A British Doctor Is Fired for Affirming Biological Reality

Politics overhaul scientific difference in treatment for two genders.

By Michael Brown Published on July 9, 2018

A British doctor has committed the unpardonable sin. He is guilty of medical heresy. He has transgressed the sacred lines of revisionist science. Surely a man like this must be punished.  And punished he shall be.

What exactly was the crime of Dr. David Mackereth, who had worked for the National Health Services for 26 years? He dared to affirm that sex is biologically determined. Yes, that was his terrible transgression.

As the headline in the Daily Mail states, “Christian doctor is SACKED by the Government for refusing to identify patients by their preferred gender because he believes sex is established at birth.”

What in the world was he thinking? How could be so foolish as to believe that a biological male is different than a biological female? How could he not realize that if a man perceives himself to be a woman, then for all medical purposes, “he” is now “she”?

Not only is this doctor a bigot. He is also scientifically ignorant. (I trust you will forgive my sarcasm.)

Dealing With Biological Reality

Ironically, I read this article one day after speaking with a British medical professional. She is responsible for interviewing patients when they come in for treatment, which includes people with life-threatening illnesses.

She told me that some biological males insist on being registered as females, and vice versa. What is she to do?

The doctors are not concerned with how the patient identifies. They’re not interested in knowing if the patient feels at home in his or her body. That is not their concern.

Instead, they must deal with biological realities. Males are different than females, which means that in some cases, males must be treated differently than females. To fail to recognize this is to be unscientific, irrational, and liable to medical malpractice.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

So what does this caregiver do? She fills out the form according to biological realities, not internal perceptions. And in doing so, she might just be saving the patient’s life.

The sad thing, though, is that she does this without the patient’s knowledge or approval. Sadder still is the fact that she could be fired for trying to ensure the proper treatment of her patient.

As I have asked in similar contexts many times before, has the whole world gone mad?

Perception Does Not Matter

What if you truly believed you were blood type A when you were really blood type B? You’ve been in an accident and you’re being rushed to the hospital, needing a transfusion. Thankfully, you’re still conscious, and when the medic asks if you know your own blood type, you say, “Yes, I’m type A.”

As a result, you die on the operating table. You were given the wrong blood. Biology is biology. Perception does not matter.

Israel’s prestigious Weizmann Institute reported last year that, “Researchers Identify 6,500 Genes That Are Expressed Differently in Men and Women.”

Yes, “Men and women differ in obvious and less obvious ways – for example, in the prevalence of certain diseases or reactions to drugs. How are these connected to one’s sex? Weizmann Institute of Science researchers recently uncovered thousands of human genes that are expressed – copied out to make proteins – differently in the two sexes.”

This alone would tell you that, for medical purposes, it’s important to identify men as men and women as women. Yet when a doctor in England determined to do this very thing, he was sacked. This is beyond illogical. This is criminal.

Medical Integrity, Scientific Honesty? Not Anymore

Dr. Mackereth’s new job “would have involved compiling independent reports about the health of those he interviewed who were claiming disability benefits. But matters began to sour when his instructor said reports must only refer to the patient or client by the gender that person selfidentifies [sic] as.”

For him, this was a matter of medical integrity. Of scientific honesty. It was also a matter of his religious beliefs. As he explained, “’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.”

And for raising his voice, he was fired. This is political correctness gone totally mad.

As he warned, “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.”

We are facing similar issues here in the States, while in Canada, Prof. Jordan Peterson has sounded the alarm about the dangers of government compelled speech.

Now, the UK has taken things one step farther. And it is a dangerous step indeed. Will there be a pushback from the society, including others within the medical profession? Will Christian leaders raise their voices in protest? Or will the madness continue?

To be candid, at the moment, given the climate of things in the UK, I fear for the worst. Nothing less than a national awakening will turn the tide.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • JP

    The madness continues. Now is the time to answer the fool according to his folly.

  • Patmos

    The STRONG delusion of 2nd Thessalonians continues. Hold tight folks.

  • John Connor

    As he warned, “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.”

    Agreed

  • lavallette

    Everyone has the total liberty and freedom to cut him/herself off and to deny reality but no one will ever have the right or the ability to avoid the consequences of reality. You can defy nature and its laws but eventually nature will turn around and hit back very, very hard.

    • GLT

      “Everyone has the total liberty and freedom to cut him/herself off from and to deny reality but no one will ever have the right or the ability to avoid the consequences of reality.”

      Neither does the psychotic individual have the right to demand others participate in and affirm their psychosis as normal.

