Yet more disgraceful NHS behaviour against nurses

[Soontobe60]

https://x.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1903719814897586583?s=61&t=gKvvk-rWmOlYFGMZN8QVvQ
When a nurse with years of exemplary service is disciplined by the NHS for referring to a male prisoner brought into hospital in handcuffs as ‘Mister”, despite the same prisoner having to be restrained from attacking her and calling her n**r several times, then its clear the NHS is no longer fit for purpose.

This is appalling in so many ways but just looking at the legal side I was surprised to see NHS lawyers claiming that her beliefs are not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

This seems to be the line that NHS Fife are taking.

This will not be as one sided as is being presented

Are you sure about that? We've had a number of court cases recently that really do beg to differ on that score.

If course, no one believes a woman though. Certainly not the NHS which has how many outstanding scandals about the treatment of women, doing womeny things? On all manner of conditions, treatment and staffing.

I'm totally for protecting women's spaces, but pronouns cost nothing.

Well actually pronouns cost women a lot ... Is this trans nonsense bingo? Where to even start on this ridiculous statement?!

Re 'Its the law to use preferred pronouns'.

Perhaps you could point this out to the judge in the NHS Fife case. Seeing as he didn't force the issue, which presumably if it was the law, he'd be obliged to.

However that doesn't alter the fact that the nurse could have referred to the patient as first name, last name "and they identify as female"."

This is dangerous. It risks confusion. Some who 'identifies as female' could be confused by another person who hasn't been paying attention as 'female'. Then you risk harms. Clinically speaking saying Male is accurate and safe.

Indeed we've just had a report THIS WEEK about how harms are being done to trans people because the NHS has decided to conflate sex and gender and how important it is we see sex.

Health professionals should absolutely be using sex even if a patient says they are trans. Remember the conversation was with a third party and NOT in the presence of the patient.

Finally do we know the legal status of this male? As we are seeing from various cases, there may be differences on the legal position according to this. We do not have self ID.

We are also seeing cases where it's effectively in the public interest to name sex, even where a GRC is present because it is relevant to the situation.

Pronouns actually cause confusion in this situation.

And I've not even touched on fetishes and how females should not be expected to uphold them in any scenario m

Honestly.

Brains all over the floor.

"What do you identify as: male/female" is the go-to in a significant number of forms and questionnaires now, directly replacing the previous "What is your sex: male/female" - "identify as female" is what most of us are now presumably expected to tick, as... well... females.

So that would most certainly not clarify things.

Besides all the obvious arguments against indiscriminate use of preferred pronouns, outlined by many above, what I find really fascinating is the issue of respect.

That it's "respectful" to use an individual's preferred pronouns is a value judgement. Like many value judgements we make, it's become a kind of societal truth.

In the case of many contemporary value judgements, this is a mark of social progress (eg. the collective agreement that racism and homophobia etc. are bad and should be penalised, whether by law or social contract).

But this particular value judgement has an arbitrariness that I don't see in the others. Maybe I'm naive in that, or that's not the best way of putting it, but what I mean is...

There are two potentially injured parties here, not one: the transwoman who wants to be recognised by their gender identity, and the woman who wants to be recognised by her sex. Each of these would, in having their way, deny the other's self-perception and reality. The woman calling the transwoman "he" is asserting the primacy of sex over gender identity. This is offensive to the transwoman. But the transwoman forcing the woman to call him "she" is asserting the primacy of gender identity over sex. And this is offensive to the woman.

And I do mean really offensive.

That little pronoun "she" is what denied us the vote and legitimised marital rape. It's what necessitates our separate sporting awards - when we were eventually allowed these. It's inherent to our biological reality, shaping every day of our lives. It impacts our healthcare, our safety, our very freedom of movement. It's what imprisons the women of Afghanistan right now. And it's a source of great pride, too. It's what united us as suffragettes; what distinguishes a history of unseen and progressively uncovered achievements, and proud firsts, and brave rebellions against a society that believed that "she" meant "less".

It astonished me sometimes, in the light of this, that there's not more recognition of what an immense act of generosity it's been for women to support the concept and word "transwoman" - let alone the words "trans woman". Even when it was understood to be a mere verbal kindness as opposed to a fundamental truth, it was something of a sacrifice still. Because it was a partial denial of our own truth and reality as women, and one that was offered up even as that truth and reality were still being overlooked, and misrepresented, and silenced.

And now that the gendered "she" and "woman" are, themselves, perceived as a truth superceding sexed reality? With all the concrete harms listed above that that entails?

Well.

So why is it seen as self-evidently offensive for a transwoman to be misgendered, even as every. single. time. the wrong sex pronouns are used in support of this ideology, every woman's sex is implicitly denied - and, worse, arguably obscured with the very same blanket of stereotypes and assumptions that generation upon generation of women before her had devoted their lives to challenging.

