A Trans Former Editor At The Times Is Suing For Transphobic Bullying And Discrimination

The Mail’s stance on Brexit has changed (softened) noticeably over the past year or so. Does that mean a Brexiteer member of staff, with some sort of discrimination complaint, could object to a change in editorial policy?

". . . the basis for many stories was later established to be false."

Burns supplies no evidence for this claim, that I can see? As far as I'm aware the only IPSO ruling on trans-related coverage in the Times was this one www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=07454-18 which found in favour of the Times in every respect.

Christine Burns has published her "Witness Statement re Edinburgh Employment Tribunal involving Katherine O'Donnell" on her blog.

Full text here:

blog.plain-sense.co.uk/2019/05/the-statement-below-is-written-evidence_9.html

---

From the blog post (rather than the actual witness statement)

The intention of this statement was to help the tribunal to contextualise other evidence that it would likely encounter in the course of hearings that are expected to span six weeks. That includes more specific evidence pertaining to any changes in the approach of the Times and Sunday Times in recent years and whether that might be related to changes at a higher level in the organisation. The tribunal is not in itself an ‘investigation’ of the newspaper’s output; however, changes in that output, and the internal decisions creating any such output, do have bearing on questions about the climate within the organisation, as might be experienced by an employee who feels affected by the subject matter. This would be true regardless of the subject in question. In this case the context is the reporting of trans lives.

INTRODUCTION

(Christine's background, employment history, activism, etc. establishing credentials as a witness.)

PRESS COVERAGE — THE LONG VIEW

(Summary of UK coverage of trans issues in tabloid and broadsheet press up to 2016.)

TIMES COVERAGE FROM 2016 ONWARD

para 1 - Opening sentences give flavour of what is to come:

"The roots of what may be characterised as a ‘trans backlash’ appear in retrospect to have been sown in 2015 and they are not specifically because of the actions of trans people or any legislative moves. The context is that trans people were suddenly becoming more visible globally in the popular media."

para 2 - runs the "The Wrong Side of History" line. Christine presents the "no-platforming" of feminist speakers as being due to "changed social standards among the young" with "young people (not necessarily trans)" reacting to these "old-school writers".

Also the usual dismissal of "no-platforming" being nothing to do with Freedom of Speech because these feminists get published anyway, somewhere, even if they were "no platformed" as speakers. (Specious argument, IMHO).

"This new visibility was met by a resurgence of commentators such as Germaine Greer, Julie Bindel and Julie Burchill. As experienced older-generation observers we saw this as nothing new. They were ‘doing their thing’. However, the ground had shifted. Just as the ‘Me Too’ has caught out many famous figures in the United States, who discover that the world views their habits differently than before, social media and changed social standards among the young meant that these commentators did not enjoy the same ride as they had been used to. The story shifted to the reaction that young people (not necessarily trans) had towards the opinions of these old-school writers. Students would picket their talks or call for them to be disinvited. The story became falsely characterised as one of ‘Free Speech’ — although it should be noted that each of these writers had no shortage of high profile platforms to express their views. Some retreated to periodicals across the political spectrum: Spiked, The Spectator and the New Statesman. An article by Julie Burchill in the Observer was taken down by that paper’s editors only to be republished by the Telegraph."

para 4 - 2016 - first allegation that The Times and the Sunday Times are doing something different to the rest of the press. A different witness might perhaps have described this difference as, "engaging in investigative journalism" vs "reporting".

"At this point (during 2016) The Times appears to have begun to take a unique path away from the pack. The Guardian and Telegraph (plus the tabloid Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday) continued to report the story. The Times and Sunday Times began (in my view) to MAKE the story in an increasingly worrying fashion."

para 5 - Christine has a pop at Rod Liddle.

para 6 - 2017 - I have only started reading The Times recently so I was gobsmacked to learn from this how much coverage there was of trans issues!

Extract:

"That pattern changed markedly in 2017, however — and it changed uniquely for the Times. Over the course of that year the Times and Sunday Times published over 130 items — mostly news and op-ed, with news becoming the dominant position in both papers as the year progressed. Almost all could be said to be negative, with varying degrees of careful deniability. This was not normal in any sense. The level of coverage (averaging almost 3 items a week) was more than an order of magnitude greater than anything the two titles had previously published. "

para 7 - Christine has a pop at The Times editorial standards ("abandoned"), lack of balance in stories, lack of expertise, bias of contributors, "a small cohort of commentators who had appeared as if from nowhere to be interviewed as authorities on a regular basis" (how very DARE they!) and slips in the hint of an allegation of anti-semitism, "Conspiracy theories about the involvement of jewish billionaires . . . "

para 8 - Chrstine goes for the jugular, opening with a general polemic along the lines, "What a shower of imbeciles!" Editorial standards now even worse than when they were "abandoned", etc.

