The Student Room Group

Christian Doctor Loses Court Case Over Trans Belief Case

A novel defence in saying;
'The hearing was told he would refuse to refer to "any 6ft-tall bearded man" as "madam" following a conversation with a manager at an assessment centre and later left his role.'
To be frank im mildly inclined to side with him, if for slightly different reasons, i fail to see any convincing reason why these peoples beliefs should be allowed to trump his own ones

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-49904997

Scroll to see replies

I’m a Christian and even I recognise that it's not about belief, it’s about respecting people; if you can’t respect people as a doctor to treat them then frankly you’re in the wrong line of work. Do unto others as you would have them do to you Jesus said
(edited 4 years ago)
Not surprised at all. Keep your Christianity at home and why did he choose to work there in the first place. It's not as if that kind of potential scenario wouldn't arise.
Such a pathetic case
Original post by Napp
A novel defence in saying;
'The hearing was told he would refuse to refer to "any 6ft-tall bearded man" as "madam" following a conversation with a manager at an assessment centre and later left his role.'
To be frank im mildly inclined to side with him, if for slightly different reasons, i fail to see any convincing reason why these peoples beliefs should be allowed to trump his own ones

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-49904997


It is deeply disturbing that this is the first time in the history of English law that a judge has ruled that free citizens must engage in compelled speech

This is the nub of it. All this nonsense about 'he won't use the pronouns I request' is literally that, nonsense. Any pronouns that escape from my mouth are my pronouns, and relate to my impression of your sex. They are unrelated to what you may think your gender is, as that could be (and mean) anything, entirely invisible to me.
Original post by Good bloke
It is deeply disturbing that this is the first time in the history of English law that a judge has ruled that free citizens must engage in compelled speech

This is the nub of it.

But that's simply not true. He is not actually being prosecuted for not saying something specific, but for choosing to say specific things deliberately in an attempt to force his religious views on the trans person.

It is comparable to if the doctor were a Nazi (as was the fashion in the 1930s), who refers to Jews, gypsies and disabled people as 'subhumans' rather than humans.

In other words, the issue is not his refusal to say what the trans person wishes them to say, but his (malicious) refusal not to say what the trans person wishes them not to say.
Reply 6
Original post by AngeryPenguin
But that's simply not true. He is not actually being prosecuted for not saying something specific, but for choosing to say specific things deliberately in an attempt to force his religious views on the trans person.

It is comparable to if the doctor were a Nazi (as was the fashion in the 1930s), who refers to Jews, gypsies and disabled people as 'subhumans' rather than humans.

Did you seriously just compare this Doctor to a nazi? What an absolute load of claptrap.

In other words, the issue is not his refusal to say what the trans person wishes them to say, but his (malicious) refusal not to say what the trans person wishes them not to say.

The man was a Doctor not a life coach, it was not his job to indulge the patients err belief. Just as if he walked in and declared himself to have cancer when he did not etc.
good on him. don't know why he thought he'd win a court case though m😂
Original post by Good bloke
It is deeply disturbing that this is the first time in the history of English law that a judge has ruled that free citizens must engage in compelled speech

This is the nub of it. All this nonsense about 'he won't use the pronouns I request' is literally that, nonsense. Any pronouns that escape from my mouth are my pronouns, and relate to my impression of your sex. They are unrelated to what you may think your gender is, as that could be (and mean) anything, entirely invisible to me.


Indeed.
So basically, doctor is dismissed for having an appalling bedside manner and not being fit to look after patients. Not sure why anyone is supporting him beyond the obvious (they also want carte blanche to be an arse to people)
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
So basically, doctor is dismissed for having an appalling bedside manner and not being fit to look after patients. Not sure why anyone is supporting him beyond the obvious (they also want carte blanche to be an arse to people)


it says he left his role, not that he was dismissed. am I mistaken?
Original post by Leviathan1611
it says he left his role, not that he was dismissed. am I mistaken?


