FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Dr David Mackareth

Dr David Mackareth

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

This is a directlift from a newspaper article in which said Doctor was sacked for refusing to refer to people as whatever they wished to identify as based on his Christian beliefs. So much for free speech. He fears he’s unemployable. As a Doctor he sees things in black and white, biology and genetics. I agree with him. You can’t just pick and choose which gender you want to be on any given day. You are what you are.

Dr David Mackereth was fired for saying people can't choose their gender

The Department for Work and Pensions told him to refer to those seeking disability allowance as whatever gender they requested

But David could not abide by their rules as he believes gender is determined biologically and genetically

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ELLONS AND CREAMWoman over a year ago

stourbridge area

Well hes right ....but I think some will disagree..... ill get the popcorn ready ...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ara JTV/TS over a year ago

Bristol East

Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman over a year ago

evesham

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

Yup! His beliefs are his beliefs if he is putting himself out of a job because he puts them before the rights of his patients that I have no sympathy for him.

Much like I have no sympathy for those who make themselves unemployable by having face tattoos.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

So is it right to sack a highly skilled doctor for refusing to tick a box? He didn’t refuse to treat anybody, he just refused to tick the male box for a female or vice versa.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

Yup! His beliefs are his beliefs if he is putting himself out of a job because he puts them before the rights of his patients that I have no sympathy for him.

Much like I have no sympathy for those who make themselves unemployable by having face tattoos. "

Are they really beliefs tho or is he just sticking to the rules of biology and genetics as he states in the story.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

Yup! His beliefs are his beliefs if he is putting himself out of a job because he puts them before the rights of his patients that I have no sympathy for him.

Much like I have no sympathy for those who make themselves unemployable by having face tattoos.

Are they really beliefs tho or is he just sticking to the rules of biology and genetics as he states in the story. "

The story says it is because of both.

Our legal system says people have the right.

Whether you believe this to be right or wrong, the right place to protest against the system is not when you are with a patient.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman over a year ago

evesham

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

Yup! His beliefs are his beliefs if he is putting himself out of a job because he puts them before the rights of his patients that I have no sympathy for him.

Much like I have no sympathy for those who make themselves unemployable by having face tattoos.

Are they really beliefs tho or is he just sticking to the rules of biology and genetics as he states in the story. "

They are his beliefs. Gender is more than Willies and fannies. That's what sex you are born as.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ara JTV/TS over a year ago

Bristol East

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

So is it right to sack a highly skilled doctor for refusing to tick a box? He didn’t refuse to treat anybody, he just refused to tick the male box for a female or vice versa. "

I do not know the specific circumstances.

But I can say that gender dysphoria is a recognised clinical condition.

The medical evidence underpins the legal position, whereby an individual undergoing can apply for legal recognition of their acquired gender.

Things like their passport, their driving licence, their birth certificate, their NI identity etc.

Do you think it is right that a bible-thumping clinician should seek to over-rule that and assert that he knows better than the individual how they should be defined?

I don't.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

Absolutely

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

Also, as a trained Doctor he would know that opinion isnt argument. There will be less and less of these bigots, and eventually they will be gone. Which is good.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

So is it right to sack a highly skilled doctor for refusing to tick a box? He didn’t refuse to treat anybody, he just refused to tick the male box for a female or vice versa.

I do not know the specific circumstances.

But I can say that gender dysphoria is a recognised clinical condition.

The medical evidence underpins the legal position, whereby an individual undergoing can apply for legal recognition of their acquired gender.

Things like their passport, their driving licence, their birth certificate, their NI identity etc.

Do you think it is right that a bible-thumping clinician should seek to over-rule that and assert that he knows better than the individual how they should be defined?

I don't.

I thought it was called gender dysmorphia.

The bible isn’t mentioned in the story, I read it as more his beliefs in biology and genetics. It’s not about knowing better either, its about following the basics of biology and genetics. He’s not deciding what gender these people are, he’s just sticking to the facts.

I know of a man who is in a psychiatric ward in the local mental hospital. He firmly believes he is a horse. Should he be released to live out his days in a field eating hay? Where does it end. One minute we allow people to chop and change their gender whenever they see fit and the next we will be allowing them to choose which species they belong to.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

Also, as a trained Doctor he would know that opinion isnt argument. There will be less and less of these bigots, and eventually they will be gone. Which is good. "

What makes you call him a bigot?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

Yup! His beliefs are his beliefs if he is putting himself out of a job because he puts them before the rights of his patients that I have no sympathy for him.

Much like I have no sympathy for those who make themselves unemployable by having face tattoos.

Are they really beliefs tho or is he just sticking to the rules of biology and genetics as he states in the story.

They are his beliefs. Gender is more than Willies and fannies. That's what sex you are born as. "

Is isn’t tho, when you boil it down to the science of it. It is just that, willies and fannies.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The story I read (telegraph) had quoted him as

“I said that I had a problem with this. I believe that gender is defined by biology and genetics. And that as a Christian the Bible teaches us that God made humans male or female. I could have kept my mouth shut. But, it was the right time to raise it."

On your horse point I refer you to the equality act. As I said, if he wants to challenge this, he needs to find a better way.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman over a year ago

evesham

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

So is it right to sack a highly skilled doctor for refusing to tick a box? He didn’t refuse to treat anybody, he just refused to tick the male box for a female or vice versa.

I do not know the specific circumstances.

But I can say that gender dysphoria is a recognised clinical condition.

The medical evidence underpins the legal position, whereby an individual undergoing can apply for legal recognition of their acquired gender.

Things like their passport, their driving licence, their birth certificate, their NI identity etc.

Do you think it is right that a bible-thumping clinician should seek to over-rule that and assert that he knows better than the individual how they should be defined?

I don't.

I thought it was called gender dysmorphia.

So you believe that gender dysmorphia is a mental health condition and those who wish to feel happy as the gender they want to be should be sectioned and put in hospital? Just clarifying your position.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 14/07/18 09:52:08]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

You can see genitals if they have developed properly but you can’t see how the brain is wired at birth!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman over a year ago

evesham

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

Yup! His beliefs are his beliefs if he is putting himself out of a job because he puts them before the rights of his patients that I have no sympathy for him.

Much like I have no sympathy for those who make themselves unemployable by having face tattoos.

Are they really beliefs tho or is he just sticking to the rules of biology and genetics as he states in the story.

They are his beliefs. Gender is more than Willies and fannies. That's what sex you are born as.

Is isn’t tho, when you boil it down to the science of it. It is just that, willies and fannies. "

A quick search on Google fir what defines gender throws up this dictionary definition

the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

So is it right to sack a highly skilled doctor for refusing to tick a box? He didn’t refuse to treat anybody, he just refused to tick the male box for a female or vice versa.

I do not know the specific circumstances.

But I can say that gender dysphoria is a recognised clinical condition.

The medical evidence underpins the legal position, whereby an individual undergoing can apply for legal recognition of their acquired gender.

Things like their passport, their driving licence, their birth certificate, their NI identity etc.

Do you think it is right that a bible-thumping clinician should seek to over-rule that and assert that he knows better than the individual how they should be defined?

I don't.

I thought it was called gender dysmorphia.

I didn’t say that. When did I say that? I was making a point, where does it end. If a person can switch genders at will then why can’t they switch species, why stop there, why not be able to identify as an inanimate object, a car, a tree etc. That’s the way it’s heading.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

So is it right to sack a highly skilled doctor for refusing to tick a box? He didn’t refuse to treat anybody, he just refused to tick the male box for a female or vice versa. "

Could not ticking the correct sex box impact a person's treatment in any way?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman over a year ago

evesham

Similarly.... What do hermaphrodites do in this Dr's world?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

So is it right to sack a highly skilled doctor for refusing to tick a box? He didn’t refuse to treat anybody, he just refused to tick the male box for a female or vice versa.

