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/

Yet you also say "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."

So whether you realise it or not, you have imposed a personal scale on which "values" it is reasonable to respect even if this causes a patient distress and which it is not. And I strongly suspect that personal scale is one which aligns to your own values, one in which (as is typical and usual for our culture) the value of female people is greatly located in the degree to which they put the comfort others ahead of their own needs or desires.

Try and imagine the scenario from the outside. A member of a historically oppressed and marginalised group, one who has been represented in stereotypes and assumed to be less capable, infantile even, simply because of how they were born, one whose literal body has been seen as temptation and used as property, is being expected to play along with the idea that actually their body isn't relevant to their lives, actually all those stereotypes and social constructs are the reality of who they are.

You clearly have a "reasonable" line that sexism falls one side of and the above falls the other. I don't think you could fit a cigarette paper between them.

Bee, do you think the use of preferred pronouns is “healthcare”? If you don’t, I don’t see how the comparison with a health provider’s religious objections to abortion is close enough to be meaningful.

Agree.

Beliefs and religion are a protected characteristic under the EA, just the same as sex, race, or gender reassignment.

@BeLemonNow If a man genuinely felt deep distress at being a white British man and needed to live as a Chinese woman to relieve it, would you expect a HCP to validate his identity as a Chinese woman, or as a British woman?

In my deleted message I explained - perhaps somewhat bluntly - that a trans-identified male often did not experience prolonged distress related to their sex, and seeks to alleviate this distress by "transitioning", but that there were frequently other factors involved in his choice to transition. Other factors that did not cause him any distress.

I do not think I broke any of the guidelines.

@JellySaurus I didn't report your post, didn't even see it. I am guessing it was about some men dressing in women's clothes for sexual gratification? Don't know if any women do.

Oh sorry missed your post a few minutes before.

@JanesLittleGirl

I support the Darlington Nurses cause irrespective of their backers and I've also donated to "Faye's" Crowd justice campaign. One of her claims is indirect discrimination on grounds of religion.

I would support Jennifer Melle if she was objecting to sharing a changing room with a transwomen based on her religion as well. My concern is bringing religion personally into someone's medical care and how that is navigated. It's also about whether we want to support all causes that are "GC".

I've shared relevant further information on Christian Legal Centre and that personally I could not take money from them, in a discussion allegedly rumours of "far right Christian groups" being behind cases. They are that.

I shared an article about how their interventions had, according to doctors, been behind cases that were "prolonging suffering" of very ill children and seen as manipulating parents. You are welcome to look into it.

I am also personally opposed to discrimination based on sexual orientation and support same sex marriage. They have taken cases on these, such as a B&B owner refusing a gay couple.

Like I say, far right and not an organisation I could take money from because I would not want to be part of their publicity. I appreciate those like the Darlington Nurses were in a difficult position and their union should have taken the case.

This is something I've been thinking about. Just from my own experience in healthcare, I don't see how a HCP could simply not use a patient's pronouns in all cases without issues. For example, by using their individual name at all time. It would work in short interactions.

On my mind, I made a formal complaint about a relative who died under NHS care. My vague recollection of forms was that they asked precisely how he should be addressed as I requested "Dr.". He had a PhD and would have wanted that. Might have had pronouns box, not sure.

(Some medical doctors object to calling non medical doctors "Dr." btw!)

I received a long and respectful report which included I.e. detailed statements from those treating him. If they had not used any third party pronouns it would have read very uncomfortably, and I imagine a relative who wanted preferred pronouns used would see it as disrespectful and upsetting.

I also found a case in the USA where a teacher was allowed not to use transgender students preferred pronouns on religious grounds, using their name instead and it didn't work out.

In these cases it's a balance of rights issues that an organisation has to consider in coming up with an overall policy to address its aims.

False dichotomy. "They" is also a pronoun and it can be used anywhere that a gendered pronoun would be.

I consider "they" to be a respectful and appropriate non-gender-specific accomodation for someone who is distressed at being seen as their actual sex.

I do not think it is necessary to go past that middle ground into accomodating a person's desire to be perceived as/treated as the sex that they are not bcause however such a person may feel, in reality they have no understanding or experience of what it is to actually be that sex, only a projected fantasy.

Paying even lip service that that fantasy is in some way meaningful as "living as" the opposite sex gives it a legitimacy it should not have. We should not allow "pretending to be a thing" and "being a thing" to become muddled because that then muddles our understanding of the people who do live as that sex and the needs and experiences they have because of their sex.

Out of interest, if the patient you refer to had not had a Phd or doctorate, but rather was a person who felt genuine mental distress at not being a doctor and had found this was relieved by adopting a social persona as a doctor, and had lived within that identity for many years with most acquaintances simply taking it at face value that they were a doctor, would you consider that meaningful enough that HCPs should be expected to call that patient "Dr"?

@FlirtsWithRhinos "False dichotomy. "They" is also a pronoun and it can be used anywhere that a gendered pronoun would be."

It can be, however not everyone is comfortable using the gender neutral "they".

