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

Think @AlwaysNuance said Jennifer was being inflammatory… re the provoking…. You know the type that therefore = righteous statements like-
”behead all terfs*
”die in a grease fire”
and the lovely threatening baseball bats wrapped in barbed wire type of responses?

“Having read the times article above it's clear that she wasn't asking about what specific treatment was needed for a male bodied person. She was reporting that the patient wanted to leave. She could have said "Susan Jones in cubicle 5 is asking to self-discharge"

Except it’s not clear and you haven’t got the full picture because they’ve left out some important facts, just like the doctor on the other end of the phone would have, if she hadn’t imparted the information that the patient was male.

Shame that she was professional enough to use a numbing agent. I’d have been tempted to go “dry” on him.

Might just be me, but this doesn't really sound like the behavior of a woman, it sounds more par for the course for a violent man-baby

You don't think a woman can ever be vocally racist or physically aggressive?

I guess that I am thinking that a typical, traditional woman would not require two male prison officers to prevent them assaulting the nurse who was trying to treat them?

ETA: I know it is quite a nuanced position

None of which are relevant here as this person didn't use any of those threats. They did use horrific racist language which I haven't excused at all.

As a professional person I wouldn't choose to call any person who has communicated their desire to be referred to as female as "Mr". It is inflammatory. Particularly when by all accounts that person is already agitated and unstable.

If it was an error that's different, but it obviously wasn't as the nurse told this already riled up, dangerous person that her Christian beliefs prevented her from using preferred pronouns and titles.

I maintain that this was not the time not the person with whom to make a stand. You take an already agitated and upset person and wind them up further. It doesn't matter that the person is a horrible person. You can escalate or de-escalate. This nurse escalated an already precarious situation with a volatile and upset person.

She did not deserve to be racially abused, but getting some kind of heightened response from this person in the situation was pretty predictable.

Why must she submit to his beliefs?

Genuine question.

He's a man. Still doing this, still harms women. It's still against her faith.

I don't think 'you shouldn't have said it, it wound him up' was part of the investigation.

You've changed your argument. Initially you seemed to be arguing as a point or principle that Melle should have referred to the male patient as "she".

Now you seem to be arguing for pragmatic reasons that she should have referred to him as "she" to avoid provoking him.

Do you see the difference? They're entirely different arguments.

No. I haven't changed my opinion.

It's the difference between having a belief and the way one enacts that belief.

I would suggest that a nurse can privately think what they like. I accept and endorse that there are times when to know natal sex or trans status is vital in medical situations. I don't think it's professional to use for ANY trans patient the title they have clearly rejected for themself, or the pronouns they have rejected. It's easy enough to avoid saying "Mr Jones". In fact I can't think of an occasion when my title has been used by a doctor or nurse in a hospital, I am always plain Emma Smith in bay 3. They probably haven't asked if it's Miss Smith, Ms Smith, Mrs Smith or Dr Smith for that matter.

My baseline presumption, is that you cannot control someone's thoughts; they are entirely free to think that it's a load of bollocks, but there's no need to agitate patients in general by using "factual-but-rejected" titles and pronouns. You can thinks it's bollocks, but enacting that is unprofessional. I believe that was actually mentioned in the WORIADS judgement, that deliberate misgendering was unlikely to be treated with impunity.

It's particularly inflammatory to decide to use a "factual-but-rejected" title with a person who is clearly a) violent and under restraint and b) already agitated and upset.

I guess that we will never hear the full evidence as to what was said by whom and when as the NHS' lawyers looked at their evidence and decided that they would

• back out of their legal action at close to the last minute
• agree to an undisclosed settlement
• publicly apologize to the nurse concerned
• issue a written warning to the man concerned

Clearly the nurse concerned has done something very wrong, the powers that be have just not worked out what it is yet.

https://christianconcern.com/news/jennifer-melle-wins-settlement-from-nhs-after-10-month-long-legal-battle/

The full story.

Ah, so we've reached the "she provoked him" part now.

Carry on...

The patient was recorded as male in their medical records.

Looking at the patient’s medical records, she saw that the patient was recorded as male, not female or ‘transgender’. On the name board next to the bed, it simply gave the feminine name.

Quite. Then, despite the barrage of racial abuse, she politely explained that she would be happy to call him by his name and got his painkillers sorted, which calmed him down.

Yes, didn't you know? Victims of misogyny and racism should learn not to provoke men by being "inflammatory", as in consulting their medical records and correctly sexing them in a medical context.👀

https://forwomen.scot/05/02/2025/rules-of-misogyny/

At a glance, 1,2,4 and 8 seems to fit here...

Doesn't excuse the racism, but you nonetheless felt compelled to mention it anyway. Are you going to tell us why it's relevant in any way, shape or form?

No, you can correctly sex anyone. They've been doing it in all the court cases, for instance, with the judge's knowledge.

What you can't do is harass them. Like running after them shouting you're man, you're a man.

Calling him Mr on the phone, which is what it says in his notes, and is pertinent to his treatment, would be fine.

But furthermore, it goes against Jennifer's beliefs not to.

Gender reassignment is the protected characteristic that the trans person has, not 'you must call me a man'. There's nowhere that says that.

Because it shows she “deserved it innit”… of course… poor male only lashed out because of the most important aspect of “hurty feels”… they allow for all retaliation…

"Previously male"?

Showing your bias there, AlwaysNuance.

I hope she got shed loads of cash.

One thing the recent court cases showed is that even people who say they believe TWAW find it hard to stick to preferred pronouns in stressful situations. Several of them slipped up!

I think that expecting harassed medical staff to walk this linguistic tightrope on top of everything else they have to deal with - knowing they'll be punished if they don't - is not Being Kind.

She did not deserve to be racially abused, but getting some kind of heightened response from this person in the situation was pretty predictable.

Her skirt was too short.