Could not ticking the correct sex box impact a person's treatment in any way?

Is ticking the female box for a male not the wrong box. As far as he’s concerned he’s ticking the right box as per the biology of said patient.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Similarly.... What do hermaphrodites do in this Dr's world? "

No idea, you’d have to ask him that, it’s not covered in the story, soz

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Anyways, I’m off out for a bike ride. Enjoy your days.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uke olovingmanMan over a year ago

Gravesend

The Bible tells us lots of things.. including virgins giving birth men walking on water and women being created from men's ribs ... seems like this man picks and chooses the bits he wants to live his life by ...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"This is a directlift from a newspaper article in which said Doctor was sacked for refusing to refer to people as whatever they wished to identify as based on his Christian beliefs. So much for free speech. He fears he’s unemployable. As a Doctor he sees things in black and white, biology and genetics. I agree with him. You can’t just pick and choose which gender you want to be on any given day. You are what you are.

Dr David Mackereth was fired for saying people can't choose their gender

The Department for Work and Pensions told him to refer to those seeking disability allowance as whatever gender they requested

But David could not abide by their rules as he believes gender is determined biologically and genetically "

Based on what I read here he was sacked for refusing to comply with the conditions set by his employers. I would expect to be sacked under those conditions.

If you hold firm convictions on any subject you will suffer for it.

Whether one agrees with him or the DWP is a matter for oneself.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ara JTV/TS over a year ago

Bristol East

"It’s not about knowing better either, its about following the basics of biology and genetics. He’s not deciding what gender these people are, he’s just sticking to the facts.

Let's assume the state has recognised this person's acquired gender as part of their treatment, by agreeing to change all their official records from male to female.

Along comes Dr X, as part of that same state, and seeks to reverse all that by declaring he will not recognise their identity.

Er, no.

That kind of arrogance makes him unsuited to the role.

As someone pointed out earlier, there is a time and place to debate the issue. The Government has a consultation at the moment about changes to those rules, for example. That's where he ought to focus. Instead, he chose to rewrite the law himself and invalidate the patient's identity.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman over a year ago

evesham

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

So is it right to sack a highly skilled doctor for refusing to tick a box? He didn’t refuse to treat anybody, he just refused to tick the male box for a female or vice versa.

I do not know the specific circumstances.

But I can say that gender dysphoria is a recognised clinical condition.

The medical evidence underpins the legal position, whereby an individual undergoing can apply for legal recognition of their acquired gender.

Things like their passport, their driving licence, their birth certificate, their NI identity etc.

Do you think it is right that a bible-thumping clinician should seek to over-rule that and assert that he knows better than the individual how they should be defined?

I don't.

I thought it was called gender dysmorphia.

And here ends the debate....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

So is it right to sack a highly skilled doctor for refusing to tick a box? He didn’t refuse to treat anybody, he just refused to tick the male box for a female or vice versa.

I do not know the specific circumstances.

But I can say that gender dysphoria is a recognised clinical condition.

The medical evidence underpins the legal position, whereby an individual undergoing can apply for legal recognition of their acquired gender.

Things like their passport, their driving licence, their birth certificate, their NI identity etc.

Do you think it is right that a bible-thumping clinician should seek to over-rule that and assert that he knows better than the individual how they should be defined?

I don't.

Exactly this! Imagining struggling with your identity, probably your whole life. Finally you seek help and guidance from a paid professional and are unfortunate enough to be seen by this gonk!

What else does his religion influence that is related to his job? Womens rights? Sexual health?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Dr David Mackereth was fired for saying people can't choose their gender

The Department for Work and Pensions told him to refer to those seeking disability allowance as whatever gender they requested

But David could not abide by their rules as he believes gender is determined biologically and genetically "

Then he is foolish. Gender is a social construct NOT anatomy. Perhaps forms should ask for anatomical categorisation (sex) than gender, or both.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

Yup! His beliefs are his beliefs if he is putting himself out of a job because he puts them before the rights of his patients that I have no sympathy for him.

Much like I have no sympathy for those who make themselves unemployable by having face tattoos. "

he should not impose his beliefs on others. He should act neutrally.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

So is it right to sack a highly skilled doctor for refusing to tick a box? He didn’t refuse to treat anybody, he just refused to tick the male box for a female or vice versa. "

He should have been given the choice to attend equality and diversity training, or resign. Perhaps there is more to the case.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

So is it right to sack a highly skilled doctor for refusing to tick a box? He didn’t refuse to treat anybody, he just refused to tick the male box for a female or vice versa.

I do not know the specific circumstances.

But I can say that gender dysphoria is a recognised clinical condition.

The medical evidence underpins the legal position, whereby an individual undergoing can apply for legal recognition of their acquired gender.

Things like their passport, their driving licence, their birth certificate, their NI identity etc.

Do you think it is right that a bible-thumping clinician should seek to over-rule that and assert that he knows better than the individual how they should be defined?

I don't.

I thought it was called gender dysmorphia.

"whenever they see fit" - i hope a transman/woman comes along to correct you. As far as i know it is a long process that involves counselling and hormones before the "chopping".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

Yup! His beliefs are his beliefs if he is putting himself out of a job because he puts them before the rights of his patients that I have no sympathy for him.

Much like I have no sympathy for those who make themselves unemployable by having face tattoos.

Are they really beliefs tho or is he just sticking to the rules of biology and genetics as he states in the story.

They are his beliefs. Gender is more than Willies and fannies. That's what sex you are born as.

Is isn’t tho, when you boil it down to the science of it. It is just that, willies and fannies. "

what about intersex people, what about xxy (and others) syndrome? Biology throws up anomalies.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

So is it right to sack a highly skilled doctor for refusing to tick a box? He didn’t refuse to treat anybody, he just refused to tick the male box for a female or vice versa.

I do not know the specific circumstances.

But I can say that gender dysphoria is a recognised clinical condition.

The medical evidence underpins the legal position, whereby an individual undergoing can apply for legal recognition of their acquired gender.

Things like their passport, their driving licence, their birth certificate, their NI identity etc.

Do you think it is right that a bible-thumping clinician should seek to over-rule that and assert that he knows better than the individual how they should be defined?

I don't.

I thought it was called gender dysmorphia.

At will/ by a whim? Is that what you're saying?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Why is religion mentioned? Seems He's using science, regardless of religion.

Wouldn't treating a man as if he's a woman, in a medical context, be potentially dangerous for the man?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman over a year ago

evesham

"Why is religion mentioned? Seems He's using science, regardless of religion.

Wouldn't treating a man as if he's a woman, in a medical context, be potentially dangerous for the man? "

Treating someone and referring to someone are very different things. As bulgy says, he never refused to treat, just chose to ignore their preferred gender when addressing them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why is religion mentioned? Seems He's using science, regardless of religion.

Wouldn't treating a man as if he's a woman, in a medical context, be potentially dangerous for the man?

Treating someone and referring to someone are very different things. As bulgy says, he never refused to treat, just chose to ignore their preferred gender when addressing them."

I thought it was a tick in a box? Not addressing them?

I didn't say he refused to treat them. I was thinking rather further ahead if their notes are read by another medical professional.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

So is it right to sack a highly skilled doctor for refusing to tick a box? He didn’t refuse to treat anybody, he just refused to tick the male box for a female or vice versa.

I do not know the specific circumstances.

But I can say that gender dysphoria is a recognised clinical condition.

The medical evidence underpins the legal position, whereby an individual undergoing can apply for legal recognition of their acquired gender.

Things like their passport, their driving licence, their birth certificate, their NI identity etc.

Do you think it is right that a bible-thumping clinician should seek to over-rule that and assert that he knows better than the individual how they should be defined?

I don't.

