The disgraceful RCN and Nurse Jennifer Melle

[ArabellaScott]

The Darlington Nurses Union has now formally intervened to ask the RCN to step up and do its actual job:

'Suspended nurse Jennifer Melle says her gender row with the NHS has left her abandoned, vulnerable and alone.
The medic claims she has been cast into the wilderness and feeling like a pariah over her unshakable and religiously-held beliefs on biological sex.
She has been suspended from work for four months for breaching patient confidentiality after “misgendering” a convicted sex offender.
Single mum Ms Melle, 40, now faces being struck off but says the silence from those with a duty of care towards her has left her broken. '
...
'Ms Melle was hauled before a disciplinary hearing after an incident in May last year during which she refused to use female pronouns for a patient under her care.
She remains unable to work after Patient X, who was born male but identifies as a woman, was taken to St Helier Hospital in Carshalton, Surrey, from a male prison for treatment for a urinary condition.
Ms Melle was called a n*** multiple times after the inmate overheard her using biologically accurate pronouns during a phone call with a senior doctor.
She was suspended by the trust on April 2 for breaching patient confidentiality after speaking about the racial abuse and referred to the Nursing and Midwifery Council.'

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2090368/gender-biological-sex-trans-NHS-nurse

'A paying RCN member for 12 years, Jennifer says that when the incident happened the union dismissed her case as not “meritorious” and told her to complete a “reflection” exercise to avoid future ‘misgendering’. She received no support despite the RCN recognising the abuse she experienced.
The Darlington Nursing Union (DNU), which represents Jennifer, has now formally appealed to the RCN to intervene.'

https://christianconcern.com/ccpressreleases/christian-nurse-in-trans-paedophile-misgendering-case-says-royal-college-of-nursing-abandoned-her/

No it isn't, I was starting off with a referential theory of language and bringing in the latter description.

I'm denying that "she" has a truth value any more than "Debbie" has as both refer to something expected to be female.

Obviously the argument relies on that a referential theory of language is correct.

However if you consider referring to a man as "Debbie" okay - which is clearly misleading although not a lie as that is their name.

I don't think it's fundamentally different in terms of truth values to refer to Debbie as "she" - it's a shorthand.

Or in other words I don't agree that using preferred pronouns is lying. If you do why aren't GC reporting their colleagues for lying using preferred pronouns?

I've seen this yes. She wasn't using those pronouns because of biology but because of her religion. Requoting:

Overhearing Ms Melle, the patient who was born a man but identified as a woman, took issue with the male pronoun and title.

The nurse replied that she was “sorry I cannot refer to you as ‘her’ or ‘she’, as it’s against my faith and Christian values but I can call you by your name”.

The patient began to verbally abuse the nurse, saying: “Imagine if I called you n-? How about I call you n-? Yes, black n-.”

Nothing justified the racial abuse. I don't agree n- is comparable to calling a transwomen "he".

However it was not appropriate for her to get into an argument with a convict on pronouns and her religion which unsurprisingly ended up in a heated debate and a formal complaint

She was required to use preferred pronouns as part of her role and not to bring her religion into her care. She never raised or complained to management previously.

She could have just generally apologised and defused the situation, changing the topic to their medical care. Nurses are trained in conflict resolution.

This is rather reminiscent of all those arguments about sex that get tied up in the intricacies of various DSDs, the different aspects of sex (chromosomes, hormones, reproduction etc), mosaicism and so on.

They’re at best tangential, can be tedious (even when well constructed and well expressed) and at worst (as per the Peggie hearing) an attempt to muddy the waters.

Off for a few hours. Might write something up r.e. transgender pronouns in healthcare. Not seen anything about this specifically. So further thoughts very welcome.

Philosophy of language gives me a headache so I'm just going to conclude it's not universally agreed using preferred pronouns is lying.

Evidently more academics should actually consider these issues. TTFN.

@borntobequiet I've taken down those arguments myself, thanks.

To call a TIM by his chosen name Debbie is fine in my view. It's not a lie, it's his name. To refer to him as she is not something I could do. He is not a she and I do not wish to be forced to go along with the pretence. I've noticed many names we would have grown up with and assumed to be for females are used by males in other cultures such as Eastern Europe with variations of spelling. So it's not so unusual.

I don't think it's fundamentally different in terms of truth values to refer to Debbie as "she" - it's a shorthand.

