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

That nonsense all comes from the same well of ignorance.

Trans people just want to rape you, strange men just want to rape you.

It's a remedial view based on irrational fears.

Again though, none of that has anything to do with this guy acting like a bit of a díck and trying to blame poor Jesus for that fact.

But that’s exactly why I’m of the opinion that in my experience - people don’t care. On the few occasions when I have been in women’s bathrooms, nobody made anything of it, there were a few women who were bemused, and then there were a few women who were amused. I was just mortified tbh cos it’s not something I do intentionally, I use the bathrooms for their intended purpose in any case, I expect that anyone in them is using them for their intended purpose. I don’t think anyone expects people in there who do not intend to use the bathrooms for their intended purpose.

The topic came up in training when the question was asked about people who are transgender, and how to address them. The course facilitator informed them of the DWPs policy which is to refer to people as they prefer to be addressed. The doctor immediately made the course facilitator aware of his inability to adhere to the policy due to his religious beliefs.

You might not buy it, but there he is, Dr. David Mackereth, an evangelical doctor waiting to force his religious views on patients in violation of the GMC code of conduct first of all, and his employers policies second. He has an expectation that the rules which apply to all doctors and employees in those circumstances, didn’t apply to him. He believes his employers were unreasonable, and he sent them an email suggesting as much, that their decisions would have a terrible impact on the nation, all because as willing as they were to bend over backwards for him to try and accommodate him, nothing less than recognising that he was above the rules, would do. He was offered further support by his employers, but he declined, and then decided to claim he was the victim of unlawful discrimination by his employers.

Does Dr. David Mackereth still seem like a reasonable individual to you? The tribunal even describes him as an unreliable witness, and they had plenty of evidence that this individual who was so indignant about honesty and integrity, couldn’t keep his story straight, couldn’t produce evidence to verify his claims, and couldn’t reasonably have believed many of his own claims against his employers!

I wouldn’t expect you just to take my word for it though, I’m simply represented by a pseudonym on the Internet 🤔 Here’s the judgement of the Employment Tribunal in full -

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d9b0c8aed915d35cff2225d/Dr_David_Mackereth_v_The_Department_for_Work_and_Pensions___Advanced_Personnel_Management_Group__UK__Ltd_1304602_-_2018_-_Judgment_and_reasons.pdf

He seems like quite a reasonable person to me because like many others, he has the integrity to point blank reject these notions that speech can be dictated or you should completely suspend everything you know to be true to accommodate someone’s feelings- an absolutely fair position to hold given that he deals in biology and medical issues, issues that affect men and women differently.

Just not seeing anything at all here to paint this guy in a bad light - he is a victim of this creeping ideology that believes they have a right to flip established biology and speech on its head to suit themselves.

How many attacks in a women's prison do you need, to justify a completely unrelated doctor being rude and inconsiderate in breach of his terms of employment to a patient and customer of their employer?

“He would be a liability in their employment, not to mention the damage he claims he should be able to inflict on customers health with his arrogant behaviour in service of his own ideals which are not supported by religion, science, medicine. His only concern is that he would be “cutting his professional throat” by taking the position he did. He’s an utter drama queen 🙄

Are you sure you aren’t describing the patient here?

I’m very sure. There were no patients involved in this case which involves a doctor unwilling to refrain from forcing his evangelical views on patients and customers of the DWP. It was an employment tribunal in which the doctor claimed that he was the victim of unlawful discrimination against him by his employer. Even the thread title is misleading as it is not representative of the facts of this case.

You’re perfectly entitled to view this man’s position as reasonable. His employers, the professional organisation of which he is a member, and the Employment Tribunal who are responsible for interpreting the legislation which applies, did not. He is perfectly entitled to hold his personal views, and he is entitled to express his personal views, just not while he is attending to his patients. His expectation that he should be able to do so, was deemed to be unreasonable.

It appears you want to ignore reality when it suits, while imagining that anyone else isn’t as entitled as you are to do the very same thing.

Trans people have always existed. Im sure trans women they also used toilets in the 1980s too.

Why are toilets broke out for men and female?

Why would you need a birth cert to know if a person is male or female?

Historically, public bathrooms were built only with men in mind, women weren’t considered as it was commonly accepted that women’s place was in the home, relegated to the domestic domain, if you will, with every attempt made to inhibit their participation in public life. Public bathrooms was only the small stuff, but wouldn’t you know human biology being what it is - everyone gets caught short in public at some point in their lives.

It was with much resistance that eventually it was accepted that women should also have access to the facilities in furtherance of their equal participation in public life. This latest stunt to try and prohibit people who are transgender from using public facilities is equally nothing more than an attempt to relegate a group of people to having less rights than everyone else on the basis of their gender identity.

It’s certainly not based upon biology because it’s proponents arguments consist of arguing on the basis of associating abhorrent behaviour with sex, and suggesting that on the basis of their sex, anyone could present a threat to other people. There is no reasonable basis for their arguments as they have not previously attempted to prevent people from being harmed by people who don’t care for anyone else’s rights. The argument only arises in the context of prohibiting people who are transgender from participating as equals in society in accordance with their gender identity.

It’s upsetting people who maintain that everyone else in society should adhere to their beliefs. The impact on the nation of democracy is that we have laws which operate independently of anyones personal beliefs.