Jennifer Melle wins settlement from NHS

[RoyalCorgi]

Haven't seen a thread about this anywhere else, but Jennifer Melle, the nurse who refused to refer to a convicted sex offender by his preferred pronouns, and was disciplined, has won a settlement from the NHS trust she works for.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2vlxdnnpqo

Poor Jennifer. Even after her win, some people still side with the abusive violent man to deny her her victory. It’s so bad. Poor woman.

A person lies dying. Their partner, weeping, sits beside them. After they breathe their last, the partner turns to the nurse and says, "Where are you taking John? Will you look after him?" The nurse replies "Of course we will look after her. She will be in the chapel of rest, you can visit whenever you like". The bereaved says "John transitioned 20 years ago. We were married 10 years. Can you not refer to him as male?" The nurse gently explains that her Christian faith doesn't allow her to use incorrect titles or pronouns, but she will use the chosen name John. The bereaved person is very distressed by this. Justified in the circumstances?

Yes even without a religious faith people cannot be compelled to use incorrect personal pronouns.

A young adult trans person using the name Sophie is in A and E waiting for the psych on call and to be patched up for a deep self-harm gouge to the wrist. The nurse stitching tells Sophie's parent "He's lucky he didn't do more damage, we will get him sorted". Sophie sobs louder and the parent asks the nurse to use female pronouns as Sophie is trans. The nurse says that she cannot do so as her faith does not allow, but she will use the name Sophie. Justified in the circumstances?

Yes. The government have confirmed that this is correct when Jennifer Melle met with Bridget Phillipson & Health Minister Karin Smyth

She added that no teacher should be compelled to use someone’s preferred pronouns in an educational setting, and Ms Smyth noted that the same principle applies within the NHS.

https://christianconcern.com/news/bridget-phillipson-says-ehrc-single-sex-guidance-will-not-apply-to-workplaces/

If a person has been married to a woman who thinks she's a man then it will be obvious that she isn't a man. Why in the name of goodness, does anyone pretend otherwise?

Exactly. But it appears pretty hard for people to get to this conclusion, because of the indoctrination.

A few years ago if someone asked you to call their recently departed spouse by the opposite sex pronoun, you might side eye them and go ok-ay, mentally backing away, and making a note.

The only thing that has changed that is political activism on behalf of a men's sexual rights movement.

Jennifer has said that she will not use incorrect pronouns but I'm not aware of her saying she would insist on using correct pronouns. In the case of the prisoner she said she would use his name instead.

This, so in this circumstance it would be
”we will take John to the chapel of rest, and you can visit John when you like”
and
“Sophie’s* *lucky there’s not more damage, we will get things sorted ".

is that ok @AlwaysNuance or is it the compelling others to engage in the delusion that’s most important?

That's entirely acceptable and what I said would have been a good response early on in this thread. It's not what actually happened though in the scenario under discussion. Ms Melle explained to Mr X that she wasn't able to use pronouns or title as it was against her beliefs.

A closer approximation would be "I cannot call John 'he' as I am a a Christian and it is against my religious beliefs to use incorrect pronouns, but we will take John to the chapel of rest and you can visit John there whenever you like".

Discretion is sometimes the better part of valour imo.

I’m sorry, I must be a terrible person - and certainly not kind - but reading this I felt like Oscar Wilde reading about the death of Little Nell in The Old Curiosity Shop.

discussion. Ms Melle explained to Mr X that she wasn't able to use pronouns or title as it was against her beliefs.
well that’s not true is it. Did Ms Melle say all
pronouns or titles or lying?
is that your slip up? “Mr X”?

I do find this kind of debate fascinating, because it's about the extent to which people can, or should, lie in order to protect the feelings of others.

To some extent we all do it - if someone says "Do you like my new haircut?" there are very few who would say "No, it looks terrible."

I think we have to accept, however, that for some people the ethical imperative to tell the truth overrides the social obligation to be polite. This was certainly true for Jennifer Melle.