  • Jim Walker

    I’m no doctor or has any medical background. Honest question :
    What if the drug prescription is biological based ? Can a man who identifies as a woman insist to take a female drug ?
    What if it kills him or leave him with more complications ? Who is responsible ? The hospital ?

  • Trilemma

    I have to assume all the other doctors that are willing to use a requested pronoun are still able to properly treat patients according to the patient’s biology. There is nothing lost by using a requested pronoun when referring to a patient verbally.

    Romans 12:18 NIV: “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”

    The doctor chose not to live at peace with everyone. In the parable of the minas, Luke 19:11-17, Jesus gave a parable about an evil ruler. Jesus was teaching that Christians should be like the slave who buried his mina. He didn’t endorse the ruler enough to be rewarded and he didn’t defy the ruler enough to be slaughtered. This doctor chose to be fired.

    • Andy6M

      That’s an interesting use of that verse. I don’t think Paul would have encouraged living at peace at the expense of the truth, or by lying.

      • Trilemma

        I don’t see how honoring a patient’s request to use certain pronouns when being talked about can be considered lying. Who is the doctor trying to deceive?

        • pearl87 ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

          It’s lying because it is deliberately expressing untruth. What a dummy you are!

          • Trilemma

            If it’s the truth that someone identifies as a woman then you should use the pronouns that align with that truth.

          • pearl87 ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

            If it’s truth that he has Y chromosomes, an Adam’s apple, and a penis, then that individual is a MAN.

          • Trilemma

            It means the individual has a male body.

          • GLT

            “It means the individual has a male body.”

            If the individual has a male body he has the requisite genetic make-up that makes makes him a man and is therefore, in fact and deed, a man. No amount of semantic drivel or psychotic logic can change that fact.

          • pearl87 ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

            Also known as being a MAN

          • Andy6M

            Thank you for perfectly demonstrating what is wrong with the modern idea of truth as subjective.

          • Trilemma

            The objective truth is that some of the doctor’s patients who have male bodies identify as women. If those patients request to be talked about with feminine pronouns then the doctor needs to abide by that request.

          • Bryan

            You’re not addressing the question of why a doctor must abide by a patient request. You’ve circled around it but the only reason that you’ve provided at all is because the patient requested it. At best you could consider it a courtesy but to require it is a form of compelled speech.

          • Trilemma

            Yes, it is common courtesy to use the requested pronoun. Apparently the hospital requires its doctors to be courteous. Romans 12:18 commands Christian’s to be courteous.

          • Bryan

            Again you are not addressing the why question and your best answer is that it is a courtesy. If it is truly a courtesy, then it is by definition not required.
            So no, it’s not common courtesy to use the requested pronoun. This is a new invention within the last decade. And no, Romans 12:18 calls for peacemakers. This is much more than being courteous. But Romans 12:18 does not call for doormats or placaters. “Why is it that we think being a good Christian means being a good citizen?” – Erwin McManus, from The Barbarian Way sermon.

          • Trilemma

            It’s required if an employer says extending that courtesy is required. It’s required of a Christian if God says extending that courtesy it required. By not using the requested pronoun, the patient was offended, upset and not at peace. By not using the requested pronoun, the hospital management was upset, angry and not at peace. By not using the requested pronoun, the doctor was fired and his finances were not at peace. By not using the requested pronoun he did the exact opposite of peacemaking.

          • GLT

            “Christian’s to be courteous.”

            Being courteous does not require one to indulge in and legitimise the fantasies of a psychotic.

          • Trilemma

            So, it’s okay to be discourteous to people you believe are psychotic? You think that will suddenly “cure” them of their psychosis?

          • GLT

            “So, it’s okay to be discourteous to people you believe are psychotic?”

            Where did I say that? You’re confusing being courteous to a psychotic person with accepting their psychosis as true and normal. You really must work on your logic, Trilemma.

          • Trilemma

            If you hear an atheist sneeze and say to him, “God bless you,” what should the atheist say to you in response?

          • GLT

            “If you hear an atheist sneeze and say to him, “God bless you,” what should the atheist say to you in response?”

            That would be up to the atheist.

            I hope you are not trying to draw a parallel between someone saying a courteous ‘thank you’ in response to a blessing or compliment and a doctor affirming a psychotic patient’s delusions. Surely you are more logical than to attempt that.

          • Trilemma

            If the atheist says a polite “Thank you,” then he is accepting and participating in your delusion.

          • GLT

            “If the atheist says a polite “Thank you,” then he is accepting and participating in your delusion.”

            That is why I said it would be up to the atheist. I, however, do not see my belief in God as a psychosis, nor is it considered a psychosis by the medical community. Therefore, your analogy, once again, falls flat on its face..

