, go after someone’s livelihood. They’re so incredibly vicious. If they were really trying to promote tolerance, they’d have a methodology of engage and debate, not these vicious attemps to destroy reputations and livelihoods.

Someone upthread said why can’t you just use the pronouns people ask for? My answer is that pronouns matter. They don’t just matter to the trans person, they matter to me to. When you deny my right to describe physical reality, you do me psychological harm (and you become a totalitarian facist).

“unwashedanddazed

The tribunal ruling stated: 'In so far as those beliefs form part of his wider faith, his wider faith also does not satisfy Grainger [the requirement of being worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not in conflict with the fundamental rights of others].

So they ruled that Christianity is not worthy of respect in a democratic society. I'm an atheist but this is an appalling statement for a court to make in a predominantly Christian country. I'm very happy that all that Maya went through is helping to fight such totalitarian dictats.”

It does seem to be ruling that Christianity is not worthy of respect if having a trans gender identity takes precedence.

One protected characteristic trumping the other. But don’t we have to accept that law does not have to adhere to Biblical precepts anymore?

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.

GPs do a lot of work supporting their patients who have mental health issues too. It's a mistake to think this is a role only taken on by psychiatrists - who actually tend to become involved as the mental health issues become severe. Expecting GPs to collude with a delusion is not as neutral as people think and neither is asking a GP to act in an unscientific way. It undermines the medical role.