I thought it was called gender dysmorphia.

"whenever they see fit" - i hope a transman/woman comes along to correct you. As far as i know it is a long process that involves counselling and hormones before the "chopping"."

Now you’re twisting what I have said and adding bits in to suit yourself. It’s not about post op trans people, it’s about a man identifying as a woman or vice versus when they are clearly a man. Some do chop and change. A tv May go to an appointment one day and ask to be ticked as female, the next appointment he may be in male form. Which one is right?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

So is it right to sack a highly skilled doctor for refusing to tick a box? He didn’t refuse to treat anybody, he just refused to tick the male box for a female or vice versa.

I do not know the specific circumstances.

But I can say that gender dysphoria is a recognised clinical condition.

The medical evidence underpins the legal position, whereby an individual undergoing can apply for legal recognition of their acquired gender.

Things like their passport, their driving licence, their birth certificate, their NI identity etc.

Do you think it is right that a bible-thumping clinician should seek to over-rule that and assert that he knows better than the individual how they should be defined?

I don't.

Exactly this! Imagining struggling with your identity, probably your whole life. Finally you seek help and guidance from a paid professional and are unfortunate enough to be seen by this gonk!

What else does his religion influence that is related to his job? Womens rights? Sexual health? "

He worked for dwp not a gender reassignment clinic. He assessed claims for disability benefits as far as I can make out.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"It’s not about knowing better either, its about following the basics of biology and genetics. He’s not deciding what gender these people are, he’s just sticking to the facts.

Let's assume the state has recognised this person's acquired gender as part of their treatment, by agreeing to change all their official records from male to female.

Along comes Dr X, as part of that same state, and seeks to reverse all that by declaring he will not recognise their identity.

Er, no.

That kind of arrogance makes him unsuited to the role.

But you’re making assumptions to suit your own agenda. He assessed benefit claims for the dwp, that’s it. If a man sat before him he’d call them a man. If a woman sat before him he’d call them a woman.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

So is it right to sack a highly skilled doctor for refusing to tick a box? He didn’t refuse to treat anybody, he just refused to tick the male box for a female or vice versa.

I do not know the specific circumstances.

But I can say that gender dysphoria is a recognised clinical condition.

The medical evidence underpins the legal position, whereby an individual undergoing can apply for legal recognition of their acquired gender.

Things like their passport, their driving licence, their birth certificate, their NI identity etc.

Do you think it is right that a bible-thumping clinician should seek to over-rule that and assert that he knows better than the individual how they should be defined?

I don't.

I thought it was called gender dysmorphia.

"whenever they see fit" - i hope a transman/woman comes along to correct you. As far as i know it is a long process that involves counselling and hormones before the "chopping".

And what are you basing your opinion on?

This isn't about transvestites but transsexuals.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ara JTV/TS over a year ago

Bristol East

As I said at the start, I do not know the circumstances.

You said he refused to sign a form saying someone was X because he regarded them as Y.

I do not know who was sitting in front of him.

But if he is unable to uphold the rules of the state when discharging the functions of state, then he needs to find another job that does not conflict with his personal agenda.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

As I said at the start, I do not know the circumstances.

You said he refused to sign a form saying someone was X because he regarded them as Y.

I do not know who was sitting in front of him.

But if he is unable to uphold the rules of the state when discharging the functions of state, then he needs to find another job that does not conflict with his personal agenda.

I think that’s the point. It’s not personal opinion it’s just a biological fact.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

So is it right to sack a highly skilled doctor for refusing to tick a box? He didn’t refuse to treat anybody, he just refused to tick the male box for a female or vice versa.

I do not know the specific circumstances.

But I can say that gender dysphoria is a recognised clinical condition.

The medical evidence underpins the legal position, whereby an individual undergoing can apply for legal recognition of their acquired gender.

Things like their passport, their driving licence, their birth certificate, their NI identity etc.

Do you think it is right that a bible-thumping clinician should seek to over-rule that and assert that he knows better than the individual how they should be defined?

I don't.

I thought it was called gender dysmorphia.

"whenever they see fit" - i hope a transman/woman comes along to correct you. As far as i know it is a long process that involves counselling and hormones before the "chopping".

And what are you basing your opinion on?

This isn't about transvestites but transsexuals."

Actually it isn’t. It’s about males or females asking to be ticked as the opposite sex. Transsexuals arn’t mentioned in the story. I don’t think they are anyway, it was yesterday I read it, forgive me if I’m wrong.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman over a year ago

evesham

As I said at the start, I do not know the circumstances.

You said he refused to sign a form saying someone was X because he regarded them as Y.

I do not know who was sitting in front of him.

But if he is unable to uphold the rules of the state when discharging the functions of state, then he needs to find another job that does not conflict with his personal agenda.

I think that’s the point. It’s not personal opinion it’s just a biological fact. "

Even though the dictionary definition of gender doesn't relate to biological aspects? Just bringing that up again as you seem to have missed it earlier.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman over a year ago

evesham

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

So is it right to sack a highly skilled doctor for refusing to tick a box? He didn’t refuse to treat anybody, he just refused to tick the male box for a female or vice versa.

I do not know the specific circumstances.

But I can say that gender dysphoria is a recognised clinical condition.

The medical evidence underpins the legal position, whereby an individual undergoing can apply for legal recognition of their acquired gender.

Things like their passport, their driving licence, their birth certificate, their NI identity etc.

Do you think it is right that a bible-thumping clinician should seek to over-rule that and assert that he knows better than the individual how they should be defined?

I don't.

I thought it was called gender dysmorphia.

"whenever they see fit" - i hope a transman/woman comes along to correct you. As far as i know it is a long process that involves counselling and hormones before the "chopping".

And what are you basing your opinion on?

This isn't about transvestites but transsexuals.

They were in the article I read, although this Dr had only treated one in his time in the profession.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

As I said at the start, I do not know the circumstances.

You said he refused to sign a form saying someone was X because he regarded them as Y.

I do not know who was sitting in front of him.

But if he is unable to uphold the rules of the state when discharging the functions of state, then he needs to find another job that does not conflict with his personal agenda.

I think that’s the point. It’s not personal opinion it’s just a biological fact.

Even though the dictionary definition of gender doesn't relate to biological aspects? Just bringing that up again as you seem to have missed it earlier. "

I saw it, just think it’s a load of nonsense. The Dr talks in the biological sense of male and female. It’s black and white really. I’m not trying to offend people, I just think it’s quite cut and dry. If a person sits before you with a cock and bollocks then the male box ought to be ticked, if a person with tits and fanny sits before you then the female box ought to be ticked.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman over a year ago

evesham

As I said at the start, I do not know the circumstances.

You said he refused to sign a form saying someone was X because he regarded them as Y.

I do not know who was sitting in front of him.

But if he is unable to uphold the rules of the state when discharging the functions of state, then he needs to find another job that does not conflict with his personal agenda.

I think that’s the point. It’s not personal opinion it’s just a biological fact.

Even though the dictionary definition of gender doesn't relate to biological aspects? Just bringing that up again as you seem to have missed it earlier.

Like I said.... That denotes their sex. Sex is male or female, gender is different. When a person or animal is born they are 'sexed' in that someone notes what genitals they have and marks their sex accordingly. They aren't 'gendered'. It doesn't say gender on the birth certificate (at leary I don't think it does.... Not seen mine for years lol)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

As I said at the start, I do not know the circumstances.

You said he refused to sign a form saying someone was X because he regarded them as Y.

I do not know who was sitting in front of him.

But if he is unable to uphold the rules of the state when discharging the functions of state, then he needs to find another job that does not conflict with his personal agenda.

I think that’s the point. It’s not personal opinion it’s just a biological fact.

Even though the dictionary definition of gender doesn't relate to biological aspects? Just bringing that up again as you seem to have missed it earlier.

