"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/

Wonder what a good reason is? Mine would be that I don’t call males she.

Oh gosh women might actually want to talk about something that affects them. This is not Afghanistan yet, despite NHS Fife's best attempts to make it so. Wonder what they would do for nurses if pesky women were denied any rights. Of course they'd like to forbid the Times to publish too, but the Times might sue them if they suggested the Times reporting was biased while they feel they can defame Tribunal Tweets with impunity.

If Dr Upton becomes very upset by biological reality Dr Upton really needs to consider whether the NHS is the best place to work. Dr Upton will be reminded on a daily basis that however much you may wish you were a different sex you can only try to mimic what that might look like. It really is not good for him to have to deal with the physical reality of bodies. Obviously his employer considers his mental health fragile - so why have they not encouraged him to use the private changing area he created where he wont be viewing nurses female bodies on a daily basis? You'd think that observing how his body can never actually be female would trigger his dysphoria, if that dysphoria is genuine.

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

So identifying male people as male is ‘partisan’ now is it?

Vive la révolution!

One person's preference about pronouns came into it because of the revision of the Equal Treatment Bench Book, in which a disproportionately long section was (re?) written by gender activists. Who were able to construct their wish list, with no reference to anyone else's rights or obligations.

How can anyone promise to tell the truth and then be obliged to lie? It makes no sense at all.

Absolutely! @anyolddinosaur

I agree

Sandy Kemp is a good judge

It may be a disconnect - but maybe not.

It has long (over 300 years) been established that an English court cannot compel people to speak against their conscience. Admittedly for jurors and in criminal matters. However the principle stands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushel%27s_Case

I am aware this is a Scottish jurisdiction.

It's interesting that the Telegraph article reports that TT will be allowed to report if they are "fair and accurate". Given that anyone can request online access, what about anyone else who reports something that is not considered "fair and accurate"? If anyone does, it will not be discernible which online viewer posted it - so I don't think the judge would have any option other than excluding all online viewers (with the possible exception of TT if they're special!) in that case. I wonder if the judge has thought this through? In particular, given that it's apparently normal to allow the public to access these hearings online, whether any justification has been anticipated for treating this case specially? (It goes without saying that everyone here should take care to be accurate. "Fair" may be in the eye of the beholder and may have to take its chances...)

I thought TT just reported background and what was said in the tribunal. It’s all factual stuff and never noticed any ‘opinion’ pieces.

If a doctor of medicine doesn't realise it's not physiologically possible to change sex, I'd not be confident with their assessment / diagnosis/ treatment or fitness to practice. If a medical practitioner told me if was 'God' making me ill or 'God' was curing me I'd be putting in a complaint to the GMC quicker than a bolt of lightening,
Medicine has no place for the supernatural or quasi science. I want my medical professionals to deal in scientific facts, and well researched qualitative and quantitative evidence based practices.
Leave your own belief system at home, it has no place in the work place. Outside of work, do whatever you want to do (within the realms of the law), wear whatever you want to wear, worship whatever you want to worship, request to be addressed as you want to be addressed by all means, but don't bring any of that into a professional work setting.

I think so too. It’s just a record of what’s being discussed. And the fact that the public can discuss the case is… surely the point of open justice?

Medicine has no place for the supernatural or quasi science. I want my medical professionals to deal in scientific facts, and well researched qualitative and quantitative evidence based practices.

That would be nice. Let me know when it happens.

The fact it's purely factual is the problem for trans identifying males though - as they want to compel everyone to lie.

True! All of the applications we’ve heard about in this case have been about stifling openness and honesty - Dr Upton should remain anonymous, the case should be heard privately, TT shouldn’t report, all parties should have to use preferred pronouns etc.

Why is this male any different because of his beliefs?

You wouldn't let a random Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/Sikh/other religion/belief system male change with females because of their beliefs They'd be labelled various unsavoury things.

Something a pp said triggered a very vague memory, haven't HCPs been disciplined before for offering to pray for someone?

Re. TT, their content must have always been scrupulously factual or examples would have been presented of them being partisan. That the brief wanted them excluded because of what some other party might say about their objective reporting would start us down a very dangerous road toward censorship.

Something a pp said triggered a very vague memory, haven't HCPs been disciplined before for offering to pray for someone?

That rings a bell - certainly it popped up in AIBU a while back.

My rather snarky response was "How would you know ?"

Victoria Smith in the Critic

https://thecritic.co.uk/making-the-patriarchy-progressive/

Nails it

[I]t struck me that Peggie’s case is a perfect illustration of how gender actually functions as opposed to how Butlerians like to pretend it does. To the latter, Dr Upton is smashing the binary, defying gender norms, living her truth etc. But here’s what’s actually happening: one man, Judge Kemp, is deciding that a woman’s right to describe her own experiences will be contingent on whether he feels the woman is doing it nicely enough or has sufficient need to do so. At any moment, Peggie’s right to state her own reality can be withdrawn, dismissed as unimportant in a way that Dr Upton’s “truth” never will be.

So NHS Fife claim that the doctor's sex and gender identity are female. So they would be happy to receive a blood transfusion from a pregnant woman? Or are they not so female that it wouldn't kill them? So only female in the pretend sense.

Looking forward to their defence in court.

This is an excellent article, thank you for sharing. I especially like this bit:

in demanding to be referred to as a woman at all times Upton is effectively demanding to be treated as a man

and this:

Even if Kemp and Upton disagree on the amount of reality Peggie is permitted to define for herself, both agree that they deserve to adjudicate on it.

Nail. On. The. Head.

I preume Dr Upton has a GRC, in which case

“unless otherwise stated, other acts are to be interpreted so as to deem GRC-holders’ sex to have changed”

Hard to blame NHS Fife when it's the GRA that has mandated it.

So a GRC is a magic spell that can force everyone to do exactly what the holder wishes ?

I know it's controversial, but a man with a GRC saying they are a woman will to me always be a man with a GRC saying they are a woman. No less, but certainly no more.

I understand - and accept that it means in cases of discrimination it enables some equity and relief for the holder. But that is a different kettle of fish as to what I may (or most likely may not) think.

It's all looking a bit Taliban adjacent when it's so clearly described that way, isn't it? Yes, the other end of the sliding scale but the principle that either men or patriarchal systems set up by men (e.g. the courts) get to define / adjudicate on women's reality, not women themselves, is the same.

Yes, in the UK a few women (e.g. Judges) have got into the men's club, but your normal woman - like Sandie Peggie - is just not allowed to define her own reality or even use the normal expression of the standard language of the land. No, even language is policed by men / patriarchal systems.

I particularly dislike the vagueness too, so forcing women to walk on eggshells without knowing clearly what would - in the judge's opinion - cross the line. It's all a bit handwavy and almost designed to restrict freedom of expression.

If the Dr had a GRC it would mean he is legally recognised as a women and I would think the tribunal judge would insist that his legal status be recognised in the court room. The fact that the judge has had to state that the he/his pronoun can be used but only in an acceptable fashion suggests that the Dr doesn't have a GRC.

I'm sure we have all learned not to take any conclusion regarding this issue for granted, but I'm getting the overwhelming feeling that this is going be an absolute annihilation.

A sense of entitlement that big on that lack of a foundation is going to be a gift.