I don't know Jennifer Melle's personal viewpoint as she's only said she uses names.

However, I was thinking about the problem and solutions generally to try and balance all rights.

Neither is everyone comfortable lying by using wrong-sex pronouns.

People have different tolerances for their ability to tell lies, including 'white lies'. Many people find it distressing to say something they don't feel or know to be true.

Yeah, but since your position is that Jennifer Melle should as a HCP be expected to use words she isn't comfortable using anyway, you can't now turn round and be concerned she might not want to use "they".

Your problem is that you've been conned into thinking the balanced answer lies somewhere between trans women being entirely women, and trans women never being women.

That's a false anchor that has been set up by Genderism's incoherent claim that some men are meaningfully more like women than other men. Any step towards trans women being a bit more like women than other men is unreasonable because they simply are not, in any meaningful way, more like women at all.

The true balanced answer is either "they", or neo-pronouns reflecting a thing that is entirely unlinked to sex.

Wait, now I'm confused. So you @FlirtsWithRhinos would support HCP being required to use "they"for transgender individuals?

Even if they say it's against their religion? There were also a load of non religious objections on another thread when I suggested it...

What does “far right” even mean these days? It’s become the de facto insult for anyone who doesn’t toe the progressive line, and just so overused it’s lost all impact. Which, in itself, is what’s dangerous.

Calling the Christian Legal Centre “far right” feels like a stretch. They’re socially conservative, certainly — but that’s not the same as being extreme, even if some prefer to blur that line.

In those difficult child-care cases, it’s easy to accuse them of “manipulating” families. In reality, many actively seek the CLC
support when they feel shut out by the system. You don’t have to agree with the CLC to acknowledge that.

As for the claim they “prolong suffering” — that depends entirely on your ethical and medical framework. Others would argue they’re simply helping families who aren’t ready to give up yet.

I would prefer that they were not "required", but I think it's a reasonable compromise and, so long as it's understood that "they" is a polite way to refer to someone without mentioning their sex rather than a label that recognises some imaginary third type of human who is neither man nor woman, I would be surprised if anyone refused.

Whether the trans person would accept it is, of course, a different question. But that is of course where reasonable compromise crosses into unreasonable demand.

What are your thoughts on the not-doctor and the British-or-Chinese transwoman?

I would be surprised if anyone refused. Other than objections on here, I've come across the Kluge case in the USA, that's different though as also declined to use first names.

Apologies for not getting back to you r.e. other questions today.

I need to look up the actual definition of far right. I’m sure someone’s worked it out.

I think I consider it to be actively infringing people’s personal liberties- persecuting people.

I don’t think CLC do that- they support people to challenge things they are unhappy about. I don’t agree with all the cases they take- Archie Battersby, and the little boy with the mitochondrial disease, but I understand the parents’ concern and the line needs testing. Both intervention and withdrawal of treatment need regular testing.

I can’t bear using the wrong words for things (or people) - it makes my teeth itch.

I correct DH if he tries to call his dish with minced beef and potatoes ‘Shepherds pie’ I may be just a little bit pedantic. I am good at proof reading though.

@myplace I don't want to detail the discussion on general politics, but wouldn't you say lobbying to prevent abortion, and for companies to be allowed to personally decline same sex couples for services to be infringing on people's personal liberty? To live free from discrimination?

I agree there can be merit in their cases and everyone has the right to bring legal cases. The way they do so is questionable which is what I was raising awareness in the Archie case. Don't forget it is often us the public paying the cost of defence.

I think that we have to be free to challenge and test.
Far right would be removing the opportunity to take a case to court, removing the opportunity to protest a law. The existence of CLC proves we live in a democratic society. I think it healthy to let people demonstrate and justify their beliefs- even the ones I don’t agree with.
You do have to be able to imagine other people may have a point, though. And so many people struggle with that at the moment. The people we don’t agree with might have reasons for their position. And that’s ok.

We broadly agree @myplace but regardless it's important to understand some of the background toTRA criticism/suggestions of the "far right" (whatever you mean by that) funding GC cases.

Personally I wouldn't be comfortable accepting money from Christian Legal Centre for a case as gay rights are very important to me. I appreciate it's a difficult decision. Also, any legal precedent to "religiously object" (as opposed to on biology) might lead down some dark corridors.

CLC funding cases spills over to others and suggestions GC are "manufactured." I.e. that Sandie didn't have to go to the changing room on her period and was actually there to confront Dr. Upton prior to using a case. That is a tactic used in the USA in these situations.

Pragmatically I would at least want CLC to be regulated under the SRA but that's a bit beyond here. I also try to support cases myself.

I hope that's clear and apologies to FlirtswithRhinos for still not getting to their Qs.

@BeLemonNow 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.

I would be far more concerned about the potential outcome of a transgender person on a hospital bed not being misgendered. It could end in serious physical damage, or even death (including the possibility of the death of their unborn child, as in one terribly sad case), if the medical staff identify and treat them according to their gender rather than their sex.