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

The original tribunal concluded that "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." So were not protected by the EA. That's clearly wrong and I'm sure the court will find that christian beliefs are protected. If "belief in genesis 1:27" is not a protected belief - an important bit of the faith that the head of state pledges to uphold when she's crowned- then what is the purpose of protection of religious beliefs? That must be wrong.

The question will be in what circumstances is the expression of that belief protected?

The doctor is now in emergency medicine, but I'm not sure exactly what the previous job entailed. Did he meet patients or was he assessing case notes? I don't want doctors to address patients in a way that makes them uncomfortable, feel belittled or upset, or to refer to them in such a way in their presence. I doubt the court will say that's protected. The circumstances where a bearded person wants to be 'she' are set outside the consulting room, and can't really be addressed in the moment in that consultation. So it depends what he was wanting to say and in what circumstances.

@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.

Sorry but I no longer agree with this. I see no reason to use a miow pronoun to someone who decides they are cat gender. I'm not going to be compelled any more. I will continue to address trans women as she though as I don't wish to be impolite to anyone or hurt anyone's feelings. But I will never believe they are a woman. Nor will I say they are a woman to them as I deal in reality not delusions.

@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.

This. Also, the Bible is pretty clear on it being wrong to lie - don't think "white lies" are mentioned, but is this really a lie akin to telling your friend her haircut looks great?

Forcing people, legally, to deny the evidence of their own eyes is placing them in an untenable and subordinate position. It's simply not compatible with daily life, particularly in the context where the sex of the person is entirely relevant.

Making people lie is weaponising this ideology to an unacceptable level.

It would also appear that the original court has been superseded by the Maya case. You can't say that Christian beliefs are not worthy of respect! Neither can you force people to believe in transgenderism.

From what I understand of the remit of the EHRC, it would appear that the sensible course would be that this should be dealt with by somebody else who doesn't mind using wrong sex pronouns.

And there certainly needs to be clarification.

There needs to be a distinction between calmly stating the truth, and it being deemed malicious or harassing.

[quote Mochudubh]@owlinnahat

Did you seriously mean to equate stating biological fact with Holocaust denial?[/quote]
I was thinking of beliefs people hold that have upset me (Jewish, bisexual) in the same way that I think that kind of deliberate misgendering would upset a trans person.

I think it's about the impact on the vulnerable patient. I've been in the position of being under the care of a doctor who had some very conservative views - my first psychiatrist insisted that my relationships with women were a symptom of "risk taking behaviour" and "low inhibitions" and was quite blunt about this. I'm sure he also thought he was just stating biological fact. It was very distressing and impossible to really challenge as he had a great deal of power over me, as the doctor. I've also gone through DWP fitness to work assessments and they are hell. The relationship with the assessor is so loaded and has such amazing capacity to be abusive. I just think in that situation it is right and appropriate that there be a fairly strict degree of oversight of medical professionals working in that kind of environment in order to protect patients from this kind of thing. No one is asking him to carry out a smear test on a trans woman. He's been asked to use the preferred form of address (Mr or miss presumably) and preferred pronouns when talking to patients about their disabilities.

@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

Well it is pretty clear here:

Deuteronomy 22:5 ESV
“A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

Mind you these Biblical laws are also sexist, pro-slavery, homophobic, racist, unscientific so not really great to stand by, though obviously Christians depending on brand feel free to ignore mosiac law.

However people should be allowed to follow religions if they want as long as they can do their job without prejudice. Lots of people manage it all the time. It isn't difficult.

I have had great interactions with people whose religions I don't agree with at all. It is messed up this guy lost his job.

I am reassured that there is an A+E doctor in Shropshire who believes in sex.

If this person (heads up - upsetting case linked about consequences of hiding sex in health records) had had someone who knew that a trans man was female then perhaps the outcome would have been happier.

I am so sad for that person, did not know they were pregnant, presented with pain, told the staff their gender identity but the medical records said "M" and so they were triaged as a male and labour, pre eclampsia and prolapsed cord were missed. Sex matters www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7395710/

just as a trans person would find the religious belief that you can't change gender upsetting

Here we go again with the obfuscation of sex and gender. Dr. Mackereth is quite correct no-one can change sex and he is not prepared to be complicit in a lie that they can.

owlinnahat

You talk about the upset for transgender people but:

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?'

I find the idea that a six foot tall visibly male person with a beard could demand and expect to be addressed as she and Mrs fucking insulting and upsetting.

@VestofAbsurdity

just as a trans person would find the religious belief that you can't change gender upsetting

Here we go again with the obfuscation of sex and gender. Dr. Mackereth is quite correct no-one can change sex and he is not prepared to be complicit in a lie that they can.

Quite.

It does beg the question why can't there be a universal accepted definition of gender.

Is it a change of clothing? Is it pretend pronouns, is it an acknowledgement that you find the treatment of your sex, sexist?

