[user104658]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

They're allowing semantics by not phrasing the question specifically enough which opens the door to "political answers".

This person is a doctor; they should ask them about a clinical setting; e.g. if they were to be treated for a specific medical condition, should they be clinically assessed as having female internal anatomy.

Very difficult for a medical professional to talk their way around that question.

Again, though, the waters are being muddied; the court proceedings are not about the doctor's fitness to practice, they are PURELY about the employment dispute between the nursing staff member and the NHS employer.

Someone could raise fitness to practice concerns about the doctor, but that would be a totally separate process and (crucially) it wouldn't be a public one in courts, their registration would be assessed by the GMC and (tbh) I expect what this individual would be willing to concede in that setting would be very different to what they'll openly say in public. I do understand why. And I genuinely think in this case it's the employer that's made errors (repeatedly) and not actually the fault of either staff member. We're now well into the realms of defensiveness.