NHS Fife tries to silence nurse

[Hoardasurass]

So as has been mentioned on threads about the Darlington nurses a nurse is sueing NHS Fife over its trans staff policy.
The poor nurse was forced to get changed infront of a man in the female changing facilities, when she complained about it she was 1st told to change in a cupboard if she didn't like it, then they tried to bully her into swapping shifts so she didn't work with the man in question (she wouldn't), then they wanted her to move hospital (again she refused) so then they suspended her without pay for months until her solicitor got involved and now they are trying to gag her by insisting that the court case (starts in February) must be held in secret (I wonder why) and will be in crt next month asking to restrict reporting on the case.

This case is really important in Scotland because the trans staff policy that's going on trial in this case is the Scottish government's own policy used in all public sector organisations in Scotland and works on self id. So when this case is won it will finally kill the Scottish government's self id policy in all public bodies

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/nhs-fife-fights-secret-hearings-33877891?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

It's insane that they'd use preferred pronouns. Presumably the transwoman identifies as innocent as well as identifying as a woman. Criminals fairly routinely identify as innocent. If we're going on self declaration in the courts there is literally no point.

It also suggests to the watching public that the court is highly biased towards one outcome.

‘She took off her clothes in front of women’ definitely has a different impact to ‘He took of his clothes in front of women’

It is a farce. Maria Mac was sanctioned for calling a man who battered her 'he'. The money awarded to her was reduced as a result

"The whole point of this complaint is that he is a man, by being required to use wrong sex pronouns we would be undermining our own arguments"

And the opposing side would say the same.

I can see one side using he, the other she, and the judge desperately trying to use they.

Pound to a bloody penny the people most likely to slip up are those using she and they.

This is going to be interesting

And to think there are a whole bunch of so-called GC feminists out there who think it is polite to give away female language to men like this.

Would that be the GC Lites as opposed to Turner's discussion of GC Ultras?

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5005335-gc-ultra-gc-lite

ETA: heavily edited as original made no sense.

You're not thinking of RMW are you?

Pronouns are Rohypnol

This can never be posted often enough.

I will happily use preferred pronouns to be polite, unless it is in a context where sex matters, then I would be clear why I was opting to use sex based pronouns.

As this case is entirely based on who is what sex, it is the best example I have seen of a valid reason to ignore someone's personal preferences in favor of being accurate.

The problem with freely giving things away, is you no longer own it when it matters.

By considering it ‘polite’ to use women’s language for men, suddenly you are considered impolite when you try to point out the language actually has a meaning that doesn’t include men. So either your whole case is now considered objectionable because your presentation is ‘micro aggression’ and ‘misgendering’ or you are find you no longer have the ability to say sex matters as the court says you ‘must be polite’.

And not just you either. You declaring it is ‘polite’ means any other woman is condemned if she tries to hang onto female language.

Totally agree

If I were the judge, I would say that I was abstaining from pronouns altogether when referring to the transwoman and that everyone should use whichever language/pronouns they felt best supported their case.

Yes, that would sound ridiculous in court as the TW would interchangably be referred to as "he" or "she", depending on who was talking at the time. Yes, people would mess up. But that's fine. It all helps to highlight the farce of what happens when institutions like the NHS attempt to enforce a belief in gender identity onto their staff. That's the crux of the case: the NHS is implicitly telling the nurse (and other women) to believe that TWAW, by forcing her to accept a TW in the women's changing room.

If the NHS' legal team wants to demonstrate their adherence to this belief by using preferred pronouns, good for them. When/if it is confirmed that sex in the EA is biological sex (following the recent FWS case in the Supreme Court), they'll presumably find themselves in breach of the Nolan principles, as well as looking daft in the tribunal.

I can see it being absolutely farcical. Especially if there are more than two people in the room.

"He stood there, unbuttoning his top, and addressed a comment to me."

What did she say?

Who?

Yep.

Bring it on... ☀️

(It sounds like something from a Les Dennis/Dustin Gee sketch..... "Well I don't really know....")

I think some of this happened in the ERCC case. People kept tripping over their tongues. Didn’t Naomi refuse to use pronouns and ask what was a TIM in Spanish?

I think this will be a lark.

I can’t imagine how horrible and stressful it is to be put in a situation when any lad gets the right to strip off in front of you, and to gawp at you (if they so wish) as you are getting undressed. Personally, I wouldn’t be attributing any decent characteristics to such a man. Quite the opposite, in my own personal opinion. Imagine finding yourself alone with such a man in an enclosed space? Someone who obviously doesn’t have a problem with overstepping women’s boundaries.

Is the Tribunal or the defendents’ barrister going to be referring to things like ‘her testicles’, I wonder? I think you’d lose all belief in their integrity and truthfulness if they did. Actually if they are calling a man ‘she’, that ship will have sailed.

IIRC, the Spanish question was about being non-binary.

Apparently a male non-binary person is non-binario and a female is non-binaria.....

Even the most ardent believer in gendered souls must struggle with the cognitive dissonance on that one!

I was curious to understand the process so did some digging, turns out he has two entries on the GMC register now.

First one has his old name and his actual sex (marked as "gender"): https://www.gmc-uk.org/registrants/7844321

This entry has a status of "Not Registered - Having relinquished registration" with the history indicating this occurred on 4th April 2023. Furthermore, it states "This person is not on the Medical Register and may not practise as a doctor in the UK."

Second one has an active registration in his new name and the opposite sex, with a history that doesn't show any relinquishment: https://www.gmc-uk.org/registrants/8038543

So basically it's another bureaucratic lie: they create a whole new person of the opposite sex (in accordance with the "trans women were always women" belief that's so typical of transactivists), and make it look like the previous incarnation just quit being a doctor.

I've found this in the Times, usual apologies if it's already been posted

https://archive.ph/SoPz1

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/nurse-wants-block-on-sheher-pronouns-for-trans-changing-room-row-tribunal-2zm8gm0rb

Thank you for link to article.

So any record of disciplinaries etc conveniently disappear with the new identity?

Ah and Sandie Peggie opted to name the good lady Dr as a respondent, I suspect meaning they will have to turn up on the day. Ouch.

Alls fair in war and gender politics.

The hospital aren't very happy about that. Perhaps they think Upton won't do their case any good.

Why does everyone keep mentioning gardening on this thread? Can anyone explain the reference

Directly promoting crowdfunders is against MN guidelines, so we talk about them in that way.