Yes, and the doctor is ticking boxes based on their biological sex. So he’s right isn’t he. Thank you

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman over a year ago

evesham

From medical news today

In general terms, "sex" refers to the biological differences between males and females, such as the genitalia and genetic differences. "Gender" is more difficult to define, but it can refer to the role of a male or female in society, known as a gender role, or an individual's concept of themselves, or gender identity.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Just checked my daughters birth certificate. It says Sex- female

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"From medical news today

Tell that to the thousands of male nurses, I think they’d still like to be called men.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman over a year ago

evesham

"From medical news today

Tell that to the thousands of male nurses, I think they’d still like to be called men. "

What?!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman over a year ago

evesham

"Just checked my daughters birth certificate. It says Sex- female "

Not gender then

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ailorJerryLoversCouple over a year ago

South Herts

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

Exactly this.

As part of the contract between him and his employer he is expected to follow their clearly laid out policies. If he can't bring himself to do that then it's right that that contract ends.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Just checked my daughters birth certificate. It says Sex- female

Not gender then

No it says sex, gender isn’t mentioned.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman over a year ago

evesham

"Just checked my daughters birth certificate. It says Sex- female

Not gender then

No it says sex, gender isn’t mentioned. "

So they define her sex based on her genitals and put it on her official paperwork as sex, not gender?

If your daughter grows up and feels she is happier being addressed as your son will you stick by your 'but it's biology' stance? Would you rather her be unhappy but referred to by her base biological sex?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Just checked my daughters birth certificate. It says Sex- female

Not gender then

No it says sex, gender isn’t mentioned.

So they define her sex based on her genitals and put it on her official paperwork as sex, not gender?

I would support my daughter and three sons in anything or anybody they choose to be and they know it. But as for as long they had the tackle they were born with i wouldn’t be arguing against any doctor who ticked the sex box they were.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

So is it right to sack a highly skilled doctor for refusing to tick a box? He didn’t refuse to treat anybody, he just refused to tick the male box for a female or vice versa.

I do not know the specific circumstances.

But I can say that gender dysphoria is a recognised clinical condition.

The medical evidence underpins the legal position, whereby an individual undergoing can apply for legal recognition of their acquired gender.

Things like their passport, their driving licence, their birth certificate, their NI identity etc.

Do you think it is right that a bible-thumping clinician should seek to over-rule that and assert that he knows better than the individual how they should be defined?

I don't.

I thought it was called gender dysmorphia.

"whenever they see fit" - i hope a transman/woman comes along to correct you. As far as i know it is a long process that involves counselling and hormones before the "chopping".

And what are you basing your opinion on?

This isn't about transvestites but transsexuals.

They were in the article I read, although this Dr had only treated one in his time in the profession. "

They were transsexuals or transvestites?

If gender fluid, perhaps forms need to start embracing this.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

As I said at the start, I do not know the circumstances.

You said he refused to sign a form saying someone was X because he regarded them as Y.

I do not know who was sitting in front of him.

But if he is unable to uphold the rules of the state when discharging the functions of state, then he needs to find another job that does not conflict with his personal agenda.

I think that’s the point. It’s not personal opinion it’s just a biological fact.

Even though the dictionary definition of gender doesn't relate to biological aspects? Just bringing that up again as you seem to have missed it earlier.

It depends if gender/ sex is important to the claim.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"From medical news today

Tell that to the thousands of male nurses, I think they’d still like to be called men. "

What's your point? Nurse as a profession has no sex/gender aspect.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Just checked my daughters birth certificate. It says Sex- female

Not gender then

No it says sex, gender isn’t mentioned.

So they define her sex based on her genitals and put it on her official paperwork as sex, not gender?

You appear to be arguing on the basis of the form asking for sex, is that so?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Just checked my daughters birth certificate. It says Sex- female

Not gender then

No it says sex, gender isn’t mentioned.

So they define her sex based on her genitals and put it on her official paperwork as sex, not gender?

You appear to be arguing on the basis of the form asking for sex, is that so?"

I’m not really arguing at all. I’m just saying I can see where the doctor is coming from and I agree with him. But yes, I see it as what sex the individual is.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"From medical news today

Tell that to the thousands of male nurses, I think they’d still like to be called men.

What's your point? Nurse as a profession has no sex/gender aspect."

I was on about the bit that says a gender role in society, nursing as a profession has historically been a female role and when you say “nurse” you automatically picture a female. A poor example maybe.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Just checked my daughters birth certificate. It says Sex- female

Not gender then

No it says sex, gender isn’t mentioned.

So they define her sex based on her genitals and put it on her official paperwork as sex, not gender?

You appear to be arguing on the basis of the form asking for sex, is that so?

I’m not really arguing at all. I’m just saying I can see where the doctor is coming from and I agree with him. But yes, I see it as what sex the individual is. "

Can you not see then, if the form specifically asks for gender, and guidelines state to tick with what the person identifies with, the doctor has to follow suit?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ara JTV/TS over a year ago

Bristol East

"From medical news today

Tell that to the thousands of male nurses, I think they’d still like to be called men. "

I've never heard anyone refer to a male nurse as anything other than, well, a male nurse.

Do you think nursing is a woman's job?

Is a man who works as nurse somehow open to misinterpretation?

If so, why?

Strikes me as a very peculiar thing to say.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Just checked my daughters birth certificate. It says Sex- female

Not gender then

No it says sex, gender isn’t mentioned.

So they define her sex based on her genitals and put it on her official paperwork as sex, not gender?

You appear to be arguing on the basis of the form asking for sex, is that so?

I’m not really arguing at all. I’m just saying I can see where the doctor is coming from and I agree with him. But yes, I see it as what sex the individual is.

Can you not see then, if the form specifically asks for gender, and guidelines state to tick with what the person identifies with, the doctor has to follow suit?"

How do we know what the form asked for, be it sex or gender. Does it say so in the story?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"From medical news today

Tell that to the thousands of male nurses, I think they’d still like to be called men.

What's your point? Nurse as a profession has no sex/gender aspect.

Yes historically, and yes majority of perception, likewise doctor being male. This will change eventually. However, the role in society does mean profession but constructs.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"From medical news today

Tell that to the thousands of male nurses, I think they’d still like to be called men.

I've never heard anyone refer to a male nurse as anything other than, well, a male nurse.

Do you think nursing is a woman's job?

Is a man who works as nurse somehow open to misinterpretation?

If so, why?

Strikes me as a very peculiar thing to say."

No I don’t, a male nurse is just that. My poor interpretation of the gender definition above, like I said, a poor example of what I was trying to say. But please don’t twist what i have said or add bits on to suit yourself.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"From medical news today

Tell that to the thousands of male nurses, I think they’d still like to be called men.

What's your point? Nurse as a profession has no sex/gender aspect.

Yes historically, and yes majority of perception, likewise doctor being male. This will change eventually. However, the role in society does mean profession but constructs."

I misunderstood the cut and paste and then misinterpreted it. Me bad.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Just checked my daughters birth certificate. It says Sex- female

Not gender then

No it says sex, gender isn’t mentioned.

So they define her sex based on her genitals and put it on her official paperwork as sex, not gender?

You appear to be arguing on the basis of the form asking for sex, is that so?

I’m not really arguing at all. I’m just saying I can see where the doctor is coming from and I agree with him. But yes, I see it as what sex the individual is.

Can you not see then, if the form specifically asks for gender, and guidelines state to tick with what the person identifies with, the doctor has to follow suit?

How do we know what the form asked for, be it sex or gender. Does it say so in the story? "

I don't know, i have only read this thread. The relevance would be whether the doctor could sue on grounds of unfair dismissal.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"From medical news today

Tell that to the thousands of male nurses, I think they’d still like to be called men.