And the point, surely, is that however much you think that lying would be the polite thing to do*, you cannot, morally or legally, compel people to lie.

*I don't necessarily think it is the polite thing to do.

My eyes actually glazed over reading it, we must both be terrible and unkind people.

Personally, I think the words polite and respectful are misused. Deliberately, mostly.

Pretending that the sex class of women doesn't exist is neither polite nor respectful, it's very dangerous.

Plus, people exhorting women to be polite would have an awful lot more credibility, if the refusal to do so didn't result in potentially being head-butted, fired, arrested or battered.

Jennifer Melle was neither rude nor disrespectful, and look what happened to her.

Everyone knows it's not about politeness. It's about compulsion.

I am using Mr X as that is the name used in the reporting.

Screenshots of her own words attached.

She says she thinks his crimes make him a man. I have sympathy for that pov tbh; it's honest.

Which is why I used an analogy but with non-horrible trans people as it illustrates the point that whilst it's easy to sympathise with a person refusing to pander to a peadophile and not regard that behaviour as unprofessional, it's imo clearer that blatant honesty isn't always necessary when you consider the impact of the same scenario on someone who isn't scum of the earth.

The fuck is this emotionally fuelled gobbledygook?

no one’s “distress” compels anyone to lie

You can't apply different standards depending on whether they are 'scum of the earth' or not. Especially in a healthcare setting.

Agree, what is your skin in the game @AlwaysNuance ?

I agree, that's the whole point I am making.

Ms Melle did just that, according to her own words in the article I shared.

Those words if you didn't see them
"Mr X is male. He has committed horrific crimes against children. To call him "she" not only felt wrong, but like a betrayal, not only of the reality but of the victims who suffered at his hands".

But she didn't say she would have acted any differently had he been a non criminal man.

What’s factually wrong there?

@AlwaysNuance Is there a level of behaviour from a TW where you think yep, everyone should call him 'she'? You seem to be saying here that because he was aggressive, upset, angry and agitated she should have acquiesced and referred to him by his preferred pronouns. Does that go for all TW acting in the same way who want to be referred to as 'she'? If not, why not, and how does anyone make the distinction without finding themselves in an ET or court?

I'm sure it does feel like a betrayal. The same when a woman was forced to call her rapist 'she' in court. It's a complete betrayal.

But it doesn't have to feel like a betrayal to still not want to do it. It's sexist clap trap.

We should not be accommodating the demands of men hell bent on erasing women as a sex class.

It's wrong for dozens of reasons.

And yes, the betrayal of a paedophile's victims is one of them.

But it's not the defining one.

Plus Jennifer's initial and primary reason was that it's a betrayal of reality. In other words it's a lie.

I don't really disagree. I think some people think it's polite, though. Pink News's reporting of the Melle case just came up on Facebook, and it's astonishing to see the number of comments about how Melle failed to be "polite" or "respectful". I mean, really? She failed to respect an aggressive convicted sex offender who was hurling racist abuse at her? And you have a problem with that?

Anyway, I think you're right, but I also think how odd it is that we live in a society where people believe that forcing others to lie is somehow the morally right thing to do.

Case-by-case innit😍

Nobody, no matter how wicked, how generally saintly, how victimised, how powerful, has the right to compel anyone else to lie.

There are situations where I have used the chosen pronoun, for the sake of keeping the peace, and it makes me very uncomfortable.

As for programmes that try to preach genderwang, I just turn them off. I did it to a podcast the other day. The American hosts started on about Terf Island and our terrible 'transphobia'. Fine, mates. No thanks and bye bye.

And it's not that I refuse to listen to the other side. I have, at length. But I'm not going to listen to the brave women of the UK being insulted, especially when the topic of the podcast was something completely unrelated. They're not making any money out of me if that's their attitude.

I think it's most likely that she had no idea what crimes he might have committed when she called him "Mr" on the phone to someone else, and consequently that could have played no part in her thoughts at the time.

It sounds like post rationalization to me, on her part (entirely unnecessarily) and on yours too.