Nhs badge issue pronouns

[goldfishthecracker]

Started a new job today and got my ID badge. I had to put my preferred pronouns on the form for my badge. It wasn't an option for me not to pick it.

I gave it back without picking one and she handed it back to me saying she wouldn't give me a badge without me choosing them and I need my badge to work. She accused me of being transphobic when I said I didn't want to put them on display and i queried why I had to do it.

Now I have an official badge that I have to wear on display for patients and other health care professionals to see who I am with my pronouns very clearly displayed.

I'd share a photo but it has all my ID on it!

Can I raise this as an issue with my union? I don't want my pronouns to be on display, i see no need for it at all. Apparently they're moving towards all staff needing to display their pronouns on their badge. All previous staff are being asked to hand in their old badges and get a new one with their pronouns on it

Is it me?

Which was exactly my point. I don't think OP can be compelled to wear a badge (I said so) but that she should be careful when stating her reasons.

"Your pseudo-religious belief ..."

I consider the characterisation of my belief (that humans do not and cannot change sex, so transwomen are men) as 'pseudo-religious' really quite offensive. (The offence, I hazard, fully intentional.) Perhaps we could denominate such name-calling 'rationalphobic' behaviour?

As a rational person, I consider (as we rational people almost universally do) "Your belief that humans do not and cannot change sex, so transwomen are men is a pseudo-religious belief" to be rationalphobic.

Does it follow (it seems to from what you say) that if you went up to me at work and said, "Your belief that humans do not and cannot change sex is pseudo-religious," you could rightly and legally be fired? Is calling such beliefs pseudo-religious a sign of bigotry? (Certainly it seems to be so going on what you say, DadJoke.)

Dont worry. It's OK on mumsnet. Be as rationalphobic as you like here. Fill your boots, all you rationalphobes. Beware of rationalphobia at work, though. It could get you fired if DadJoke is right.

[A general question, though: are all scientific propositions 'pseudo-religious'? If I believe the inverse square law tells me how gravity varies from place to place, for example, is that a 'pseudo-religious' belief? How far does rationalphobia spread, in other words?]

@oldcrone the Forstater judgment made it clear that misgendering people in a professional context could constitute harrassment.

Denying the reality of gender identity is irrational and unscientific. I suspect if someone at work brought up the subject and pointed out the irrational nature of your belief without your permission, that could consitute harassment, just as suggesting that Jesus didn't really rise from the dead, or Allah isn't real could. But it would depend on the circumstances. It becomes more complicated where protected characteristics are in conflict.

But you appear to be doubling down on the Earth being made of pudding, and taking a deep dive into hypothetical victimhood.

@cigiwi You're absolutely right, the rationalphobia being demonstrated immediately after your excellent post is really shocking and distressing!

@DadJoke you do realise don’t you that reality based feminists don’t tend to walk up to their transwoman colleagues and blurt out “you’re a man” out of nowhere? The vast majority of us treat our transgender colleagues as politely as they do all colleagues, as their gender is completely irrelevant to the job they are doing. The only time it’s of note is in situations where biological sex is relevant, such as changing rooms, and in my experience these have been handled with sensitivity by all concerned. I may have been fortunate working for enlightened employers though.

@DadJoke If you went up to a trans woman at work and said "you are a man," or to a gay person "you are going to hell," you could rightly and legally be fired.
Not the same thing at all.
Saying to a gay person 'you are going to hell' is like saying to a transwoman 'you are going to hell'. It's a judgement and it's not at all nice.
Saying to a TW you are a man is like saying to someone who is overweight, 'you are fat' it's rude because it states a fact which the person probably does not want to acknowledge, but it is a fact.

Thanks Kucingsparkles. Yes. Really bad. Not literal violence of course (rational is as rational does, after all) ... not even metaphorical violence ... not violence at all, in fact. But yes, shocking, distressing, indeed. Rationalphobia is always distressing -- has been for a few hundred years now.

I wonder if DadJoke has any criterion by which she (/he?) demarcates the rational from the irrational and/or the scientific from the unscientific. (I have a few in mind but I won't jump the gun here.)

Denying the existence of gender identity, it seems, is both irrational and scientific according to DadJoke. Hmm. Why so, I wonder? Is denying the existence of immortal souls irrational and/or scientific? What about guardian angels? Why, if so/why not, if not?

[Perhaps a side issue, but I wonder, also, about the relationship between science and rationality. Are scientific propositions rational, in general? Are rational propositions scientific, in general? (That, at any rate, is easy: no.) Perhaps unscientific assertions/denials are ipso facto irrational ... but, if so, why so? Oh, and so on.]