What's your point? Nurse as a profession has no sex/gender aspect.

Yes historically, and yes majority of perception, likewise doctor being male. This will change eventually. However, the role in society does NOT mean profession but constructs.

I misunderstood the cut and paste and then misinterpreted it. Me bad."

I fixed my error but i think you read it as intended

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Just checked my daughters birth certificate. It says Sex- female

Not gender then

No it says sex, gender isn’t mentioned.

So they define her sex based on her genitals and put it on her official paperwork as sex, not gender?

You appear to be arguing on the basis of the form asking for sex, is that so?

I’m not really arguing at all. I’m just saying I can see where the doctor is coming from and I agree with him. But yes, I see it as what sex the individual is.

Can you not see then, if the form specifically asks for gender, and guidelines state to tick with what the person identifies with, the doctor has to follow suit?

How do we know what the form asked for, be it sex or gender. Does it say so in the story?

I don't know, i have only read this thread. The relevance would be whether the doctor could sue on grounds of unfair dismissal.

That’s a whole other argument isn’t it. The way I read it was the form asked for the sex of the person and he was told to tick whichever box they gave rather than what they actually were which he refused to do. Remember he was assessing claims for benefits for the dwp too and people lie to milk the system.

I’m not sure how it works, is going thru gender identity issues classed as a disability. The reason I ask is this. There is a guy around the corner, some days he lives as a man and in others a woman, hair, make up, clothes etc. He’s fit as a fiddle, runs for miles every day with his two dogs so is perfectly able bodied, he doesn’t work and drives round in a brand new motability car and will be in receipt of the benefits that go with it. Just wondered what his disability is that’s all.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"From medical news today

Tell that to the thousands of male nurses, I think they’d still like to be called men.

What's your point? Nurse as a profession has no sex/gender aspect.

Yes historically, and yes majority of perception, likewise doctor being male. This will change eventually. However, the role in society does NOT mean profession but constructs.

I misunderstood the cut and paste and then misinterpreted it. Me bad.

I fixed my error but i think you read it as intended

I’m not sure what error you mean. I meant I misunderstood the text about gender roles in society. I used nursing as an example as a female role as society sees it. I think I got the wrong end of the stick to be honest.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ara JTV/TS over a year ago

Bristol East

Why don't you ask him.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Why don't you ask him."

I was asking a general question. Is gender identity a disability? It’s s fair question, I don’t know the answer which is why I ask.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oodnitegirlWoman over a year ago

Yorkshire

I don’t care what niche ticked. I just hope he told them to get a job....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oodnitegirlWoman over a year ago

Yorkshire

Box he*

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman over a year ago

evesham

Why don't you ask him.

I was asking a general question. Is gender identity a disability? It’s s fair question, I don’t know the answer which is why I ask."

In my very basic understanding I would say no. I know lots of trans people that work.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Anyways, I think I’ve answered the questions to the best of my ability. It’s going off on a tangent now from the original topic. I still think a cock and bollocks means a tick in the male box. If that makes me a dinosaur or a bigot then I’m afraid I’ll have to live with that. I’m off to look at some boobies.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Why don't you ask him.

I was asking a general question. Is gender identity a disability? It’s s fair question, I don’t know the answer which is why I ask.

In my very basic understanding I would say no. I know lots of trans people that work. "

The only reason I can see for this guy in particular having a motability car is mental health issues. Physically he’s fitter than me. That opens up another can of worms tho.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"From medical news today

Tell that to the thousands of male nurses, I think they’d still like to be called men.

What's your point? Nurse as a profession has no sex/gender aspect.

Yes historically, and yes majority of perception, likewise doctor being male. This will change eventually. However, the role in society does NOT mean profession but constructs.

I misunderstood the cut and paste and then misinterpreted it. Me bad.

I fixed my error but i think you read it as intended

I added the word "not".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Why don't you ask him.

I was asking a general question. Is gender identity a disability? It’s s fair question, I don’t know the answer which is why I ask.

In my very basic understanding I would say no. I know lots of trans people that work.

The only reason I can see for this guy in particular having a motability car is mental health issues. Physically he’s fitter than me. That opens up another can of worms tho. "

Perhaps he has the car to drive someone else. I cannot think that he'd be entitled to the car if there is no physical disability. Note that not all physical disabilities are visible.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Why don't you ask him.

I was asking a general question. Is gender identity a disability? It’s s fair question, I don’t know the answer which is why I ask.

In my very basic understanding I would say no. I know lots of trans people that work.

The only reason I can see for this guy in particular having a motability car is mental health issues. Physically he’s fitter than me. That opens up another can of worms tho.

Perhaps he has the car to drive someone else. I cannot think that he'd be entitled to the car if there is no physical disability. Note that not all physical disabilities are visible."

No I know but if you can run for miles, cycle and I’ve seen him on a skateboard too then I doubt he’s got a physical disability worthy of a motability car. The car is for his use, I know that much. Anyway, I was just asking the question that’s all.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

So is it right to sack a highly skilled doctor for refusing to tick a box? He didn’t refuse to treat anybody, he just refused to tick the male box for a female or vice versa.

I do not know the specific circumstances.

But I can say that gender dysphoria is a recognised clinical condition.

The medical evidence underpins the legal position, whereby an individual undergoing can apply for legal recognition of their acquired gender.

Things like their passport, their driving licence, their birth certificate, their NI identity etc.

Do you think it is right that a bible-thumping clinician should seek to over-rule that and assert that he knows better than the individual how they should be defined?

I don't.

Exactly this! Imagining struggling with your identity, probably your whole life. Finally you seek help and guidance from a paid professional and are unfortunate enough to be seen by this gonk!

What else does his religion influence that is related to his job? Womens rights? Sexual health?

He worked for dwp not a gender reassignment clinic. He assessed claims for disability benefits as far as I can make out. "

Another one of those Doctors. I was reading about one who told a gay man there was treatment for being gay available. Those doctors are hired by ATOS or whoever it is now to assess disabilities, I don't suppose they are trained to do anything but tick boxes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If a form asks for a simple definition of 'sex' then I agree a penis is male and a vagina is female. Gender and self identification is a whole other thing.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"If a form asks for a simple definition of 'sex' then I agree a penis is male and a vagina is female. Gender and self identification is a whole other thing. "

And it’s that simple

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Its a load of bollox.....or not as the case may be

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman over a year ago

evesham

"If a form asks for a simple definition of 'sex' then I agree a penis is male and a vagina is female. Gender and self identification is a whole other thing.

And it’s that simple

That's what I've been saying all along and you've been disagreeing with me

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ara JTV/TS over a year ago

Bristol East

I was asking a general question. Is gender identity a disability? It’s s fair question, I don’t know the answer which is why I ask."

Not as far as I am aware.

There was a time not so long ago when gender dysphoria was considered mental illness.

That no longer is the case.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"If a form asks for a simple definition of 'sex' then I agree a penis is male and a vagina is female. Gender and self identification is a whole other thing.

And it’s that simple

That's what I've been saying all along and you've been disagreeing with me

Hmmm, I disagree

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

Also, as a trained Doctor he would know that opinion isnt argument. There will be less and less of these bigots, and eventually they will be gone. Which is good.

What makes you call him a bigot?"

Because hes a bigot.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

Also, as a trained Doctor he would know that opinion isnt argument. There will be less and less of these bigots, and eventually they will be gone. Which is good.

What makes you call him a bigot?

Because hes a bigot. "

Well that was worth waiting for. Such a well thought out explanation. Well done.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust ClareTV/TS over a year ago

Settlewick!

Whilst I'm all in favour of being able to identify as whatever gender you feel applies; on a purely medical basis we all fit into 1 of 2 options, which unless you've had surgery to change it, is dictated by whether you have a penis or a vagina, and medically you should be treated as such.

