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/

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

FFS. Women, darling. Women.

The half of the human race that deals with the physical and social consequences of being biologically female.

The half of the human race that in this country and many others was literal property within the last few centuries. Who within my living memory was subject to legally sancioned marital rape. Whose bodies appear brutalised over and over again for entertainment. Who are talked over, talked down to, talked for.

Who are not defined by what a man likes to wear, by his sexual fetishes or by his alienation from other men, but simply by the reality of turning up female every day of our lives and dealing with what that means whether we like it or not.

Women are the people who are hurt, who lose out, if society comes to accept that the way a man feels makes him sort of a woman really.

Have you been able to find a definition of trans woman that doesn't eventually boil down to how a man believes a woman thinks, feels or acts is more important that body sex?

More assumptions. More.words in people's mouths. No.

Are you going to answer my question then? I've asked if you think it's acceptable in all circumstances for a medical professional to refuse to refer to a transwoman, dead or alive, by their preferred pronouns?

I don't think gender trumps biological sex, no. I also don't see why it's up to me to come up with a definition.

I don't agree that a medical professional using someone's preferred pronouns is bad for me as a woman. You know, the biological sort.

I don't think it's about the medical professionals personal or religious views. It is about the patient.

I would say exactly the same if the position was reversed and a transwoman doctor thought they should treat a female patient asking for a female doctor.

No they shouldn't because it's the patient's view and needs that is paramount not the doctor's.

I also think it's reasonable for employers to insist their staff act in a certain way irrespective of their own personal views or religion.

It concerns me how extreme this kind of TERF viewpoint is, based on many of the responses on the thread.

There have been some interesting points sure but it seems like there's also quite a lot of hatred and disgust for anyone transgender, and willingness to support anyone who opposes "them."

So you’re basing it on the views of people you know but you don’t know the nurse in question. Definitely not making anything up though. Definitely not. Sure Jan.

There is no hatred and disgust, only your own assumptions and exaggerations.

Your characterisation of the responses you’ve received is a mischaracterisation in my view, Bee. I’m not seeing hatred nor disgust, just people who have given the issue some thought and have formed opinions based on that.

But they are refusing to answer my specific questions, calling anyone trans deluded, and are clearly angry at me for even trying to have a discussion about how transgender patients are treated in hospitals.

It's pretty clear that there is hatred and disgust there for trans and anyone remotely associated that prevents any kind of empathy or respect for them, regardless of personal views.

Perhaps you have been around here a while and don't see it. Sure they've thought about preferred pronouns in general and consider them harmful but not about what this would lead to in a hospital for those transgender patients.

If you don't agree pick any remotely supportive of transgender viewpoint and try discussing it on here. Good luck!

Carry on attacking me then, essentially because I dare to suggest a Christian might well have similar views to other Christians and have expanded on what those might be.

Blimey I went so far that I looked up a similar case and what they said, and very clearly quoted it as something relevant.

Because that's making things up. Whereas claiming that the nurse was motivated by biology with no evidence is fine.

Take the spec out of your eye darlin' and look around you.

Oh just to add to the similarities to these cases Mackereth’s and this nurses are both being paid for by Christian Concern, a fundamentalist Christian, homophobic organisation. Of course I don't know if either are homophobic. I wouldn't accept money from them though.

All these 'thought experiments' and suppositions and assumptions are, as noted above, just making shit up.

Read back over your posts. You seem incapable of sticking to the facts, and compelled to create endless whatifs and hypotheticals and strawmen.

Perhaps it's your discussion style, but I personally am very uncomfortable with arguments that rely on making assumptions or putting words in people's mouths.

There have been some interesting points sure but it seems like there's also quite a lot of hatred and disgust for anyone transgender, and willingness to support anyone who opposes "them."

Please stop projecting. Saying "no" to men who want to apppropriate and redefine womanhood, no matter how genuinely felt, is neither "hatred" nor "disgust".

It is simply saying "no" to men.

It is ok to say "no" to men even when it makes people sad.

In fact, a significant element of Feminism is learning, not just intellectually in theory but actually, in practice, that men's sadness at women saying "no" is not in fact, despite the number Patriarchy has done on us, women's fault, and nor is it women's problem to solve, but men's.

We get this soooooo much you know. Soooo many posters tread exactly the same path as you just have.

.1. "You surely wouldn't stick to your values if it made someone sad though would you?"

.2. "I don't have to explain why trans people feel how they do or why it shoudl matter more than sex, I just know they do and that should be enough right!"

.3. "You are all horrible people for expecting me to explain and I'm leaving this thread!"

But you know what I think is extreme? The idea that something in a man's mind - a man's mind - can be considered more important than women's reality. The idea that some men are in any meaningful way, in any way that matters outside their own head, somehow actually more like women than any other man.

So my reasonable position is this. I will accept that a man can feel so different to other men that using the language of men for him is hurtful and negating. And I will use any neutral or neo-language he wants to recognise that. But I will not go past that middle ground into validating whatever disordered ideas about womanood he is projecting on to us by using cross sex language for him, because that goes beyond how he sees himself and other men into how he sees us, and it is belittling and negating of us to accept it. It is not a reasonable thing to expect.

The middle ground is not "pretend he's a woman sometimes" - the middle ground is "allow him to differentiate himself from other men".

Oh, and by the way, "I also don't see why it's up to me to come up with a definition"? It's up to you because you said to me: "I don't agree that that's a universal definition of transgenderism for starters." So y'know, I'm kind of waiting for you to tell me what definition you are using, and explain how it doesn't just boil down to "how a man believes women feel, think or act is more meaningful than body sex".