His case is alleging that he was sacked for it. If he left his role there'd be even less of a case to answer (there isn't one now given his actions, specifically deliberately referring to trans patients in a way that makes them uncomfortable, would constitute harassment and thus justified dismissal)
Original post by Napp
Did you seriously just compare this Doctor to a nazi? What an absolute load of claptrap.


But I did not equate the two.

The man was a Doctor not a life coach, it was not his job to indulge the patients err belief. Just as if he walked in and declared himself to have cancer when he did not etc.


The Doctor is assigning his own pronouns to refer to a patient, and was fired for that. It would be as if a cisgender person walked in and the Doctor acted as though they were trans.
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
So basically, doctor is dismissed for having an appalling bedside manner and not being fit to look after patients. Not sure why anyone is supporting him beyond the obvious (they also want carte blanche to be an arse to people)


I think that is to confuse the issue. As Good Bloke has already said. the nub of this case is whether the law can compel someone to use certain forms of address. Whether the doctor is good at his job or not is beside the point.
Original post by Snufkin
I think that is to confuse the issue. As Good Bloke has already said. the nub of this case is whether the law can compel someone to use certain forms of address. Whether the doctor is good at his job or not is beside the point.


Except that's not the case at all, because his position is deliberately referring to patients incorrectly and in a way that's designed to make them feel uncomfortable, which would be harassment and the reason for dismissal. He has no case, all he's trying to do is set a legal precedent for discrimination.

But, if we consider "don't harass and belittle patients" as compelling speech, then there's no argument that speech shouldn't be compelled.
I managed to get through my school career without addressing my teachers as either Sir nor Miss. I didn't like the idea of subservience, as it happened, and when I was a teacher I didn't like to be addressed as Sir (or Miss!) either. I let it ride, though --- my identity doesn't depend on it.

Whether or not he believed that trans women are women, this doctor shouldn't have imposed his beliefs on his patient. He wasn't compelled to address his patient as Madam. All he had to do was not be rude. Even if the situation required an honorific, I cannot see how addressing the patient as Miss/Mrs/Ms Patient would have been a faith denying act for the doctor?

And in the doctor's notes, if he doesn't choose to adopt the patient's pronouns, there are circumlocutions enough in the English language to avoid both those pronouns and offence to the patient.

Being around people means learning to adapt to them. If a doctor wishes to be a healer she needs to come alongside her patient --- even if the patient has life stances which are very different to hers.
Denying medical assistance to another human being based on little more than being asked to use a different pronoun is abhorrent. It’s good that he’s lost this case, because the the entire argument about whether people should be able to deny services to the LGBTQ community should never have been extended to the realms of medicine. Doctors aren’t meant to be moral arbitrators.
transphobia stinks
Original post by Snufkin
I think that is to confuse the issue. As Good Bloke has already said. the nub of this case is whether the law can compel someone to use certain forms of address. Whether the doctor is good at his job or not is beside the point.

Original post by Good bloke
It is deeply disturbing that this is the first time in the history of English law that a judge has ruled that free citizens must engage in compelled speech

This is the nub of it. All this nonsense about 'he won't use the pronouns I request' is literally that, nonsense. Any pronouns that escape from my mouth are my pronouns, and relate to my impression of your sex. They are unrelated to what you may think your gender is, as that could be (and mean) anything, entirely invisible to me.

The law isn't compelling someone to use certain pronouns. What the law has done, in this case, is rule that him getting sacked was not a violation of the Equality Act; his Christian beliefs don't protect him from losing his job. The DWP, who he worked for, seemingly have some policy on how to refer to transgendered people. If he is not going to act on that policy correctly then they have the right to sack him; it is essentially a requirement of his job and nothing more.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the court hasn't ordered him to use different pronouns in his day-to-day, non-working life.
I wonder how he feels about treating gay people.

Quick Reply

Latest