A doctor should however address a non-assigned transexual man as 'miss' whilst still treating him as a 'mister'

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

Yup! His beliefs are his beliefs if he is putting himself out of a job because he puts them before the rights of his patients that I have no sympathy for him.

Much like I have no sympathy for those who make themselves unemployable by having face tattoos. "
Ha now that's a controversial opinion

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

Also, as a trained Doctor he would know that opinion isnt argument. There will be less and less of these bigots, and eventually they will be gone. Which is good.

What makes you call him a bigot?

Because hes a bigot.

Well that was worth waiting for. Such a well thought out explanation. Well done."

Its no more complicated than that though. Hes a bigoted, out of date bigot doing a job he is no longer morally qualified for because hes a bigot. If you want more complicated explanations of why what he did was bigoted, and how that makes him a bigot, knock yourself out with google. I'm not here to educate you

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lbert_shlossedMan over a year ago

Manchester

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

"
.

Yet Muslims don't have to handle alcohol or pork products if they work for Tesco?.

I'm in agreement with you by the way, I just think there's massive religious bias in this country

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

Also, as a trained Doctor he would know that opinion isnt argument. There will be less and less of these bigots, and eventually they will be gone. Which is good.

What makes you call him a bigot?

Because hes a bigot.

Well that was worth waiting for. Such a well thought out explanation. Well done.

So calling a man a man and a woman a woman is bigotted? You want to try to educate yourself first

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ara JTV/TS over a year ago

Bristol East

Yet Muslims don't have to handle alcohol or pork products if they work for Tesco?.

I'm in agreement with you by the way, I just think there's massive religious bias in this country"

I don't think it's any sort of bias as such.

In the case above, it harms no-one by accommodating their beliefs.

In the other case it does.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *obbytupperMan over a year ago

Menston near Ilkley

The word ‘gender’ has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'm not sure that his sacking isn't a bit short-sighted. The NHS seem to have enough problems recruiting staff as it is. I predict that this guy will go private, realise that he gets better pay and working conditions, tells his mates/former colleagues all about it on the golf course and that some of them follow him into private healthcare. Potential big loss to the NHS.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"I'm not sure that his sacking isn't a bit short-sighted. The NHS seem to have enough problems recruiting staff as it is. I predict that this guy will go private, realise that he gets better pay and working conditions, tells his mates/former colleagues all about it on the golf course and that some of them follow him into private healthcare. Potential big loss to the NHS."

He was employed by the dwp not the nhs.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

Also, as a trained Doctor he would know that opinion isnt argument. There will be less and less of these bigots, and eventually they will be gone. Which is good.

What makes you call him a bigot?

Because hes a bigot.

Well that was worth waiting for. Such a well thought out explanation. Well done.

So calling a man a man and a woman a woman is bigotted? You want to try to educate yourself first

Priceless! Cheers mate thats going to make me chuckle all night.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *thwalescplCouple over a year ago

brecon

I was asking a general question. Is gender identity a disability? It’s s fair question, I don’t know the answer which is why I ask.

Not as far as I am aware.

There was a time not so long ago when gender dysphoria was considered mental illness.

That no longer is the case."

Whilst I agree that gender dysphoria shouldn't be classed as a mental illness, its origins are psychological, rather than physical, surely?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

First, he was working for the Department of Work and Pensions, not NHS. He was a medical assessor for (probably) PIPs, and fitness to work.

That leaves the whole of the NHS and private practice for him to work in- he has not been disciplined by the GMC- his doctor tackle is all intact.

Searching for him comes up with the Mail, the Sun and the Mirror (and the Telegraph behind a paywall). That means he's possibly been removed from the assessors' list, not fired at all. A lot of this is chip paper journalism. See it for what it is.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

And, the "I don't think the NHS will take me back" line is crap. He allegedly has a track record in A&E, saving lives- he can be working tonight's night shift.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eedsandyMan over a year ago

Leeds

As a locum you mean, and only if anyone dare employ him, because he is a discrimination claim waiting to happen.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"As a locum you mean, and only if anyone dare employ him, because he is a discrimination claim waiting to happen."

The man is, allegedly, a skilled emergency medicine doctor. I don't think we have enough of those. Plus, short term, locums earn shedloads, and have better rotas than contracted doctors.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eedsandyMan over a year ago

Leeds

I don't think we are sure what kind of doctor he is. He is not a consultant and the risk of the discrimination claim makes him too expensive to employ.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lceeWoman over a year ago

Leeds

You’re absolutely right, OP. No-one gets to choose what their gender is.

As a genderfluid person, I can assure you that I have never ever chosen my gender. I’m just me...sometimes more to the male end of the spectrum, sometimes more the female. Sometimes my body fits me and sometimes I look in the mirror and honest to god feel like I’m in drag.

However, I can understand your rejection of this if you are cis normative. You’ve never felt that way. You’ve never had to feel like there’s something missing or indefinably wrong but you can’t quite put your finger on it. It’s like trying to explain to a heterosexual or homosexual what it’s like to not see gender as a barrier to attraction. And if you’ve never felt this way...well. Surely no-one has ever really felt this way, right? Surely they must just have something wrong with them. *laughs*

However, if it is now part of a doctor’s job to refer people to the DWP as the gender they identify with, then that’s his job. It’s DWP policy. If he doesn’t want to abide by their policy, then he needs to find a job where he isn’t bound by such policies.

Such a waste of talent but quite frankly, this was never about religious principles. You don’t have to think something is true to engage with it. No skin off his nose for ‘humouring’ them. Nothing in the Bible that says that people shouldn’t identify as a different gender. Lots in the New Testament about loving thy neighbour, being compassionate and accepting people for who they are. Funny how he forgot those bits.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Haven’t read the full thread so apologies if already mentioned. If the said dr has such strong beliefs surely he should be able to just refer the patient to another dr, the same as Drs whose religion are against contraception and abortion? They refuse to treat and just refer??

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eedsandyMan over a year ago

Leeds

Read the whole thread. He was an assessor for the DWP. He wasn't in a hospital full of people. He had to assess the person in front of him, who was expecting it to happen there and then.

And he can't hold views that interfere with carrying out his job.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Read the whole thread. He was an assessor for the DWP. He wasn't in a hospital full of people. He had to assess the person in front of him, who was expecting it to happen there and then.

And he can't hold views that interfere with carrying out his job."

What about Muslim faith Drs who won’t prescribe contraception? I’ve been refused by a Muslim dr because of their beliefs, how does that stand?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eedsandyMan over a year ago

Leeds

You are entitled to complain and he should have been disciplined. All the religious cases are always lost. E.g. the Christian bakers who wouldn't bake the cake for the gay couple, and the Christian hoteliers who wouldn't let a gay couple share the same room.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Read the whole thread. He was an assessor for the DWP. He wasn't in a hospital full of people. He had to assess the person in front of him, who was expecting it to happen there and then.

And he can't hold views that interfere with carrying out his job.

What about Muslim faith Drs who won’t prescribe contraception? I’ve been refused by a Muslim dr because of their beliefs, how does that stand?"

Did you make an official complaint? Nothing will change unless people leave feedback.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Read the whole thread. He was an assessor for the DWP. He wasn't in a hospital full of people. He had to assess the person in front of him, who was expecting it to happen there and then.

And he can't hold views that interfere with carrying out his job.

What about Muslim faith Drs who won’t prescribe contraception? I’ve been refused by a Muslim dr because of their beliefs, how does that stand?

Did you make an official complaint? Nothing will change unless people leave feedback."