To use wrong sex pronouns can be seen as just as offensive to women as to be misgendered is to transwomen. There is a strong argument for this. That that argument is not even seen, let alone made, can only come down to one thing: ingrained societal misogyny.

Which is, itself, an argument for why we need our words.

I hope this Christian organisation has some shit hot lawyers.

And I hope some race organisations pick up on it too and slam it for all its worth.

I’m really glad to hear this. The women caught in this horrible situation at the beginning must have felt so alone. I hope they find comfort from knowing how many women support them now.

It's worse than that, though, isn't it (thinking & typing to myself 😂)? Feminism is, pretty much by definition, about resisting man's attempts to define what woman is. So in the light of that, it's an astonishing, and so very dangerous, concession for us to accept that transwomen "are" women. And then, when you consider that many transwomen are, at best, influenced by those male-created stereotypes we've spent centuries resisting, and, at worst, directly indulging the worst impulses of male sexuality driving our objectification (woman-as-less, woman-as-degraded)... It's terrifying, really. Trans ideology as backlash against feminism really is the coup of all coups, a straight-up work of strategic art...

I mean, I know we all know this, and it's been said before, but... sometimes the immensity of it hits you all over again. What a bloody tragedy it all is. (And I include in that the pathologically dysphoric minority, and all those others unwittingly swept up in the confusion).

ETA: pathological somehow feels like it has negative connotations there, but I just mean those suffering deep-seated gender dysphoria - except, even among those, there will be those with, for example, Debbie Hayton's recently acknowledged background to their desire to transition, and that's something I really, really struggle with - I'm not so sympathetic in that respect any more...

@Catiette, you are on a ROLL! Preach, sister!

Well said. You can't stand up for women if you can't define "women" in a way that excludes men.

An major facet of gender ideology is the redefinition of normal words - they are so incensed about transwomen being called "he" or "man" or "male", because they need everyone else to reframe reality or they don't stand a bloody chance.

"But the transwoman forcing the woman to call him "she" is asserting the primacy of gender identity over sex. And this is offensive to the woman."

In this case it's even more than that - he is asserting the primacy of an identity that is part of an abusive fetish.

I understand why the hospital might argue that difficult patients have to be accommodated to enable treatment, but from what some have said on this thread, and from the NHS Fife case, I get the impression that there is a general belief that gender identity must be respected whatever the situation.

This seems to repeat the dynamic of 'respect' that led to so much abuse pre-Saville - except it's worse because this man is already a known sex offender.

Editing to add pre: Saville investigation.

Yes. Wrong-sex pronouns can be so, so damaging in various ways. And potentially quite genuinely, deeply offensive to women themselves.

I mean, I rationalise it above, but I now feel it, too, and that feeling honestly gets stronger day by day as the tribunals and BBC news reports and revelations of long-term statistical damage to our already-grossly-neglected 51% of the population roll on by.

Wrong-sex pronouns are beginning to feel not just unsettling but viscerally wrong and distressing. In many contexts, like this one, they're a gut-punch reminder of how little recognition women have and how vulnerable we are - it feels very much like being put in our place: "He says he's like you, therefore he is. What you think is irrelevant. No debate." And it's also a reminder of how vulnerable society itself is to whatever the next harmful movement driven by loud, aggressive voices may be. If the idea that not only can we change sex, but that we can be sacked for denying this can become this embedded, this rapidly - if there can actually be an ongoing supreme court case right now addressing whether women even have the right to their own word and collective identity - then anything (it truly does feel like anything) could take root in the future. I understand now how Salem and Mao and McCarthyism etc. can happen, and I understand now that they'll happen again, and again, and again.

I'm avoiding using wrong-sex pronouns at all myself now. There are some things that are just unsayable or undoable if you want to hold on to a sense of self, and faith in that self. I can't - like, pretty much physically can't! - swear at a shop assistant, or drop litter (I know!), or graffiti a wall... and I increasingly can't use wrong-sex pronouns. They stick in my throat, and can stay with me months afterwards as this guilty feeling of betrayal of everything that I believe in and am.

If anyone thinks that's hyperbolic, ask yourselves why it's any less valid than "Mr."'s feelings above.

The real irony is that I wouldn't feel this way or anything remotely close to it but for our national institutions' - the BBC, NHS, Civil Service's etc. - embrace of this ideology. If they'd shown balance, and empathy, taken a more open, democratic approach, then I think I'd still be conceding wrong-sex pronouns in some cases. As it is, precisely because of their unquestioning enforcement of this, the authoritarian, misogynist implications of this movement have become clear, and left me appalled at the thought of being complicit in it.