The fact that it's all about gender, until rights and spaces are concerned and then suddenly those must be ceded on the basis of sex, is quite telling.

It's the very end bit that suddenly means sex, not gender, that creates the lie.

just as a trans person would find the religious belief that you can't change gender upsetting

I'd agree with VestofAbsurdity that this is a matter of sex not gender. However, with its emphasis on clothing, it's arguable that one of the previous quotations does cover gender to some extent. However, that is a desperately anachronistic interpretation of the matter and I say that knowing that I'm blundering into an areas of exegesis and that for some the Bible is literal truth.

I sometimes find the common belief among some people of a range of faiths that non-adherents to that faith or non-believers will be tortured for eternity quite upsetting. However, those are the occasions when they're proselytising to me or someone vulnerable who is reporting it to me.

If those thoughts stay inside their head and don't manifest when they're interacting with me and they don't discriminate against me because of this difference then we're fine.

I expect here that the belief will be protected but he may lose on the the manifestation of it (using non-preferred pronouns).

We shall see - for my part, this is not a hill I would die on in the GC cause. I think it’ll be an easy win for the TRA lobby and give them ammunition to come out with the bullshit about gender critical feminism and the Christian Right etc. Hope I’m wrong.

Should be interesting. I hope he wins.

@CorneliusVetch

I expect here that the belief will be protected but he may lose on the the manifestation of it (using non-preferred pronouns).

We shall see - for my part, this is not a hill I would die on in the GC cause. I think it’ll be an easy win for the TRA lobby and give them ammunition to come out with the bullshit about gender critical feminism and the Christian Right etc. Hope I’m wrong.

That's my expectation.

I think there's a plausible workaround to set this up so that the issue doesn't arise but that's not what the case is about.

It's not a GC matter but compelled speech is a matter for all of us as is the low bar for transphobia (the thread about the school and the 5 year-old).

@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.

So the correct response for the assessor doing the clinical assessment to decide if the applicant qualifys under the rules for tax funding said "I identify as being a woman who can't work due to having cervical cancer, missing a left leg, and not being able to speak" is "I am not your psychiatrist so have approved your self identified issues".

Well, he is a doctor and he mentions following the science. That stuff is completely anti-science. It is not just the religious belief aspect. If he is not required to follow the science on this, it is the same as a doctor making up any old thing which giving care. If you can make sex up, then nobody should be struck off for debasing evidence led practice on other things also.

This is in essence, two questions.

Is there a right to force, under threat, a person to speak and enact a belief they do not in fact hold?

Do we live in a two tier society where some people get to choose their language and express themselves and have their needs and feelings met on demand, while other people must put aside their own language and self expression and their own needs and feelings to service others?

Or can you sell someone an apple instead of a banana? And call them abusive for insisting that which you identify as an apple is in essence a banana.

In the situation of a DWP assessment, if a doctor is faced with someone who is clearly delusional, it is surely a relevant mental health issue. To ignore it would not work in favour of the person , and to pretend , does that person no favours either. There are many people who find that others will not ever accept their mistaken ideas that they are the pope of Joan of Arc, and yes it affects their life once others pretend to go along with it. It would not be professional to imply you believe the person, while recognising that they believe all sorts of nonsense .

@Goopamz
That is awful for you, and your colleagues too I should imagine.

For those saying using preferred pronouns is no big deal, I'd be interested in whether you have actually had to do this in practice?

I thought I would be fine with it, but when actually put in the situation (6ft beardy bloke at work now "identifies as a woman" - no physical changes at all) I am finding it deeply upsetting.

Thankfully I've not been in that situation. If I was I think my brain might explode. I'm autistic and I cannot say something to someone which I believe to be untrue. I know NT people don't always get it, but I just can't. The truth always pops out instead. Like if you've had a bad hair cut and ask me if looks ok, I know I'm supposed to say it looks great but I literally have to put my hands over my mouth to stop the truth coming out.

I've been in the position of being under the care of a doctor who had some very conservative views - my first psychiatrist insisted that my relationships with women were a symptom of "risk taking behaviour" and "low inhibitions" and was quite blunt about this. I'm sure he also thought he was just stating biological fact. It was very distressing and impossible to really challenge as he had a great deal of power over me, as the doctor.

That's absolutely appalling and I'm sorry you were subjected to that. It's not comparable though as it is clearly not a biological fact that we are 'supposed' to be heterosexual because you have moved beyond one body and therefore clearly into the social realm. There has been bigotry so so many times in the past and there still is now. But that does not mean that refusing to conflate 'woman' with 'feminine' is bigotry.

I don't understand why it's assumed that only people of faith object to lying. I am an atheist yet I believe in science and reality and the truth. I would find it very difficult to be forced to deny the evidence of my eyes and ears.....
I hope this man wins his case, whatever the Bible says.....