In England, a government employment tribunal has ruled that an employee of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) can no longer hold a position with the department because he made known his refusal to accept the sexual choice of a “customer.” Dr. David Mackereth had told a fellow trainee that he could not as a Christian accept the preference of pronouns by individuals when they identify themselves. The fellow trainee reported Dr. Mackereth’s stance, and he was interviewed via email about it. Then, when told he might lose his job, he stood by his belief and was promptly told he was no longer employed. DWP officials said he had voluntarily walked away from the position. He said he had been fired.
A former full-time evangelist, the dismissed employee for the DWP post cited Genesis 1:27 as his inflexible position. It states: “And God created them to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.” An official at DWP ruled that such a biblical stance carried no weight and responded:
Belief in Genesis 1:27, 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.
Andrea Williams, the top official at the Christian Legal Center, sped to Dr. Mackereth’s side and labeled the action “disturbing.” She predicted “seismic consequences not just for Christians but for anyone in the workplace who is prepared to say that we are created male and female.” But at the British “charitable” organization calling itself the LGBT Foundation, public affairs spokesperson Emma Meehan welcomed the ruling.
Here in the United States, a high-school teacher in Virginia recently found himself fired because he refused to refer to a female student who suddenly insisted she was a male. Peter Vlaming argued that in firing him, the school officials had violated his rights to freedom of speech and religion. He has sued to regain his job, and his attorney has pointed to his client’s belief that “referring to a female as a male by using an objectively male pronoun is telling a lie.”
Dr. Mackareth and Mr. Vlaming are not alone in seeking to justice and good sense. This new form of utter madness has already taken root in many countries and is now being proposed as international law. The New York City-based Center for Family and Human Rights, a privately funded watchdog group scrutinizing stances established or proposed by the United Nations, has reported that the world body is considering passage of a new international treaty that will address gender identity. The measure, claiming a requirement that it must deal with real or potential crimes against humanity, has been sent to a formal UN legal committee where it will be speedily considered. Stefano Gennarini, an attorney connected to the Center, claims that passage of this treaty will scrap the definition of gender as either male or female and “open the door to more than 100 genders” that will have to be recognized under binding international law.
This proposed UN treaty will not affect the fate of Dr. Mackereth in England or schoolteacher Vlaming in Virginia. But if it is dignified by the UN General Assembly and ratified by individual nations, it will become law in those nations. Without doubt, it will speed more males to insist they are females and vice versa. The consequences of spreading transgenderism are enormous — politically, economically, and culturally. Think of a trainload of human beings speeding along tracks that have been tampered with and now lead to a cliff. And realize that mankind is taking a giant step toward such a cliff, a fate that amounts to the unraveling of civilized values — and civilization itself.
John F. McManus is president emeritus of The John Birch Society.