It's desperately upsetting, really, and not just in terms of the damage to women. I actually want to be in a position where using wrong-sex pronouns can be an act of gentle courtesy that costs me nothing while meaning everything to a vulnerable individual. I want that to be true, and to be able to do it! But the very movement that's fought so hard for me to do this has itself prevented me from doing so. I just can't be a part of it as long as it's wreaking the damage it is to women's rights and freedom of speech.

NB My policy now is same-sex pronouns where sex is relevant and women are otherwise potentially negatively impacted (whether on an individual or collective level) and neutral otherwise - "they", or the name. I won't misgender indiscriminately, and feel uncomfortable doing so unless there's clear evidence of male advantage being simultaneously exploited and disguised eg. in crime/sport. It's simple, really: I don't want to cause harm, to dysphoric individuals or to women. So when society recognises the harm being doing to women, I may feel I can, for my part, afford to concede more as I'd wish - although never again with the good faith with which I once said "Trans women are women" shortly before being inducted into this debate.

(And you know what? Even back then, without knowing an iota of what I do now, when I said it, it felt a little like I was giving something up. It felt so uncomfortable. I just didn't know what and how much I was giving up, but I should have listened to that gut feeling. Be Kind silenced it, but it wasn't being kind to me, or to my kind).

Here endeth the lesson. 😅 I've been desperately wanting to thrash out my feelings on that for a long, loooong time, so thank you to any tolerant readers (and any skimming rapidly past, for your patience!)

Very interested in other thoughts, incl. counter-arguments...

I did a quick search for that yesterday. There were some on instagram picking it up, and there were several comments from posters with African American IDs, saying the story must be made up by a chatbot or AI. Brit ID posters were enlightening them, no, that's the NHS...

I think part of the problem is a lack of clarity over why pronouns should be used.

Earlier in the thread a poster talked about dysmorphia, and people feeling better if they were treated as the opposite sex - so in that case it's an accommodation for a mental illness - similar to being sensitive about any other phobia. There are limits to how far we would expect to accommodate a phobia, but I think most people are instinctively empathetic.

However, the groups who influence policy aren't asking for preferred pronouns on this basis - they are arguing that 'trans women are women', and as you say, are asserting the primacy of gender identity over sex, which is offensive for all the reasons you stated.

We have seen over the last few months that many people accept the 'rules' they have been taught - notably in the police, the NHS, the Scottish Government - but can't explain why they exist. They rely heavily on the first explanation, can't explain the second, and have no understanding of how offensive it is to impose the concept of gender on those who don't consent.

This leads to the situation where somebody has been convicted of using a false identity to sexually abuse children, but people still believe they have a duty to respect that identity, beyond just accommodating a difficult person to enable treatment.

The trouble with comparing it with a phobia is three fold.

Firstly you can and should only make considerations to a point. Those lines are so they don't significantly affect other people and only to a certain degree because you can't avoid certain scenarios. Because ultimately this causes harm. The counterargument used to justify this is that trans people disengage from health services.

But this doesn't make sense either. Disengagement with health services is a complex issue but you can only take limited steps to reversing that. Weirdly if you are on the pathway to transition, you absolutely are not disengaged with health services though - you do the opposite and use them more than someone the same age and with the same health issues would. So we can't use this as an excuse either. Especially since we know how appalling badly women are treated by the NHS without thought.

We also know that people with autism are more likely to disengage from health services too. But few provisions are put in to mitigate this and make access easier.

Secondly the thing with an anxiety is that best practice is not to overdo indulge it and the best way to resolve it is to have some exposure. Avoidance type behaviour can get significantly worse over time if enabled too much.

Thirdly we know there are parallels with anorexia. Indeed the cohort of girls who would be most at risk of anorexia is the same as those most likely to declare themselves trans. Worse still there's evidence that rates of anorexia have dropped as rates of trans identifying teenagers have risen. Why? Because anorexia isn't merely an eating disorder - many sufferers know they are thin. It's a condition which relates to power and control issues.

So I'm shocked at the degree to which the NHS bend over backwards to pander trans people in this context.

Firstly it's not equal with other issues and secondly it's not doing best practice in terms of either other health care issues or addressing underlying anxiety from wrong gender pronouns. Instead it's enabling and encouraging toxic behaviour in demanding them which isn't remotely about respect. And when we talk about toxic behaviour from trans people I don't mean assuming the worse in terms of sex offending. I'm meaning toxic day to day treatment of others which we wouldn't tolerate from other groups - using abusive language which this case highlights, or making threats of violence or for staff to lose their jobs for good practice is another. It's anti-social behaviour.

Unfortunately we see this pattern of unreasonable demands accompanied by coercive behaviour throughout the movement. And the NHSs response is to say 'how high should I jump'. It's not ok.