They are fundamentally different. 'She' refers to a female. 'Debbie' could refer to anything or anybody. 'Debbie' is a culturally-coded reference. 'Debbie' could be a ship, or a donkey, or a person. Culturally it is a feminine name, only given to girls. But what about Debs or Debbo - would you assume them also be derived from Deborah and therefore also feminine ? Or Sammy, Sam, Hilary or Leslie? What about Michel, a male name in France? Or Noa, a female name in Israel? What about Shinji and Yuki - can you tell what sexes they are? Perhaps you can, if you are from their country and understand their cultural code.

'Debbie' means nothing in terms of truth wrt sex. 'She' means everything.

She was quite obviously using them because of biology because it’s what this is about. He’s a man.

Why would anyone report their colleague for going along with something championed by their employer?

I wonder whether compelled preferred pronoun policies will ultimately be shown to be lawful or not. A test case would be interesting.

Philosophy of language gives me a headache so I'm just going to conclude it's not universally agreed using preferred pronouns is lying.

Well obviously. Because it is not universally agreed that men cannot be women.

And I disagree with the people who think either position is reasonable, not because of some bloodless intellectual posturing but because to believe these things are true and to act on that belief hurts real women (and children, and men) in the real world and that is my fundamental measure of value.

Don't be ridiculous read what she's actually said - it's about her religion and Christian values, not biology. She's also a Christian preacher.

Often to support this is "Genesis 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

The view is often this that the Bible shows that a person cannot change their "sex/gender at will and attempting to do so is pointless, self destructive and sinful". From David Mackereth v DWP. That's where the values bit comes in.

Christians who believe in the literal truth of Genesis often deny evolution as well as it goes onto the creation of the world and animals. It's not a scientific viewpoint.

Be careful who you get into bed with; you might wake up one day and regret it.

However you slice it, it’s about biology. She’s using male pronouns because he’s a man. Hope that helps.

to believe these things are true and to act on that belief hurts real women (and children, and men) in the real world and that is my fundamental measure of value.

So you don't think a medical professional should ever used preferred pronouns, even if that person is dead and it is distressing their family members to avoid doing so?

Your view is that this truth overrides any competing values of compassion and kindness at all times?

I think it may very rarely be the lesser evil, but I consider it akin to using racist or sexist language. So imagine a scenario where you would chooseto use racist or sexist language to avoid distressing family members and think of something along those lines.

My view is that the measure of compassion and kindness is not taken in whether one is happy to say something trite in the immediate moment, but how one lives ones life overall. So yes, I would have to think very very carefully about whether comforting one family justifies even paying lip service to beliefs I consider to have as much value to humanity as racism.

Would you even need to use pronouns talking to the relatives of a deceased patient? What exactly would you be saying "I'm sorry to inform you, despite our best efforts, Debbie sadly has died. I'm very sorry for your loss. Debbie's body will be moved to our mortuary. A report will be completed by the doctor in order for you to obtain the death certificate. Debbie was a lovely patient, once again we are very sorry for your loss."

Exactly.

It’s generally possible to avoid the pronouns entirely as @mrshoho says.

This appeal will be one to watch:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gre53drqvo

You are making a lot of assumptions. Again.

Jennifer Melle isn't David Mackereth, you can't assume she shares his exact viewpoints.

Stop extrapolating and making stuff up.

You are labelling that act as compassion and kindness and ignoring the fact that for many of us, it is the opposite. It's not morally neutral. Some people think it's compassionate and kind to use 'preferred pronouns', some of us think it's harmful, offensive, and damaging.

I've said the "view is often this". I don't know her exact viewpoint no but it's not the same as "making stuff up". Those claiming it's because it's because of biology are completely ignoring what she said, not me.

The majority I know from these Christian denominations hold these kind of views whereas those who are C of E take a more pragmatic viewpoint. So I'm expanding on the types of views I often hear to those who maybe less familiar.

So it's entirely valid to make reference to them to explain on what she might have meant based on what she said and general views

It’s exactly the same as “making stuff up” because you are in fact making stuff up and you’ve done it repeatedly.

The fact remains that it is the man’s biological sex that is the root of this, regardless of her beliefs. If he wasn’t a man, she wouldn’t have called him “he”, and if he was a woman, he wouldn’t have raged over “misgendering”.

I'm using a specific example in healthcare setting to ask if in that setting it's acceptable not to use a person's preferred pronouns.

This is a discussion about healthcare so it's extremely relevant. One of the main uses of pronouns there will be to talk and discuss with relatives.

I presume from your answer you are saying "no" the medical professionals should be allowed to refer to dead transgender patients using "correct sex pronouns" no matter the distress it causes.

Because it's - using preferred pronouns - is not morally neutral? What is it for then in this case - the Greater Good? Of who?