Care to engage, DadJoke? First things first, I suggest: Why is denying the existence of gender identity irrational? Why is it unscientific?

It's good that you acknowledge that these views are so transphobic that blurting them out loud to transgender people would be seriouly offensive. And most people do keep offensive opinions to themselves when they work for good employers with good policies because, consequences.

And, despite this tendency you mention, some "gender critical" people have taken legal action because they refuse to use the correct pronouns because it conflicts with their beliefs and lost (Mackereth v DWP).

I think where possible we just start saying 'No'

And leave them to take the next steps. Hand the problem straight back.

Why should anyone have to state their reasons for not believing in religious or quasi religious beliefs?

I made the comparison with women being forced to wear a hijab, even if they were not Muslims, because this is similar to someone being asked to declare pronouns when they are not a believer in genderism.

Why should anyone have to give a reason for not believing in an absurd ideology which states that people can change sex? And we are supposed to be 'careful' about how we state our objection to following the practices of this pseudo religion (as you call it)? This is all very totalitarian.

@Wellies54 - sorry, responded to the wrong poster.

I would put she/him if the trainer questions it state woman on the ward man on payroll

Do you understand what 'gender critical' means @DadJoke?

I haven't seen anything about the Mackereth v DWP case which indicates that David Mackereth is gender critical. He is a Christian who objects to transgenderism on grounds which are different to those objections of feminists who are critical of gender.

Oooh, someone has discovered scientific proof of gender identity @DadJoke? Please do share: I quite literally sleep through a lot of very important things & apparently that was one 🤷‍♀️ Luckily I have access to all sorts of academic journals courtesy of my university, so you don’t need to worry about linking to paywalled stuff.

More generally, regarding the insistence made several times in this thread that trans people know their bodies best & don’t think they can change sex (etc) - I have no doubt at all that there are many trans people who are scrupulously honest with HCPs about the fact they are trans because they are aware it impacts on all aspects of their health & care needs because humans cannot change sex. But the NHS system of failing to record both sex & gender fails trans people by not ensuring trans men get called for smears & not checking blood tests with the correct reference ranges. Trans men are more likely to miscarry if they’re recorded as male in the hospital system, even when, as in the case referenced in the NEJM article linked, they alert staff to the fact they are in fact female. This BBC article is mostly focused on a trans man who almost died of renal failure & only thought to mention they were trans when a doctor thought they were having to tell them they were intersex. But obviously the hospital system was totally at fault for something something transphobia something. Mmhmm. As for the assertion made in the article that hormones magically change which reference ranges should be used when analysing bloods… quatsch. (Am leaving aside the tedious declarations of all those who assert that hormones [& surgery] mean that they have changed sex rather than that they’ve chosen to engage in extreme body modification with the goal of resembling the opposite sex.)

To be honest, I’m even more perplexed by pronouns on an ID card than I am by having them on one of the yellow badges - which is what I’d thought was meant, because I’m “remarkably stupid for someone so clever” sometimes. NB cleverness not guaranteed at any stage. (That’d still be completely failing patients though: you’ve ruined it for the VI people it was so carefully designed for unless you double it in size; & you’re going to distress dementia patients [hence wondering about the EIA, or lack thereof 🤨].) But returning to the cards: lots of staff keep them stashed in a pocket; they get covered in stickers; if someone IS wearing it half the time it’s flipped round… I hope you have a nice lanyard for it, anyway, @goldfishthecracker - your Hogwarts house, maybe? 😉

preferred pronouns - could this include I / me? They are pronouns- just first person rather than third.

Yep woman on the ward man on payroll. And lo the gender pay gap disappears just like that.

Do you understand what 'gender critical' means @DadJoke?

Doesn't sound like it, does it?

Transgender people, almost universally, consider "trans women are not women" to be transphobic.

I guess that's too bad, and rather devalues the meaning of "transphobic", if instead of meaning people who hate all trans people, it means "people who don't believe in a 10 minute old ideological framework just because they are told to".

Not the same thing at all.
Saying to a gay person 'you are going to hell' is like saying to a transwoman 'you are going to hell'. It's a judgement and it's not at all nice.
Saying to a TW you are a man is like saying to someone who is overweight, 'you are fat' it's rude because it states a fact which the person probably does not want to acknowledge, but it is a fact.

This.

”Denying the reality of gender identity is irrational and unscientific.“

Have you been binge-watching the Pythons? This sounds like it’s come straight out of one of their sketches. It would slot in comfortably alongside the ‘science’ of the witch dunking scene in Holy Grail.