Meanwhile there are groups who struggle to access healthcare at all or have symptoms dismissed completely on the basis of sex or race with devastating life-changing implications. This is recognised as an issue by the NHS.

Higher numbers of women are likely to disengage and avoid health services because of trans policies (if only down to the sheer numbers game on this) than trans policies enable trans people to engage with health services - if for no other reason that so many trans people really really want medical interventions.

None of it makes sense. It's not logical. It's not consistent. Unless of course you see it through the lens of institutionalised sexism. Which we know the NHS has a MASSIVE issue with.

It's notable that there isn't a policy/procedure about pronoun use that Melle has transgressed. The NMC practice standard that the NMC says Melle has violated is about respecting a patient's identity and freedom of choice. In this case (and the Fife one, I'd say) the failure to respect a trans woman's identity inheres in not believing that he is a woman. What could Melle have done (differently) to demonstrate respect for the patient's identity, given that she doesn't believe he is a woman? They're saying she can't do her job to the required professional standards unless she acquires the belief that this and every male patient with a trans identity is a woman.
I'd say her case is really strong.

The point at which the nurse was informed that the male sex offender identified as a woman was AFTER the phone call to the doctor.

In this case this nurse, despite being in a terrifying situation with a much larger convicted criminal male trying to attack her and racially abusing her, calmly explained the harms to her of using wrong sex pronouns by stating she could not use them because of her beliefs (which are pcs). There are harms to both her and others in terms of belief, sex and safeguarding. There are also potential harms to the trans person in terms of appropriate medical care if wrong sex pronouns are used and reality is denied. What if she had spoken about the patient as if he was female and the doctor (on the other end of the phone so unable to observe the male physiology and anatomy) gave incorrect medication or advice?

The NHS seems to think any harms to this nurse or anyone else in the vicinity of this man including on the basis of PCs don't count, only the man's wants count over and above reality, appropriate medical care as well as others' PCs. Which is really terrifying male supremacism (of the GI variety).

I find the calm explanation element interesting too.

This may not be popular, but my first instinct was, to be entirely honest, that while the phone call was (or bloody should be!) entirely understandable and legitimate, she perhaps shouldn't have mentioned her Christian beliefs to him afterwards. If she'd used the male pronouns to highlight his sex for his medical treatment, it would be relevant and valid to explain this. But to refer to her religion? In a professional context, it should be irrelevant - and even if he's just "made" it relevant by attacking her for misgendering him, as the professional, she should rise above this. In a sense, referring to it meant that she, like him, made it personal, kind of accepting his angry invitation to engage in a clash of beliefs unrelated to his treatment.

I still do feel this way to some degree, and worry this is the weak point in her case - not the call itself, but her subsequent defence of it.

BUT.

I've also been wondering what the heck she possibly could have said in that context without repercussions. She'd been forced into engagement with him if only to defuse the situation. And I suspect that all that would defuse it would have been total capitulation. Which absolutely shouldn't be required. So, in the absence of this, what's the solution? The options would seem to be an apology, or no explanation. The apology would be akin to capitulation, as well as risking misrepresenting her perspective and future intentions. No explanation, then? Probably best, but I doubt he would have let it lie at that, and imagine she sensed this and hoped to defuse the situation with honesty. I think the best approach may have been deflection - just exit stage left with a placatory promise to "just get your meds, Janet"... But this, too, could be seen as a rude dismissal of his "valid concern", and she was under the extreme pressure of his threatening presence.

Ultimately, assuming she wasn't provocative or at risk of sermonising or whatever (seems highly unlikely, just covering all bases), this was an impossible situation in which she simply couldn't win. His response was likely powered by his absolute confidence that the system would support him in his outrage. And he was right. And that's on the NHS.

NC managed to get Dr Upton to admit that there was probably nothing that Sandie Peggie could have done that would have appeased him. So…

Well, quite. Dr U's testimony has really been quite enlightening, hasn't it? Let's hope the judge and panel think so, too...

ETA The more I think about this, yes. Any situation like this is likely to be a total Catch 22.

Tory leader gives 'full support' to Darlington nurses in hospital trans row

After the meeting in Parliament’s Portcullis House the leader of the opposition said: “A woman should never be forced to get undressed in the presence of a man.

“The case of the Darlington nurses is yet another example of women being demonised and patronised for raising legitimate concerns about single-sex spaces.

“I fought against gender ideology in government, and I will continue to do so as Leader of the Opposition.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/tory-leader-gives-full-support-200000988.html

Thanks for sharing.

Um, forgive me if I'm wrong but wasn't this the case where over 20 nurses signed a complaint about Rose's behaviour in the change room? So how is that 'using the change room without incident' ?