KJK Live streams being sacked from her GPs surgery - trans staff member

[HootyMcBooby]

Forward to 19.15 for the actual phone call.

KJK confrontation with trans staff member at her GPs surgery.

This ideology has no place in the NHS.
As someone whose Mother, aged 72, had a stroke and waited in an NHS corridor on a trolley for 16 hours only to be asked as the doctors FIRST question....... "how do you identify?", I feel the NHS is captured beyond hope,

The point is irrelevant. The receptionist has a right to wear a legal badge displaying their personal beliefs without being subjected to abuse and harrassment at work.

Just like KJK has the same right to walk around wearing crucifixes even though she is appropriating a religion she doesn’t believe in and many Christians find that disrespectful to their beliefs and a Woman= Adult Human Female T-Shirt with a MAGA Trump 2024 baseball hat topped off with a vintage baby seal fur coat and vintage crocodile skin heels and purse and also not be subjected to abuse or harassment.

Except it DID happen, on the phone to the manager.

She was corrected SEVERAL times.
Are you just being obtuse or did you really miss that?

And she refused to use their language.

The Forstater decision was incredibly clear that manifestations of belief are distinct from holding those beliefs and do not have unlimited protection. In fact it noted intentional misgendering as an example of a manifestation of belief that would likely not be protected. Other court decisions have found the same.

The entire phone call was not NECESSARY to access healthcare therefore there was no compelled speech.

All she had to do was use "they," "the receptionist" or their name. She chose to reference gender.

Why are you fixated on crucifixes and not answering the question about why the need for pronoun badges in this situation. I mean we could go on all night answering questions with a question…

The reason you’re being asked this is because you said:

There is no part of an interaction with a receptionist to access the surgery that requires the use of the words, woman/man, he/her, she/him.

By that rationale the badges are rendered defunct in this case.

No OK. This KJK woman behaviour is very odd. What on earth does it matter if someone wants to be referred to as they or them? It's not you, so why does it bother you so much? Let people call themselves what they want. No need to be horrible to other humans. How is it making you unsafe at a GP if a member of staff is trans? I'd expect most employees to behave professionally in their chosen profession, however they want to be addressed. Some of the people on here sound almost hateful and transphobic.

I don't disagree. KJK lost me when she started saying that it should be OK to discriminate against trans and non-binary when employing people.

You are right that the Forstater ruling doesn't give the right to harrass someone either, and rightly.

I started posting here to challenge a PP's idea that calling all women "bitches" is comparable to saying that people can't change sex.

Why are you fixated on the irrelevant. The why the badge was worn does not matter, just like why KJK wore crucifixes does not matter. Both have the legal right to wear legal symbols of belief without being subjected to verbal abuse and harrassment.

By that rationale the badges are rendered defunct in this case.
Only if the badge has the function you have assumed. Which means not that the badge is defunct, but that the function you assumed it has was a wrong assumption.

Who cares why? Not your body not your choice.

If the person wearing the pronoun badge is “born in the wrong body” then is it really their choice either?

(please don’t answer that!)

No, she was refused service and terminated because of her treatment if the receptionist. Had she apologised or even remained calm, the call might have ended differently. But instead she constantly shouted over the caller wherever she tried to tell her the actual reason she was calling. Which was her abusive behaviour to a member of staff. It was K who made the conversation about something else entirely, and refused to listen.

Yes, the manager insisted on referring to the female receptionist as "he", and stated that the entire practice were followers of the genderist religion. I'd have left and registered with another practice too.

I'd be nervous about seeing doctors who think it's possible for people to change sex, and that this magically occurs when they wear a pronoun badge, as seems to be the case with the receptionist.

She was barred for being publicly abusive - clearly mistreating the GP staff- and then compounding this by phoning up to verbally abuse the GP manager.

Honestly how can she still be smelling of roses to you. No one in their right mind would not ban her after such an obscenity laden public tantrum.

SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice

Why should KJK use only "they " or "the receptionist "? She could also use name or correctly sexed pronoun. All are accurate. But why is 'they' or 'the receptionist required of her? Are you suggesting these are the only acceptable words to use? In doing so you are compelling speech.

KJK does not share the belief that correctly sexing someone is an offence.

She was REFUSED service and terminated from her GP surgery because she refused to use the pronouns and terminology "requested" of her.

No, this is not why she was terminated from the GP surgery. Repeating the lie doesn't make it true.

She could have ignored the pronoun pin, avoided any discussion of other people's sex or gender, treated the staff with basic respect, and absolutely none of this would have happened. Instead she swore at staff and called for discrimination against a member of a protected class going about their job.

I'd be nervous about seeing doctors who think it's possible for people to change sex, and that this magically occurs when they wear a pronoun badge, as seems to be the case with the receptionist.

No one thinks that sex magically changes when you put on a pronoun badge. This is a ridiculous straw man.

So what's the point of the badge?

I don't think you understand what "compelling speech" means.

In fact it noted intentional misgendering as an example of a manifestation of belief that would likely not be protected

It didn't say "likely" did it? It says it's situational, and that the previous tribunal "correctly acknowledged, at para 87 of the Judgment, that calling a trans woman a man "may" be unlawful harassment. However, it erred in concluding that that possibility deprived her of the right to do so in any situation (my bold)"

Crikey, that's a leap. Which protected characteristic are you referring to? And if its not religion or belief you may have committed an offence of declaring someone's GRC status.

So if the receptionist hasn't magically changed sex, what’s wrong with referring to her using female pronouns? You only use male pronouns for male people.

No, I am saying by the very existence of speech choices that do not compromise her beliefs and are normal parlance, she was therefore not compelled to use speech that goes against her beliefs.

Compelled speech means you have no choice either by necessity or under duress.

The fact she could have effectively communicated in a way that met both her beliefs and the receptionist’s beliefs, but actively and knowingly chose not to, and instead chose speech that forces her beliefs on the receptionist puts her firmly in the wrong.

To tell people what pronouns to use should they choose to use pronouns instead of the person's name or title/position.

Avoiding using pronouns when interacting with a receptionist at a GP is incredibly easy for KJK or anyone else who finds themselves distressed by this simple piece of grammar. If people choose to use pronouns when speaking about someone, the pin provides them in the same way a name tag provides a name.

Because it was not necessary to do so, and was only done to intentionally insult and create conflict between two opposing belief systems.