"NHS Fife nurse allowed to call trans doctor a man during employment tribunal"

[AnotherAngryAcademic]

I've not read the decision yet - but this seems promising!

I actually think that the Dr Upton's request to be called "Dr Upton" if pronouns can't be agreed on is reasonable, although if the judge had simply decided that titles should be used it would have been a bit ambiguous as "Dr" is both sex and gender neutral. For example, if it had been another nurse asking to be called "Miss Upton" it would not be as straightforward - so it is useful that the claimant can say "he" if necessary.

(Use of "Dr Upton" also emphasises the hierarchal element of the relationship between the parties, which may well be relevant in the case.)

I also think it is no bad thing to specify that the tribunal will intervene if male pronouns are “used gratuitously and offensively on a repeated basis with no good reason to do so” - I can't imagine that this would be done deliberately, but it will be interesting to see what, if any, use will be considered "offensive" by the tribunal as this is something that is often discussed.

Link: https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/5169032/nurse-nhs-fife-trans-doctor-tribunal/

But he warns the tribunal, being held in Edinburgh, will not hesitate to intervene if male pronouns are “used gratuitously and offensively on a repeated basis with no good reason to do so”.

This sounds like something off of a comedy sketch. What they going to do, employ a "he/him" counter to make sure no-one exceeds their pronouns per minute allowance?

Dr Upton is a man. The correct pronouns for a man, under the rules of the English language, are he/him/his. I suppose I can forgive people using their preferred language. However, they categorically should be allowed to use correct English language.

“used gratuitously and offensively on a repeated basis with no good reason to do so”.

and then what, the tribunal will force everyone to start saying she!!!!

This is why I think this bit of it is interesting - ie what use of “he“ will be considered offensive?

Oh thank goodness. I saw some coverage earlier in the week about the application that had been made and thought it was quite concerning that a court was being asked to mandate language in this way. The warning about using it ‘gratuitously’ is odd, but I’m pleased there’s no (for now) mandated language.

👏 👏 the tide is really turning!!

Absolutely!

Or like Maria MacLachlan, the judge might punish the victim for telling the truth by reducing compensation.

How, exactly, do you use pronouns "gratuitously and repeatedly"? I mean, they'll be repeated every time he's referred to. Who decides whether or not that's "gratuitous"? On what grounds or basis is this decision going to be made? And what sanction would the court use if it did decide that "he" was being used "gratuitously and repeatedly" by a witness? Order the use of another pronoun, under threat of Contempt of Court? Fine the witness?
I can see the defence barrister constantly objecting over this, breaking the flow of testimony, hoping that one of his objections will stick if he throws enough out. Hopefully the court won't indulge him.

I think the ‘gratuitously’ thing is because the doctor/ NHS’s application was on the basis Dr Upton said that male pronouns were distressing and he felt harassed by their use. I agree it’s eyebrow raising that one could be accused of using pronouns gratuitously, but I think it’s the judge perhaps acknowledging that it might be distressing for Dr Upton and saying that the court won’t allow something that is crossing into deliberate provocation. I think it’s an attempt at balance although I understand why people find it worrying.

I don’t think Naomi Cunningham or the nurse in the case are likely to go out of their way to ‘excessively’ use male pronouns or so anything that could (objectively!) be described as harassing the other party’s witness, so hopefully it’s just an acknowledgment that the court doesn’t want any witness to feel harassed and nothing further will come of it.

edit for typos

Who is defining how many he/him's are too much? Clearly in a court situation where you are being asked direct questions about someone you are naturally as part of the english language going to use pronouns a lot.

Barrister: Can you describe what Dr Upton did that day?

Claimant: Yes, he did this, then he did that, afterwards he said xyz, then I saw him the later that day and he also did.....so on and so on.

Potentially loads of he/him's as part of normal speech.

but I think it’s the judge perhaps acknowledging that it might be distressing for Dr Upton and saying that the court won’t allow something that is crossing into deliberate provocation.

I suspect that if the good Dr. insisted that his pronouns were "The Honourable Lord Upton"" the judge would have a very different view.

Yes I agree. And with @SerendipityJane. I’m not saying I agree with the warning, just that I can see why perhaps the judge decided to include it. The judge needs to be impartial and to create an environment where everyone can give their evidence. I think it’s good the ruling didn’t mandate preferred pronouns and see that as a win. Didn’t the bench guidelines say previously that preferred pronouns should be used by everyone?

Men who are upset by being called men should avoid demanding that other people pretend they are women.
As a refusal often offends.

Reported in the Telegraph

https://archive.ph/avJeX

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/26/scotland-transgender-nhs-fife-employment-tribunal-nurse/

Those nasty vipers at MN get a mention 👋 apparently if Tribunal Tweets are allowed to live tweet we might <clutches pearls> talk about it 😳

My blushes, Watson ....

Jane Russell, the lawyer representing NHS Fife and Dr Upton, had claimed she had “serious concerns” about the “citizen journalist” platform which she argued would present a warped version of events.

She said its content was often reproduced on platforms like Mumsnet, where “objectionable and offensive” partisan commentary would be added by other internet users.

Not as fucking objectionable and offensive as forcing women to take their clothes off in front of men.

The end to this misogynistic madness cannot come soon enough.

The sheer brass neck of NHS Fife insisting this doctor's gender and sex are both female!!!!

It sounds like coercive control by the court.

You don't know what the boundaries are, you don't know when you're going to get it wrong because it's subjective and controlled by someone else, you can't rely on normal English usage, who knows when you'll step over the line, you're made to question what is natural and normal, so you're walking on eggshells.

Sex-based pronouns are normal, longstanding English usage. This is NORMAL, the use of 'preferred pronouns' is ABNORMAL and requires someone pretend to believe in an untruth - that someone is the opposite sex. So then you're using sex deception pronouns. Given sex is critical to the whole case (and the continuation of LIFE ON EARTH... sigh) then it is biased of the court to require anything other than natural English usage.

Despite NHS Fife insisting that both the "sex and gender" of Dr Upton is female...

Some more words I thought I would never, in a million years, write: Thank God for Trump.

I mean I suppose it's less coercively controlling than the NHS of course, which is compelling this nurse lie in a medical setting at the cost of her own dignity, safety, respect, truth, honesty and presumably patients' safety too. There will be plenty of patients who need single sex care and would be deceived into thinking this doctor was female by the NHS, seemingly. It's horrendously abusive, and frankly outrageous that a medical setting - where reality matters - is doing this. What next, are patients going to be compelled to pretend they don't have the diseases they have ('identify' as well)?

I'm looking forward to the peaking experience of the judge trying not to use any pronouns. And hopefully getting jumped on just like nurse Peggie would be in the workplace when inevitably mistakes (in the direction of normal, standard English usage) are made.

Jane Russell represented Garden Court Chambers in the Allison Bailey case and, I think, CGD in the Maya Forstater case. She must be a glutton for punishment.

Woman having opinions that recognise reality and don't match some blokes over-inflated ego and delusional sense of self = offensive dontcha know?

I'm sure he'd prefer some kind of Taliban like state of muteness for all actual women, while the only 'women' allowed to speak are men like him.

Normal, standard, longstanding accepted English usage of 3rd person pronouns = accords with reality

Preferred pronouns = compelling others to lie.

Given people are supposed to tell the truth in court, I really don't understand how one person's preference could have ever come into it.

‘She said its content was often reproduced on platforms like Mumsnet, where “objectionable and offensive” partisan commentary would be added by other internet users.’

ooooh hurty words! How to cope ? (Hint : don’t read Mumsnet FWR, stick to Pink News which is firmly on the right side of history).