Sacked doctor sues former employer for refusing to call trans-woman "she"

Sad that he has to say it is religious rather than scientific rationalism.

Then again Science is currently being fought by a sizeable clique of Progressives in a way religion is no longer having.

In the way that I am a self-proclaimed sex expert, and I say that trans-women are not women.

What are my credentials you ask? Because I say I am. Same level of proof that trans-women give to say they are women: "because I say I am".

It's a Daily Mail report but for the purposes of discussion let's take it seriously and treat it as accurate.

It's not a question of whether we could see doctors disciplined, because this is a case in which a doctor already has been disciplined — his appointment as a DWP assessor has been terminated because of his refusal to follow his employer's policy on the treatment of trans people.

Dr Mackereth's employer was a public body, but I don't think that matters here; a private sector business might obviously adopt a policy of accepting and respecting their customer's gender identification, and might require their staff to implement that policy.

Reading the Daily Mail article two things stand out.

First, the journalist was briefed by Dr Mackereth and/or his advisers. It give a fairly uncritical presentation of the case as they would like it to be seen. There may be other ways to see the case, and other relevant facts or points that Dr Mackereth does not find it in his interests to draw to your attention. If you're interested, you'll have to research those yourself.

Secondly, Mackereth's contract was terminated in 2018 and his employment tribunal case was heard (and went against him) in 2019. In a sense this is old news. The reason it has come up again is because of the somewhat similar Forstater case. Forstater, like Mackereth, lost in the employment tribunal but, unlike Mackereth, appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, where she won in June 2021. Mackereth believes that his case is very similar to hers and therefore he now wants to appeal.

Three issues arise in the appeal:

1. Is Mackereth out of time? You can't normally wait three years before appealing a tribunal judgment. He may need special leave from the court in order to proceed.
2. Are the facts in Mackereth's case really that similar to Forstater? The Daily Mail article doesn't give a lot of detail on that.
3. The outcome in Forstater's case was that her beliefs about the immutability of sex were protected even if they offended people, and they "must be tolerated in a pluralist society". But this did not mean that she could "indiscriminately and gratuitously refer to trans persons in terms other than they would wish". So the order she got was not an order that she be reinstated in her job or compensated for wrongful dismissal; it was an order that the case go back the employment tribunal so that the tribunal could consider whether she had been fired because of her belief (firing not permitted) or because on account of her belief she had acted towards her clients in ways that were offensive to them (firing permitted). SFAIK the tribunal has not yet made a finding about this in Forstater's case. Presumably the same distinction will need to be made in Mackereth's case.

Externally.

But I've yet to meet one who has experienced menstrual cramps.

If you put a wool coat on a cow would that make her a sheep? See how silly your logic is?

I disagree. Religion gives people strong motivation to do things that are otherwise disadvantageous. Why wouldn't he just keep his head down and say nothing unless he felt strongly about it?

So?

Even a non-literal interpretation of Genesis suggests that make and female are two distinct essences, and doesn't seem to leave any room for gender fluidity or inter-changability of any kind.

The idea that human beings have no intrinsic essence and are infinitely malleable arises from a combination of political liberalism and nihilist atheism i.e. "You can be anything you want and nothing matters anyway"

You believe that all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve and that god created Adam and from Adam god used a rib to create Eve?

Again, where did this doctor say or where is it indicated that his belief is dependent on biblical literalism?

And if he is a biblical literalist, as many Protestant evangelicals are, what does it matter that you learned at the foot of Catholic nuns that biblical literalism is untrue? Many Christians have differing theological beliefs obviously.

The Good Doctor could believe Harry Potter created him.

It's moot.

He by his own choice could not provide the required service, alternatives were explored but were seen as not feasible.

So he couldn't work there anymore.

I don't see what really is confusing people.

I always found it odd that some people were quite happy to believe they were the product of incest.

But hey. I believe I'm a brick so anything is possible I suppose

autocorrect?

Really. If, God forbid and hypothetically speaking, a trans-womans body was found, with no ID, at a crime scene, for arguments sake, then a DNA test would be carried out in order to establish identification.

The DNA test will come back as Male.

It's simple biology.

I don't believe that they can remove the Y (male) chromosome.

Genitals dont dictate gender

I was just making sure you meant "brick".

Again though, whatever your beliefs or what you choose to identify as is moot.

This Doctor could not perform his duties to the extent that was required of him, something he admitted.

So he couldn't work there anymore.

Unlike the Daily Mail, I actually read the judgement. I didn't see any error in the judgement, but then again I'm not a high court judge, so will be interesting to read what they decide.

No I don't think so, it will tell you whether the individual being tested had an XX pair of chromosomes or a XY pair of chromosomes.

Not all females have XX and not all males have XY