Then some specific complaints:

". . . the basis for many stories was later established to be false. False interpretation of statistics about trans prisoners and offending. Unbalanced reporting of the nature of the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act, presenting only a one-sided pejorative view of the implications. False insinuation about the leadership of the trans charity Mermaids — even after the Heritage Lottery Fund had reexamined plans to award a grant to them in 2018."

para 9 - Editorial control is the problem - not clarified whether due to continued lack of it or suddenly there is some but it is the wrong sort.

para 10 - Everyone else everywhere else in the world is happy but the problem in the UK is . . . The Times!

" . . . there is no moral panic to compare with that conjured up in Britain and championed by The Times."

para 11 - The Times has a "vendetta" against trans people!

I cannot work out what Christine means by the final sentence of her witness statement - I cannot parse it at all.

"Finally, I come back to the point that the Times coverage of these affairs since late 2016 and the beginning of 2017 is of a level sufficient to qualify as a vendetta. There is no historical precedent. Neither the Times nor the rest of the press showed excessive (let alone obsessive) concern when the matters in question were originally being framed. Indeed, many of the articles in question proceed as though trans people have only suddenly surfaced as a subject for moral panic in the last 3-4 years, disregarding generations of low key and episodic reporting before."

The picture from the buzzfeed article made me do a google - I don’t know many middle aged women barristers who would wear that skirt and boot combo...

In the 35 plus years I've been a solicitor I haven't seen any female solicitor, barrister or advocate of any age wear a skirt that short in a work situation.

In one example, she noted that the Times reported on the eminent scientist Dr Kate Stone being seriously injured by a stag by also mentioning in the headline that she was trans, despite it being irrelevant to the story.

It may be irrelevant to the fact KS was injured by a stag, but describing them as a "woman" without clarifying they are a transwoman, is a scientifically incorrect fact. A woman is an adult human female. The article is being polite if it describes them as a woman, but it would be a lie not to clarify that the term "woman" is used politely, rather than accurately.

If the media are banned from indicating when someone is trans, that is censorship.

Hmm, okay, I am not sure how I would have read the case if it was not tied up with an attempt to close down debate about a public interest issue that affects women as well as transgender people. I agree that what is published in some opinion pieces is offensive and I agree that could make individuals feel uncomfortable. Does that mean they should not be published? And where does that leave the journalism in the Times which asks very genuine questions about children and young people going down the trans pathway, or about the erosion of same sex spaces? These are public interest questions beyond the individual.

It brought to mind a story which was shared in a staff meeting where I work about three years ago (predominantly male, I was the only female in the room). It was about a (male) manager in the United States who was informed that a male colleague was coming out as transgender. The response was by the manager was ‘excellent, that will improve the gender gap’. Everyone in the room laughed, while I just sat there thinking ‘what?’

I don’t know. Maybe my ‘it is all about meeeee’ comment came from a certain amount of frustration at the shit women deal with on a daily basis but are not brought up to expect any different (and definitely not brought up to be difficult and abrasive but taught to be nice), alongside the attempts to close down discussion pointing out the reality of sex-based difference and gendered social expectations around it in one of the only newspapers which offers this perspective. I don’t know.

I cannot say it is something I personally want to debate extensively though, O’Donnell has her lawyers and her court time for that.

No - that they were treated less well than other men because of the protected "gender reassignment" characteristic

That isn't correct. The test is were they treated less well than other non trans employees , whether male or female. It really isn't outwith the bounds of possiblity that faced with 3 applicants equally qualified to do the job that an employer would not pick a trans person over a non trans man or woman.

The way the company treated women isn't relevant yes it is.

Anyone bringing a claim against an employer needs some kind of evidence not simply to say something happened. I don't know if it happened or not and even if it did there needs to be a credible witness or something else to back the claim up.

The "look at meee" comment I would say is more about a person trying to dictate what the press can and can't print. Newspapers print news and now quite often opinion pieces. The news needs to be factual and sometimes those facts maybe offensive to various groups - doesn't mean it shouldn't be printed, everyone has the right to be offended. Opinion pieces are generally topical and about debating issues - again depending on the issue being covered different groups may or may not be offended, those groups can then express their opinions should they so choose. So for someone to try and restrict the press -
not just the times as the precedent if set would impact on all of the press - because they felt uncomfortable or offended over a very small % of the articles published by a particular publication is very all about MEEEE, I must not be offended - but will offend whoever the hell I like.