Right @FlirtsWithRhinos attempting to come up with a rough definition of what I mean:

Transwoman - a biological man who experiences prolonged distress related to their sex, and seeks to alleviate this distress by "transitioning": adopting a female name, requesting female pronouns, styling typically female style hairstyles and clothing and generally making their general appearance as close to a woman as they can. That might include cross sex hormones that produce breasts and feminise features.

Transman - the opposite, i.e. a biological woman who experiences prolonged distress related to their sex. They seek to alleviate it by transitioning i.e. adopting a male name, requesting male pronouns, wearing a typical male hairstyle and clothes and hiding or minimising female features like breast binders or removal.

Yes I suppose (1) is reasonable enough in that I am concerned about the distress a transgender person would likely feel on a hospital bed hearing that they are misgendered directly as well as potentially avoiding or delaying medical care because of it.

But the rest less so, which is why your post is helpful.

It's not about me trying to change yours or this nurses values. I'm strictly concerned about allowing a medic's values to override others', both the patient's and that of their employer even if it's part of their terms of employment. Whatever you think of it, being referred to by preferred pronouns is extremely important to most transgender individuals.

Again it will annoy someone but I am particularly uncomfortable with this case because it's someone faith overriding patient centered care. Generally this is only permissable in very rare circumstances such as abortion and even then this must be non judgemental. This nurse mentioned her "values" prevented her using preferred pronouns to a transgender patient which has an distinct whiff of judgement in my view.

People can and are required by their role to act in a way that they do not view as compatible with their religion or values. Another classic case (sorry Arabella!) this fundamentalist Christian Legal Centre brought was a Christian B&B owner refusing a homosexual couple, rightly they did not win as homosexuality as well as gender reassignment are protected characteristics.

R.e. neutral pronouns great 👍 but this post is too long already so...

"these Christian denominations"

Do you know what denomination Jennifer Melle is in? Why do you think she is not a member of the CofE? Unless you know the answer to these questions, I have to wonder if you are making an assumption based on race.

@BeLemonNow Would you use sexist or racist language if doing so alleviated a patients' distress?

If it alleviated a patient's distress to have his HCP agree with him that immigration is out of control, or that the country went to the dogs when women started working, should the HCP be required to do so?

Would you expect a female nurse to answer to "Popsy" or "Cupcake" if it comforted a patient to call her that? How about "Sexy" or "Tart"?

I don't think she's likely to be a member of a CofE church as CofE is transaffirming and she is clearly not and she sees it as an important part of her religion. I don't think she's Catholic because I saw mention of her ministering and Catholicism does not have female priests.

Of course I wouldn't use generally offensive terms if I was a medic.

Edit: or now!

I'm a member of the CofE and I don't agree with everything that is said and done in its name. The CofE is a very broad church indeed, with members and local churches within it that are liberal, evangelical, and catholic. My own parish church has all those theological flavours within its congregation, along with members who don't have a strong affiliation to any of those. This makes for some interesting dynamics when it comes to a discussion about what we mean by being inclusive! We also have quite an ethnic mixture, and I can assure you that some of the views of people from particular ethnic backgrounds do not match commonly held stereotypes. Jennifer Melle seems to be evangelical, but that doesn't necessarily mean that her views are not nuanced or surprising.

@RapidOnsetGenderCritic I appreciate Christians even within a congregation have different views and yes are ethnically diverse. Apologies if this came across as condescending.

Was just looking up the Catholic latest, and found Pope Francis used preferred pronouns:

The woman, Francis said, had undergone gender reassignment surgery and had then married a woman. "He wrote me a letter saying that, for him, it would be a consolation to come [see me] with his wife," the pope said, clarifying: "He that was her but is he."

I quite like the last phrase. Might be of interest.

@RapidOnsetGenderCritic I should really go to bed but fyi "Jennifer Melle" appears as a Trustee for Morning Star International Church in Croydon.

Honestly, my bingo card is so worn out I need a new one. You’re following the same pattern as every other ideologue who comes here trying to persuade/bully women into agreeing with you. You start off all wide eyed and reasonable, you put forward several straw man fallacies, you then start making things up, and when you’re met with calm, well researched facts and reasoned arguments you become rude, patronising and borderline abusive.

We don’t agree with you, people can’t change sex. For me, GI is regressive, misogynistic and homophobic. It’s harmful to young people, especially girls, and the medicalisation of these children is barbaric and has no place in a civilised society.

Your anger is best directed towards the people who have sold you, and all the other people, the lie that GI is anything other than a social construct, and affects people with a MH issue or a fetish.

What a brilliant post!

I can’t see that the nurse’s faith, religion or reasons for calling a man a man are important in the slightest.

I am also coming to the conclusion from this thread that patient-centred care is a crock of shit. At least if it’s not, people should stop using it as an excuse for justifying TRA activism.

I think the yawning gulf between you and others here is about the trans person’s self perception.

You are envisaging a patient who has been pandered to, affirmed, is a poor waif of a person who needs to be perceived as vulnerable and the opposite sex. So to fail to affirm them directly and to their family is an act of awful cruelty. It’s actually a little infantilising, but not unrealistic.

Others perceive the trans patient as one of those boundary breaking men who are thrilled at the opportunity to impose their fantasy life on all who come across them, including nurses.

The pedophile prisoner is likely the second type, but yes there could feasibly on another occasion be the first type as well.

However, both types arise from the culture of toxic affirmation we’ve seen for the last decade. In a world where people are not affirmed for denying reality, where trans people are aware that however they present they have a sexed body which will be taken into account where ever relevant, then a medic using sex based pronouns is not committing a terrible act of cruelty. Personally I think the latter approach by far the most respectful of trans people. And nurses, regardless of their religion.

There is a yawning gap between one poster on this thread and the majority of others but having read another thread where that poster is active, the issue is Jennifer's religion and the identity of her backers which appear to render her unworthy of our support.