          • Trilemma

            A person who is transgender does not consider it a psychosis nor is gender dysphoria considered a psychosis by the medical community. Therefore, my analogy is quite valid.

            The atheist can choose to be polite or not unless he’s on the job and his employer requires him to be polite. Christians are slaves of God and should be polite and courteous because God wants them to be as Romans 12:18 says. Being polite and courteous is how people live at peace with one another.

          • GLT

            “A person who is transgender does not consider it a psychosis nor is gender dysphoria considered a psychosis by the medical community.”

            Of course a transgender person does not consider their condition a psychosis, if they did it would not be a psychosis. That fact was, I thought, self evident.

            As for the medical community not considering transgender a psychosis that is only true to the extent a few politically correct members consider it normal for those reasons alone.

            “Being polite and courteous is how people live at peace with one another.”

            There is a difference between being polite and courteous and indulging a person’s illness and delusions. Perhaps you should do a little critical thinking on the subject as it is obvious you are very confused.

          • GLT

            “If those patients request to be talked about with feminine pronouns then the doctor needs to abide by that request.”

            Really? Why must someone, in this case a doctor, be required to compromise his/her integrity to satisfy the psychosis of a patient?

          • Trilemma

            It’s common courtesy and does not comprise the doctor’s integrity.

          • GLT

            It’s a psychosis and the psychotic is demanding the doctor participate and legitimise that psychosis. That does indeed compromise the doctor’s right to freedom and his integrity.

    • Placeboshotgun

      …what? That’s the exact opposite of what that parable teaches! 3 servants are given differing amount of money to care for while the King is away. 2 of them prosper and grow what they are given, and rewarded for doing so. The one who buried what he was given is harshly punished for being a faithless servant! We are to be nothing like that! Cross reference with Matthew 25 for context.

      • Trilemma

        The parable in Matthew 25 is a totally different parable with a different meaning.

        • Placeboshotgun

          No it isn’t. The two accounts have slight variation which is about what you’d expect in two different eyewitness accounts of the same event. Even allowing for your premise that they are different in that case you have Christ in one place saying to use your gifts to grow the Kingdom and in another to just stand around doing nothing, which would be contradictory considering the circumstances are almost identical. I believe you have the wrong end of the pig there.

          • Trilemma

            In Luke’s parable, the servant is not punished but in Matthew’s he is. In Luke’s parable, people are slaughtered, in Matthew’s there aren’t. Big differences.

          • Placeboshotgun

            I’d say losing what he is given is a punishment in and of itself. As for people not being killed in the Matthew version, it is not difficult to imagine that one witness may remember the end in more detail than another, that’s what I’m saying when I say that multiple accounts of the same event or story will be slightly different. Regardless you still do not answer the issue of contradiction.

          • Trilemma

            The slave didn’t own the mina he was given. He simply gave back the ruler’s mina. So there’s wasn’t any punishment.

            If the two parables were both supposed to be the same but aren’t because of faulty human memory then you cannot claim the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

            There’s no contradiction because they’re two different parables with different meanings.

        • Ken Abbott

          More likely, Jesus told the same parable on more than one occasion; over the course of three years, he undoubtedly “recycled his material” and like any good storyteller altered the details. I agree with Placeboshotgun that the essential message or point is the same in both accounts. As to pigs and their ends, I’ll let you draw your own conclusions there.

          BTW, your characterization of the ruler in the Luke version of the parable as “evil” is eisegetical. Severe he might be, but evil is saying too much.

          • Trilemma

            The ruler in Luke’s parable is based on Herod Archelaus

          • Ken Abbott

            The pattern of behavior is that which the Herods followed; neither the text itself nor the context states such so this is suppositional. It is likely fair to surmise that Jesus used an example with which his listeners would be familiar, but to say the character is definitely based on Archelaus as an individual is stretching matters too far.

            Furthermore, Jesus does not describe the ruler as evil or wicked. Authoritarian, yes, but that was common in civil rulers of his day.

          • Trilemma

            Do you consider Herod Archelaus simply authoritarian and not in any way evil?

          • Ken Abbott

            Prove to me from the text that Jesus meant specifically Herod Archelaus to be the man of noble birth in the parable recorded in Luke 19 and I’ll answer the (otherwise extraneous) question.

          • Trilemma

            The story of the ruler in Luke 19:11-17 matches the story of Herod Archelaus who had to go to Rome to receive authority to be king over Judea. In Matthew 28:18, Jesus said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” In John 18:36, Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this earth.” Jesus did not have to go anywhere to receive authority to be a king and have a kingdom. He already had all authority and a kingdom. Therefore, the parable in Luke cannot be about Jesus.

