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/

It is harmful to deliberately use wrong-sex pronouns.

It is a lie. It promises that person something that can never be true.

It reinforces a delusion ( if they truly believe that they are the opposite sex, or no-sex) or services their paraphilia (if they are autogynephiliac).

It risks them being mistreated, whether medically or otherwise (eg a trans-identifying woman missing out on opportunities and services aimed at women).

It decieves vulnerable people, such as the women who wants a female HCP to carry out her smear test, or your elderly parent with dementia.

Read this article:

Pronouns are Rohypnol

I was merely trying to ascertain whether you had any limits to how much you’d affirm someone’s identity. As I suspected, you do. Look up “neopronouns”. We all have our red lines.

No, I can’t see a difference. You’re indulging in special pleading for the “gender” belief. Which is fine, just don’t expect others to join you.

I've read that thanks. Although it adequately argues for individuals to use "correct sex pronouns" I'm not sure it applies here. Two relevant issues:

1. Can an NHS medical service require their staff to use preferred pronouns and/or avoid using so called correct sex pronouns?

2. If an NHS medical service does have this requirement, can this override an individual person's alleged "religious belief"?

Evidently a medical service is a unique environment, where all medical professionals personal and religious beliefs are separate and that's important.

R.e. abortion there are specific UK laws allowing doctors not to be involved. I don't think it's analogous. They are also expected to be neutral and not act in a way that could be perceived as judging patients.

I'm concerned about a precedent that a medical professional can refuse all sorts of things on the grounds of stating religious belief.

R.e. your specific claim that's it's "harmful" to use preferred pronouns that's up for debate of course, there needs to be more evaluation. But I'm not sure deciding whether or not to do so should be up to individual medical professionals' choice.

It's also not what the nurse is claiming here she's been quoting the Bible and Genesis which is prefer to be kept out of healthcare frankly.

Correctly gendering someone with a trans identity is seen as a breach of confidentiality.

Jennifer Melle was overheard by this man using a male pronoun for him. He then called her the n word multiple times.

As long as someone is not being expected to actively participate in whatever the fantasy/personal belief of the dying person is there should not be an issue.

What about a patient imposing a personal religious belief on medical staff?

@Shortshriftandlethal That's not what happened. Quite a lot of patient medical information has certainly been released, what hospital, what crime, how tall they are etc.

Granted we haven't had the full details yet, other than that she's been suspended for breaching patient confidentiality which the NMC takes very very seriously.

I don't know the precise rules for nurses r.e. confidentiality. It may be that the detail was enough to figure out who it was even if not named, maybe named and redacted idk.

Evidently patient confidentiality rules apply exactly the same whether a lovely transwomen called Debbie or an evil convicted criminal.

They've probably turned it into that so they don't look like NHS Fife, and that's also probably a more serious "offence"

She also noted that a white colleague used male pronouns for the same patient but was not investigated.

https://sex-matters.org/case-briefings/jennifer-melle-v-epsom-and-st-helier-university-hospitals-nhs-trust/

Thank you, I’d missed that.

That may be a case for racial discrimination sure.

However, she specifically told the "transgender" patient she wasn't going to use their preferred pronouns because it was against her Christian beliefs. I don't think any of the white colleagues said anything like that. It sounds like he made a complaint specifically against her.

I suspect other medical professionals would all argue they were accidentally misgendering and would have corrected if asked.

It's also worth noting as far as I'm aware - whether you agree or not - refusing or deliberately not using preferred pronouns is against NHS trust policy, accidentally is not. They have the ability to enforce their policies.

@Ereshkigalangcleg obviously you are free to offend who you wish, equally I don't want to be associated with anyone diminishing or using serious and deadly mental illness like anorexia or psychosis to support you using the pronouns you want to use to refer to someone.

I'm guessing you don't have any serious personal or family experience of either of these conditions to be remotely comparing that to calling a transwomen "she". You aren't doing GC side any favours you just will drive people like myself away who are disturbed by the extremity.

The only pronoun needed to use to a patient's face is "you". What they are called when being discussed among HCPs is none of the patient's business. I cannot see any circumstance where you would need to use a patient's preferred pronouns. Quite often we refer to patients by illness not name e.g. the MI in bed 7, the D&V in bed 9 or Pain In The Arse in bed 5.

What did the white colleagues say then? You seem to know, right?

causing substantial distress to transgender individuals including at their most vulnerable/ sick / dying

It is found that a number of men entering hi al stages of life with dementia forget that they ever identified as a woman and experience extreme distress at their missing penis/ gained breasts etc. In a medical setting patient safety should be prioritised over pandering to a delusion.

potentially "outing" transgender status to others who may not be aware adding to the above issues.

Their faces (and male behaviour) generally ‘out’ them as male.

include refusing to use non binary pronouns to a female feminist who wants a less gendered society.