Why should I ? It was her beliefs and I’d never expect anyone to compromise them, she was lovely and just explained and I seen another dr, easy, no problem

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ara JTV/TS over a year ago

Bristol East

[Removed by poster at 17/07/18 18:56:20]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eedsandyMan over a year ago

Leeds

But she should not be forcing her out of date views on you, nor should it affect her ability to carry out her job, which it clearly did.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"But she should not be forcing her out of date views on you, nor should it affect her ability to carry out her job, which it clearly did."

She wasn’t forcing her views on me. She explained it was HER faith and couldn’t treat me and she’d pass me to another Dr! I didn’t see the problem in her doing this.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lbert_shlossedMan over a year ago

Manchester

Yet Muslims don't have to handle alcohol or pork products if they work for Tesco?.

I'm in agreement with you by the way, I just think there's massive religious bias in this country

I don't think it's any sort of bias as such.

In the case above, it harms no-one by accommodating their beliefs.

In the other case it does.

"
.

Where's the harm in the latter?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lbert_shlossedMan over a year ago

Manchester

Yet Muslims don't have to handle alcohol or pork products if they work for Tesco?.

I'm in agreement with you by the way, I just think there's massive religious bias in this country

I don't think it's any sort of bias as such.

In the case above, it harms no-one by accommodating their beliefs.

In the other case it does.

Where's the harm in the latter?"
.

Besides that your original premise was about somebody being able to do there job, you've now changed tact to it about causing harm, harm is subjective and irrelevant anybody could be offended by anything, where do you draw the line?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You’re absolutely right, OP. No-one gets to choose what their gender is.

Very eloquently surmised.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Most NHS doctors and surgeons also work in the private sector. It's not a case of one or the other.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Jordan Peterson was right, sack the biologists!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ubiousOatcakeMan over a year ago

Aberdeenshire

Here’s a quote from the man himself: “I don't think I should be compelled to use a specific pronoun. I am not setting out to upset anyone. But if upsetting someone can lead to doctors being sacked then, as a society, we have to examine where we are going.”

The thing is this, nobody is stopping him from thinking his outdated, inaccurate thoughts. (Although, given that he repeatedly cites Christianity as the basis for that belief, and not science, I’m interested to know which part of the Bible has detailed rules on identity politics.)

By his own words, he’s refusing to even do somebody the basic courtesy of saying ‘she’ and and ‘her’ instead of ‘he’ and ‘him/his’ (or vice versa). An act which would cause him no harm.

Now, a direct quote from the NHS website on their values of respect and dignity: “Every individual who comes into contact with the NHS and organisations providing health services should always be treated with respect and dignity, regardless of whether they are a patient, carer or member of staff. This value seeks to ensure that organisations value and respect different needs, aspirations and priorities, and take them into account when designing and delivering services. The NHS aims to foster a spirit of candour and a culture of humility, openness and honesty, where staff communicate clearly and openly with patients, relatives and carers.“

His actions are in direct contradiction of the values of his employer. He is not treating people with dignity and respect, and he is not valuing and respecting their aspirations. So, off he fucks.

It appears that he was not yet working for the DWP, as indicated above. It’s worth looking at their values, though, since he hoped to work there: “DWP provides services that embrace diversity and promote equality of opportunity. We offer a guaranteed interview scheme for disabled applicants who meet our minimum selection criteria. We will not tolerate discrimination on the grounds of gender, marital status, sexual orientation, race, colour, nationality, religion, age, disability, HIV positivity, working pattern, caring responsibilities, trade union activity, political beliefs or any other grounds.”

Then, there’s the Civil Service code: “‘integrity’ is putting the obligations of public service above your own personal interests.”

All told, if he’s not willing to show humility and respect, and put the values of the organisation he represents before his own, he got what was coming to him.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Most NHS doctors and surgeons also work in the private sector. It's not a case of one or the other. "

My doctor most certainly doesn't work for the NHS, but I take your point

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ara JTV/TS over a year ago

Bristol East

Where's the harm in the latter?.]"

I think you'll find the answer a few posts above, the one that sets out the values of the NHS and the DWP.

Gender transition is not done for fun, it's not some sort of whim. Those who go through with the reassignment surgery do so because they feel they have no choice - life is too painful otherwise.

I don't know the details of this case. But this individual may have had a great struggle to be recognised in their acquired gender. Please do not underestimate the stress that can entail.

For some prick of a civil servant to seek to invalidate their whole existence . . . . well, I'd say that can be very harmful indeed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Here’s a quote from the man himself: “I don't think I should be compelled to use a specific pronoun. I am not setting out to upset anyone. But if upsetting someone can lead to doctors being sacked then, as a society, we have to examine where we are going.”

His actions are in direct contradiction of the values of his employer. He is not treating people with dignity and respect, and he is not valuing and respecting their aspirations. So, off he fucks.

Then, there’s the Civil Service code: “‘integrity’ is putting the obligations of public service above your own personal interests.”

All told, if he’s not willing to show humility and respect, and put the values of the organisation he represents before his own, he got what was coming to him."

As discussed elsewhere I regard the whole gender identity ideology as philosophically incoherent, but I can't see why this doctor could not refer to people as they want to be referred even if he privately thinks they are idiots.

As you said, when you take on a professional role like a doctor, your personal views come below your patients needs.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Go back in time and you will find doctors who:

a) refused to treat people of colour because the Bible said this or that

b) refused to treat people who were gay because of this or that belief

c) refused to treat people of a particular religion because the bible said this or that

He is entitled to his view - we all are.

But he is hired because of his clinical skills and ability to treat people.

That ought to be irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion, colour, whatever.

It's a fundamental principle of the NHS.

He wasn't hired because the NHS wanted him to impose his religious observation of the world on patients.

A patient is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

He is unable to do so because of strongly-held religious beliefs.

Fair do's. Find another job in that case.

Again we see the Christians persecuted to please a misguided bigoted minority whom seek to impose their theories apon mainstream society by insults penalties and punishments...

A honest, hard working Docter, a man of principle removed from his post simply because hes a Christian...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I’ve never thought about this in depth, but does pronouns refer to sex or gender ? I wonder if he gets equally upset at people calling a ship *her* ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

There's a lot of willful conflation on this thread. I've noticed how the radical left are ever redefining words to suit their ideology. Everyone knew what a 'trans' person was 20 years go but now it can be any old person who doesn't have to make any effort to look remotely like the gender they proclaim or be at all interested in changing their legal gender.

20 years ago we all used 'gender' and 'sex' interchangeably, I'm ok with separating them but i notice how quiet certain posters go when i ask them which terms are currently in use when it comes to things like the women's division of a sport.

I don't respect the idea of people being non-binary one ounce and wouldn't use any pronoun to indicate that i did. People undergoing gender reassignment, I would gladly. Most of you have just jumped on the doctor because there's a very strong anti-religious sentiment on the forum.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lem-H-FandangoMan over a year ago

salisbury

Hey! Don't confuse us radical left wingers with radical liberals!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

His actions are in direct contradiction of the values of his employer. He is not treating people with dignity and respect, and he is not valuing and respecting their aspirations. So, off he fucks.

Then, there’s the Civil Service code: “‘integrity’ is putting the obligations of public service above your own personal interests.”

All told, if he’s not willing to show humility and respect, and put the values of the organisation he represents before his own, he got what was coming to him.

As you said, when you take on a professional role like a doctor, your personal views come below your patients needs. "

But if your beliefs or faith go against treating a patient then they can refer to another Gp! I can’t see the issue? Or am I missing something ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"There's a lot of willful conflation on this thread. I've noticed how the radical left are ever redefining words to suit their ideology. Everyone knew what a 'trans' person was 20 years go but now it can be any old person who doesn't have to make any effort to look remotely like the gender they proclaim or be at all interested in changing their legal gender.

No, we've jumped on him because he is an arse who has put his own ego before his patients.