          • Ken Abbott

            Verse 11: “While they were listening to this [the interaction of Jesus with Zacchaeus in Jericho], he [Jesus] went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people of God thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.”

            1) What is the significance of Jesus being in the vicinity of Jerusalem?

            2) Why did the people have this expectation?

            3) What is the meaning of the parable, given the context?

          • Trilemma

            The people wanted to rebel against the governing authorities and make Jesus king. Jesus used the parable to say that opposing the governing authorities would get them killed just like those who opposed Herod Archelaus were killed.

    • Bryan

      The verse you quoted was exactly the verse that was preached on at church this past Sunday. The verse in the context of the chapter and the rest of Romans, is not an invitation to compromise truth or become a doormat. It does mean that we are to pursue peace. The peacemaker isn’t to run from conflict. He is not to avoid at any cost the possibility of offending someone.
      “If it is possible” means that peace is not always possible. “as far as it depends on you” means you can control your actions and responses, no one else’s. I can do my best to not offend people in what I say and what I do, but I have no idea about most people’s lives or pasts. I physically can’t be everything to everyone all of the time.
      In the past I worked with a transgendered person. I avoided the topic of gender and pronouns as much as possible, using their name instead. We got along pretty well as far as I know. I left my former company and this person left theirs sometime later. I’ve lost contact with this person so I haven’t worked with them since unfortunately. That worked in my field because gender wasn’t the issue, getting the job done was.
      In the medical profession, there are differences. Sex plays a determining factor in patient care for some things. Your assumption that “all the other doctors … are still able to properly treat patients…” is interesting. You admit that perceived gender is different from actual sex which indicates that there is reality and there is mental picture of oneself and that if the two differ, the mental picture should trump. Second, “There is nothing lost by using a requested pronoun when referring to a patient verbally.” If this is true, then the reciprocal should be true as well, namely, there should be nothing lost by using a non-requested pronoun when referring to a patient verbally. Should a pronoun really be a fireable offense?

      • Trilemma

        I’m not saying a woman with a male body should receive medical treatment as if she had a female body. She should receive treatment in accordance with her body. Using a requested pronoun is no different than using a requested nickname even though it’s not the name they were born with. The doctor loses nothing by using the requested pronoun and avoids unnecessary and pointless conflict. Refusal to follow hospital policy is a fireable offense.

        • Bryan

          “Using a requested pronoun is no different than using a requested nickname even though it’s not the name they were born with.” I haven’t heard of anyone being fired because they wouldn’t use a nickname.
          “The doctor loses nothing by using the requested pronoun and avoids unnecessary and pointless conflict.” The same could be said of the patient too. If it’s not a big deal for the doctor to use the requested pronoun, why is it a big deal if they choose not to?
          “Refusal to follow hospital policy is a fireable offense.” That’s true. The other side of that is should it be hospital policy to compel this area of speech? I’m not familiar enough with UK laws to comment much more, so this is more of a rhetorical question.

          • Trilemma

            “I haven’t heard of anyone being fired because they wouldn’t use a nickname.”

            That’s probably because doctors don’t refuse to use nicknames. If they can use requested proper nouns they can use requested pronouns.

            “If it’s not a big deal for the doctor to use the requested pronoun, why is it a big deal if they choose not to?”

            Because the patient requested it. The doctor is a Christian. He should follow Romans 12:18 and avoid unnecessary conflict. Using the wrong pronoun is a form of harassment.

          • Bryan

            Tri, it’s more likely because it’s not that big of a deal. My first name is the same as my father’s. I have always gone by my middle name at home, at school, work, etc. I have encountered people who insist on using my first name even though it’s not the name I use. I have never sued any of them or asked that they be fired. Are you suggesting that I should get the same privilege to create a policy that states I have the right to fire someone for calling me by a name other than my preferred name?
            Secondly, if it’s unnecessary, why is it a fireable offense. Essentially one standard is applied to the Christian doctor and another to the patient.
            Finally, again you’re quoting Romans 12:18 but you’re assuming that it means the Christian should be a doormat (essentially) to whatever a non-Christian wants even if the doctor believes it to be wrong, untrue, immoral, or otherwise sinful. That’s not what the verse means. We are to speak truth in love but the truth part is just as important as the love part. If you only “love” and don’t speak truth, you’re not following scripture anymore than the person who believes his body doesn’t match his perceived gender.

          • Trilemma

            If you own a company, you can set a policy that any of your employees who calls you the wrong name will be fired.