Using ‘non binary’ pronouns is not moving us to a ‘less gendered society’ - it actually reinforces the sex binary by claiming that only the extra special people can transcend it and the rest of us ‘normies’ are tediously adhering ti those sex based stereotypes like glue (except that we are not).

I might call someone fat but I wouldn't expect a nurse to use that word to describe a relative however true it is

That’s a rather harsh word for you to use - I don’t see why you’d do that. I’m sure a nurse would find a gentler way to say it when necessary. It is in no way analogous to calling a man a man especially in a medical setting.

These appear to be unlawful policies that discriminate against two protected characteristics though.

Just because some activist group wrote ridiculous and harmful policies doesn’t make them ok and enforceable.

As pp said, lots of stupid policies have been made considering only one protected characteristic which apparently trumps everyone else’s rights and needs. It doesn’t mean they can’t be challenged.

I’m not accountable to you, and I’ll express myself as I see fit, thanks for your concern.

It wasn’t actually me who made those specific analogies, but some GC women who have experienced those conditions have also done so, and I don’t see why these arguments are any less relevant as analogies than some of the straw men scenarios you’ve come up with.

Christians have widely varying views on ethical issues; this often relates to their position on the fundamentalist to liberal axis. Those at the liberal end find it quite easy to reject passages from the Bible that are inconvenient; those at the fundamentalist end find it quite easy to reject modern liberal societal values if they can find a Bible passage which expresses a different view. There are plenty of Christians in between the extremes, with a variety of understandings and theological perspectives.

I personally used to have no theoretical issue with gender identity thinking; I had only read about it in the Guardian; I could see very little directly relevant in the Bible or in the church teachings I had come across. But I know people for whom Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are foundational to their understanding of sex and who have a conservative approach to gender. I partially disagree with them, but at least they recognise the reality and immutability of one's sex and don't pretend that changing sex is possible.

Jennifer Melle has been punished for not having the right kind of respect. In a similar way, I have been punished by my son and his partner for not being OK with using the language they insist is required - I am apparently bigoted because I see my son as male (which is objectively true) and am not prepared to pretend that he is my daughter by referring to him as "she". That doing as they demand is extremely painful, and is in my view rejecting my son, doesn't seem to matter to them in the slightest. They are right and I am "transphobic" - but they refuse to discuss and justify their worldview. That fact, to me, shows just who is bigoted. They have written me off, it seems, for my heresy, because they cannot countenance the possibility that they might be mistaken. I have not rejected them, though I do reject their gender identity religion. They have rejected me as a bigot and almost completely cut themselves off from me, which is as bigoted a position as I have ever come across. Other trans people and their allies have not done the same.

@BundleBoogie it's an interesting point, I am in agreement that compelled belief is an issue.

You might be interested in the Mackereth versus DWP case if not already aware.

Not a lawyer. But similarly doctor refused to use preferred pronouns stating religious beliefs and quoting Genesis as evidence of the fundamental importance of sex/gender.

Also defending by Christian Legal Centre and broadly lost including at Appeal.

My understanding being that it was proportional not to employ as he would be assessing transgender individuals, so this particular manifestation would impact DWP's aims.

@RapidOnsetGenderCritic I'm really sorry to hear your story. It is awful how bigoted much of the TRA ideology is, they often encourage people to cut ties with family who are in any broad sense gender critical and see any objection as transphobia. I hope that they will come to their senses eventually and appreciate there are a range of viewpoints. That people don't have to share a belief system to be family, or to treat them fairly.

Assuming that a health care professional should use the patient's preferred pronouns when talking to his or her family is surely not justified? When I went to see my GP because I was struggling with my son's brand new "gender identity", I was referred to a local mental health agency, which proceeded to write to me about my "daughter". That was one of the most offensive things I have ever personally experienced - to refer to my son as my daughter when my family relationships had just been thrown into the air and not even landed yet. My son's view of himself is his view, not mine. It is incredibly offensive to assume that I would be fine with the erasure of our whole previous relationship, and to imply that in future I have no choice but to suppress my cognitive dissonance and be delighted for my "daughter's" new found path in life.

It was immediately obvious that the new gender identity has put him on a difficult path, and one that for many people is a path to lifelong physical health problems from hormone treatments and even cosmetic surgery. Our family has been blown apart, having been close knit and respectful of differences. My DW misses our son, as do I. We worry about him daily. All because of a ridiculous social contagion to which he has proved vulnerable. Truth is hatred, love has to submit to ideology, and our somewhat vulnerable son is keeping company with people who will drop him like a brick if there's no longer anything for them in the relationship - unlike us, who will always have a place for him in our hearts, and in our home if he needs it.

I don't often swear, but I am fucking angry.