I've had plenty of clients who were religious and wanted to discuss their religious faith with me. Given our professional relationship it would have been completely inappropriate for me to tell them I thought their beliefs were nonsense.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No, we've jumped on him because he is an arse who has put his own ego before his patients.

You jumped on the Docter simply because he is a Christian like you do on all the threads were Christians are mentioned...

I am a tran, have went thru a lot but I respect the Docters or any persons right to see me as a MAN, their beliefs ought to be respected

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

No, we've jumped on him because he is an arse who has put his own ego before his patients.

Having read a telegraph report, i see that he refused to use bullshit pronouns for non binary people (e.g. ze) Did he actually say that he would refuse to use a neutral pronoun for a transexual?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"Hey! Don't confuse us radical left wingers with radical liberals!

Liberals don't believe in compelled speech. Leftists do.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No, we've jumped on him because he is an arse who has put his own ego before his patients.

You jumped on the Docter simply because he is a Christian like you do on all the threads were Christians are mentioned...

I am a tran, have went thru a lot but I respect the Docters or any persons right to see me as a MAN, their beliefs ought to be respected"

I totally agree! Everyone’s entitled to their beliefs regardless if they are “right” there’s other professionals drs out there. The Gp in question should of just stayed neutral and referered the patient to another Dr.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lem-H-FandangoMan over a year ago

salisbury

"Hey! Don't confuse us radical left wingers with radical liberals!

Liberals don't believe in compelled speech. Leftists do."

Oh shit! I don't know who i am now!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"Hey! Don't confuse us radical left wingers with radical liberals!

Liberals don't believe in compelled speech. Leftists do.

Oh shit! I don't know who i am now!

Oh you're liberal buddy, we're liberal bro's

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

The reporting certainly seems to indicate that the DWP insisted that he had to use the pronouns the patients chose, rendering neutral pronouns unacceptable. Personally i think neutral pronouns are a good compromise and think people just jumped on him because he's religious. I'll amend my opinion if anyone can show me that he refused to use neutral pronouns for transsexuals.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

No, we've jumped on him because he is an arse who has put his own ego before his patients.

You jumped on the Docter simply because he is a Christian like you do on all the threads were Christians are mentioned...

I am a tran, have went thru a lot but I respect the Docters or any persons right to see me as a MAN, their beliefs ought to be respected"

He can believe whatever he likes. He just shouldn't bring them to work with him. It's that simple.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

Dr David Mackereth was fired for saying people can't choose their gender

The Department for Work and Pensions told him to refer to those seeking disability allowance as whatever gender they requested

But David could not abide by their rules as he believes gender is determined biologically and genetically "

He's refusing to abide by the rules set by his employer. It doesn't matter how skilled someone is, if they can't follow the rules I have no option but to discipline them and, in extremis, fire them after due process.

Are you arguing that he should be exempted from the rules, and in turn treat people in a disrespectful manner, because of his belief?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Dr David Mackereth was fired for saying people can't choose their gender

The Department for Work and Pensions told him to refer to those seeking disability allowance as whatever gender they requested

But David could not abide by their rules as he believes gender is determined biologically and genetically

Are you arguing that he should be exempted from the rules, and in turn treat people in a disrespectful manner, because of his belief?

Their rules appear to contradict basic science. Unfortunately we have very weak free speech laws in Europe and huge governments which is why radical left wing ideology infects everything.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"The reporting certainly seems to indicate that the DWP insisted that he had to use the pronouns the patients chose, rendering neutral pronouns unacceptable. Personally i think neutral pronouns are a good compromise and think people just jumped on him because he's religious. I'll amend my opinion if anyone can show me that he refused to use neutral pronouns for transsexuals. "

Why can't he just use what the patient wants? What's the big issue here? I have had clients who wanted me to call them. "Lord" and. "Reverend", which I did even though I believe neither in church or aristocracy.

It's just basic decency. Especially when you are dealing with people in vulnerable positions.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

It's just basic decency. Especially when you are dealing with people in vulnerable positions. "

Because sensible people refuse to acknowledge anti-scientific radical left wing ideology. You wouldn't be happy if i demanded we pray at the start of the working day in your office. I take it you don't have any evidence that he refused neutral pronouns then?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

Dr David Mackereth was fired for saying people can't choose their gender

The Department for Work and Pensions told him to refer to those seeking disability allowance as whatever gender they requested

But David could not abide by their rules as he believes gender is determined biologically and genetically

Are you arguing that he should be exempted from the rules, and in turn treat people in a disrespectful manner, because of his belief?

Their rules appear to contradict basic science. Unfortunately we have very weak free speech laws in Europe and huge governments which is why radical left wing ideology infects everything. "

Bollocks it does . All it is doing is saying people should be addressed how they want to be addressed. It implies no agreement with the ideology someone might profess.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Dr David Mackereth was fired for saying people can't choose their gender

The Department for Work and Pensions told him to refer to those seeking disability allowance as whatever gender they requested

But David could not abide by their rules as he believes gender is determined biologically and genetically

Are you arguing that he should be exempted from the rules, and in turn treat people in a disrespectful manner, because of his belief?

Their rules appear to contradict basic science. Unfortunately we have very weak free speech laws in Europe and huge governments which is why radical left wing ideology infects everything.

Bollocks it does . All it is doing is saying people should be addressed how they want to be addressed. It implies no agreement with the ideology someone might profess. "

There's nothing that gives you the right to compel my speech, nor i you

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

It's just basic decency. Especially when you are dealing with people in vulnerable positions.

False equivalence. Like I say, I have no problem addressing people however they want to be addressed. It's doesn't mean I agree with the ideology that might underlie their preferred form of address.

Seriously, he's a doctor. By definition he is dealing with sick people. If he can't put his own beliefs aside to make his patients comfortable there is something very wrong.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

Dr David Mackereth was fired for saying people can't choose their gender

The Department for Work and Pensions told him to refer to those seeking disability allowance as whatever gender they requested

But David could not abide by their rules as he believes gender is determined biologically and genetically

Are you arguing that he should be exempted from the rules, and in turn treat people in a disrespectful manner, because of his belief?

Their rules appear to contradict basic science. Unfortunately we have very weak free speech laws in Europe and huge governments which is why radical left wing ideology infects everything.

Bollocks it does . All it is doing is saying people should be addressed how they want to be addressed. It implies no agreement with the ideology someone might profess.

There's nothing that gives you the right to compel my speech, nor i you"

Of course there isn't, but there's nothing to compel anyone to employ someone who insists on being obnoxious

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

It's just basic decency. Especially when you are dealing with people in vulnerable positions.

False equivalence. Like I say, I have no problem addressing people however they want to be addressed. It's doesn't mean I agree with the ideology that might underlie their preferred form of address.

Seriously, he's a doctor. By definition he is dealing with sick people. If he can't put his own beliefs aside to make his patients comfortable there is something very wrong. "

As i said earlier, it's his beliefs you object to and now you're just arguing a point you don't really believe in because you hate back tracking. You don't believe in gender fluidity and there's nothing wrong with neutral pronouns.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Dr David Mackereth was fired for saying people can't choose their gender

The Department for Work and Pensions told him to refer to those seeking disability allowance as whatever gender they requested

But David could not abide by their rules as he believes gender is determined biologically and genetically

Are you arguing that he should be exempted from the rules, and in turn treat people in a disrespectful manner, because of his belief?

Their rules appear to contradict basic science. Unfortunately we have very weak free speech laws in Europe and huge governments which is why radical left wing ideology infects everything.

Bollocks it does . All it is doing is saying people should be addressed how they want to be addressed. It implies no agreement with the ideology someone might profess.

There's nothing that gives you the right to compel my speech, nor i you

Of course there isn't, but there's nothing to compel anyone to employ someone who insists on being obnoxious "

Nothing obnoxious about neutral pronouns. You just hate religious people.