            The doctor is an employee of the hospital. So yes, the hospital has different standards for employees than for customers.

            Being courteous and considerate does not make a person a doormat. Where do get the idea that it’s a sin to use a requested pronoun? How is the doctor’s refusal to use the requested pronoun realistically going to change the patient other than make the patient dislike Christians?

        • GLT

          “I’m not saying a woman with a male body should receive medical treatment as if she had a female body.”

          I’m curious, did you actually read this sentence or just type it with no thought whatsoever? If you did read it, I am also curious how you could do so and hit submit believing it made sense.

          • Trilemma

            A transgender woman is a woman born with a male body.

          • GLT

            “A transgender woman is a woman born with a male body.”

            Give your head a shake, Trilemma, there is no such thing as a transgender woman, there is only a man suffering from a psychosis in which he believes he is a woman in a male body.

          • Trilemma

            Transgender women know they exist.

          • GLT

            “Transgender women know they exist.”

            On what basis do you claim to know that?

          • Trilemma

            In the same way that Christians know they exist transgender women know they exist. Is being a Christian real or a delusion?

          • GLT

            “Is being a Christian real or a delusion?”

            Claiming to be a Christian does not require one to deny scientific facts in relation to genetics, biology, physiology, psychology and anatomy. I know these are minor details but even minor details are important.

            If that is the best analogy you can come up with you are in serious trouble.

            So, have you got anything else or is that the hill on which you’re willing to die?

          • Trilemma

            Christians claim a person who lived and died 2000 years ago has come into their bodies to reside there and talks to them. This claim denies scientific facts in relation to biology, physiology, psychology, etc.

          • GLT

            “Christians claim a person who lived and died 2000 years ago has come into their bodies to reside there and talks to them.””

            I personally do not know of any Christian who claims a person lives in them. The Christians I know and Christian theology teaches the Holy Spirit lives in them. Quite a different scenario, Trilemma. Again, you need to work on your critical thinking skills. A little work on Christian theology would be helpful as well. 🙂

          • Trilemma

            Galations 2:20 – “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me;”

    • pearl87 ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

      You ain’t too bright are you? Since you are fixated on coercing people to speak made up “pronouns”, you miss the actual issue here. In order to receive proper treatment, the patient MUST be identified as the correct biological sex.

      • Trilemma

        What makes you think a person’s body will be incorrectly identified based on the pronoun they would like to be referred to by?

        • pearl87 ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

          What makes you think some mentally ill people should be able to define reality?

          • Trilemma

            What makes you think the Christian doctor is mentally ill?

          • pearl87 ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

            He isn’t and I don’t.

    • Liberty4Evr

      You are a moron Trilemma. Living at piece with people does not mean allowing them to set the rules. You are a fool and you would not know the love of God Nor the truth of the transformational power of the gospel if you tripped over it.

    • Jim Walker

      How dare you use the Word of God to suit the narrative, wrong interpretation and political correctness of this secular world. You have just shown everyone here you who you really are. Simply by your fruits.
      If this is what your church is preaching, I suggest you change immediately.

      • Trilemma

        What wrong interpretation? Does the Bible teach that Christians should expect everyone to try and live at peace with Christians or does it say that Christians are to try and live at peace with everyone?

        • Jim Walker

          I read many peoples’ explaining to you what this verse means but I guess till now you still have that stubborn spirit in you.
          I hope you pray about it sincerely to God to open the eyes of your heart to know the truth.

          • Trilemma

            How does being rude, discourteous and inconsiderate not go against Romans 12:18?

          • Jim Walker

            You are already being rude, discourteous and inconsiderate to many so how does that apply to you ?
            The members here have explain to you that if its not the truth, we have to nip it in the bud. Their explanation is clear as crystal yet you can’t see it.

          • Trilemma

            How am I being rude, discourteous and inconsiderate? Liberty4Evr called me a moron and a fool. Pearl87 told me I’m not too bright.

            How is this doctor refusing to use the requested pronoun going to nip a patient’s transgenderism in the bud?

          • Jim Walker

            You don’t have to believe whatever names they called you. Just don’t respond with the same words they heap at you.
            Ok from now onwards you must address me as “Your Majesty I’m wrong”. You’d better respect my pronoun. (pun intended)

  • azsxdcf1

    I am glad babies cannot get deceived until they get older! At the nursery, the medical professionals, and parents exclaim: “IT’S A BOY!!” or ” IT’S A GIRL”… never has there been any argument or discussion; until the recent insanity set in! Lord, help us!

Inspiration
Am I a Bigot?
Dudley Hall
More from The Stream
Connect with Us