THE days when transsexualism was uncommon, a little obscure and barely affected us are long gone. Today society is being officially reshaped in the trans image.
Yesterday an employment tribunal declared that ‘lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism in our judgment are incompatible with human dignity and conflict with the fundamental rights of others, specifically here, transgender individuals.’
Before we ask when and how transgenderism acquired the status of a faith, let’s look back at the case in question. It centres on an experienced Christian doctor who was forced out of his job working for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) after refusing to commit to using transgender pronouns and who has now lost his employment tribunal case.
Dr Mackereth had his government contract terminated following a conversation with his line manager in which he said he would not (in principle – and note the use of the subjunctive – this was a hypothetical discussion) refer to a 6ft bearded man as ‘she’ or ‘Madam’ if requested.
In this latest episode, the tribunal has ruled that his dismissal was lawful because his refusal to comply would have made him guilty of unlawful discrimination or harassment under the Equality Act.
In response to his claim that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) breached his right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the tribunal found that citing freedom of religion was no defence when it interferes with the rights of transsexuals, since ‘the right to manifest a religion or belief is subject to article 9(2) [of the European Convention on Human Rights] which includes “the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.’
Belief in transgenderism according to this same judgement, however, is the one belief we now all have to share.
The panel has decided that other belief, specifically belief in Genesis 1:27 in the Bible is ‘incompatible with human dignity’. Genesis 1:27 says: ‘So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.’ Never mind that the image of God is the main historical source of the Western concept of human dignity.
This is the first ruling in the history of English law that free citizens must engage in compelled speech. The Christian Legal Centre, which represented Dr Mackereth, points out that the panel ‘has ruled that Christianity is not protected by the Equality Act or the ECHR, unless it is a version of Christianity which recognises transgenderism and rejects a belief in Genesis 1:27. The teaching of Genesis 1:27 is repeated throughout the Bible, including by Jesus Christ himself.’
Its statement goes on: ‘No protection is given to beliefs “incompatible with human dignity” and “not worthy of respect in a democratic society” . . . [a] definition [which in the past] has only applied to the most extreme beliefs, such as those of Holocaust deniers, neo-Nazis, and similar. It is quite shocking . . . to put the belief in the Bible in the same category now.’
This ruling has major ramifications not only for Christians but for all medical professionals, as it essentially prescribes the language that professionals must use in the workplace.
Dr Mackereth said: ‘No doctor, or researcher, or philosopher, can demonstrate or prove that a person can change sex. Without intellectual and moral integrity, medicine cannot function and my 30 years as a doctor are now considered irrelevant compared with the risk that someone else might be offended.’
The ruling has indeed quite extraordinary implications for professional freedom to express and discuss biological and scientific truths and observed reality.
Whatever the tribunal’s belief, a person’s sex is immutable and fixed, coded in his or her chromosomes (X or Y), and cannot be changed even by the most radical surgery. A ‘sex change’ operation is only cosmetic; hormone treatments must be maintained permanently and do not touch underlying genetics. A person always remains as born: genetically male or female. To state this now as a medical professional is ‘discriminatory’.
Surely it is time for politicians to see that transgender activism, anti-discrimination legislation and the power of the courts have gone too far.
More even than the question of compelled speech, this ruling is about dictating thinking too. Anyone who refuses go along with the approved State doctrine of gender fluidity as a belief is offending against the dignity and rights of transgender people. To the British courts, believing in common sense and science now puts you on a par with the Nazis.
Whilst it may be polite on occasion to go along with preferred forms of address, we must, at least, as Jordan Peterson says, retain the right and freedom to revert to reality as we deem necessary.
Dr Mackereth intends to appeal against the ruling. Will he receive any support from our ‘Conservative’ government or from the leaders of our established church in his crucial fight for freedom, truth and faith? Or will the silence be deafening?