If a woman was bringing a claim for discrimination against her employer, I can guarantee that there wouldn’t be ‘look at meeeeee’ comment and a reminder that this is just alleged. Fine, it’s alleged, but if true, it sounds like discrimination.

Pota it is alleged, unless there is evidence to back up the claims.

Doesn’t it say that other staff members made disparaging jokes about trans people? Surely that’s direct discrimination, not ‘look at meeeeeee’?

It's mentioned somewhere that this person has two children. That likely means they fit into the colonising side of things that Must Not Be Named.

Hmm. I am not convinced by the case she is making against the Times as an employer as I do not see the discrimination very clearly. Maybe that is because I work in a male-dominated environment and I am used to it, but it seems a bit ‘why are they not paying attention to meeeee??’

I think the case about the atmosphere being transphobic because of the material being published is more interesting, though. As a single parent, I find some of the assumptions made about single parents in the opinion pieces and comments fairly offensive. There was also an article recently about working mums causing obesity which had an offensive headline - which was eventually changed. So the casual offensiveness is really not exclusive to trans people.

But there is also a genuine public interest issue around aspects of the transgender experience and it is hotly contested in the public sphere which makes it quantitatively different - but it would be difficult for any newspaper not to report on it. The Times coverage does not shy away from confronting the issues and I can see why that would make O’Donnell uncomfortable. But the Times also publishes opinion pieces and letters from transgender/transsexual people as well who reflect different opinions than I feel O’Donnell would like to see. So the discussion is nuanced and complex and not just one set of voices. To see it just as relating to oneself is myopic and a bit entitled.

To be fair if this was happening to a woman, I would also think it was right to sue. It shouldn’t happen to anyone, whatever protected characteristic they possess. I don’t like the ‘welcome to our world’ comments because being discriminated against should not be a natural part of being a woman and should be challenged.

This case being decided in favor of the employee would be the death knell of the free press, whatever remains of it. Many stories would have to be spiked because some employee, somewhere, might feel it was hostile.

On the other hand, this should be a great way to shut down all production of pornography involving abuse or mistreatment of women. How can porn companies employ women in back-office roles etc while creating a hostile work environment by creating scenes in which women are mistreated?

I'd be upset by being described as a Trans Former.

Optimus Prime was no journalist.

Newspapers have a duty to publish news stories.....they can’t hold back for fear of upsetting a minority group......this just highlights how some trans people find the reality of life itself transphobic. With the reforms of the GRA consultation of course there was increased coverage of the clash between trans rights & womens rights.

Interesting case which I'd be surprised if ODonnell wins.

The descrimination doesn't from reading look that strong - I'm not a lawyer but The Times seem to have counter arguments backed up with some evidence.

Trying to restrict the press in regards to what and how they report won't be taken lightly. As the press are already accountable for what they write, can't see them getting very far. JT just won a prestigious award much to TRA disgust.

As for trying to bring in sexism that seems irrelevant and a bit of smoke and mirrors maybe to try and bolster a weak case?

"So to win a discrimination case they have to prove that the Times treated them not as a man but as a woman?"

No - that they were treated less well than other men because of the protected "gender reassignment" characteristic.

The way the company treated women isn't relevant. It may well be terrible, as people have said - but it isn't relevant. (NB this is, as I say, based on that first sentence - O'Donnell may be claiming sexism as well, but that isn't what the article says).

It almost seems as if O'Donnell's dragging (irrelevant) sexism into the proceedings is a deliberate attempt to suborn sexism to gain sympathy for the entirely different actual claim that is actually before the tribunal).

They are bringing this action right after Janice Turner has been 100% vindicated on her claims so their timing is lousy.

Because the "comparator" for a gender reassignment discrimination situation is someone of the same biological sex.

So to win a discrimination case they have to prove that the Times treated them not as a man but as a woman?

My irony circuits are overloading.

Her witness statement mentions the culture of bullying and talking over women. In her view, less able men were the first to be considered for promotion and more able women were invisible.

She is describing a misogynistic culture and sexism. I know how that feels all too well.

This is interesting. Was she treated in the same way as other women when it cam to pay, working conditions and promotion?

Obviously, she can't claim sexual discrimination and has to rely on evidence to back up her claim that she suffered discrimination on the grounds of her reassignment.

The papers have latched onto the sensational aspect of her claims of transphobia, but have ignored the substance. One to watch.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-tried-very-hard-to-be-male-but-it-just-didnt-work-out-nt8lk5cbxrf?shareToken=67c2de40737bebd6a73f4a8598f75857