Waitrose delivery driver

It’s as real as the Holy Ghost.

Yes, if a person comes into your house and lies to you it’s acceptable to correct them. If a visitor told me I was going to hell they’d get a similarly dismissive answer.

This, totally

The other thing that seems to be missing is that if Discovereads interpretation of the law were somehow to be correct then the result would be -

More people realising the insanity of the TRA movement
More people deliberately misgendering when they might have previously been polite, out of solidarity for those people being prosecuted.
A ludicrous situation where the courts can't prosecute real crimes because there is a misgendering logjam (or a situation where misgendering is simply not prosecuted)
A re-writing of the law to make it clear that correctly sexing people when you use your third party pronouns to refer to the sex of someone.

I didn’t call it “sexing”, you are the only one to use that word.

Your belief in an innate gender is a religious one, it’s akin to claiming you have a sexed soul. People not in your religion can’t be expected to play along with your rules.

It’s still arguable. If anything for the delivery driver to defend herself at an Employment Tribunal as KJK is pushing Waitrose to have the delivery driver sacked over the incident.

could be used for consistent application of the law

What law though? The "you have to be polite to people who turn up to your house and start an argument and not disagree with them" law?

No I do not think it was an “Equality Act” Tribunal don’t be silly. I just didn’t feel like typing “Employment Appeal” out.

If you read the judgement excerpt, I posted it referenced the Equality Act throughout. When I’ve mentioned the Equality Act it has been regarding those references within the judgement itself.

Yes was an EAT decision, but the judgement reasoning has wider implications and could be used for consistent application of the law in other U.K. Tribunals or even civil/criminal settings. As many professional commentators on the judgement have pointed out.

Yes, it's long been noted that some people regard woman's sexual participation as an equal rights issue.

It's certainly educational, watching an utterly devoted activist demonstrate in real-time how the slightest concession in language, politeness, whatever will be used as a wedge to further undermine women's rights.

And they wonder why the resistance is so stiff these days.

And why an increasing number of people coming to the conclusion that the GRA needs to be overturned.

Datun

Dear lord.

At least, they could if there were a tribunal system for grocery store and customer disputes. Which, as far as I know, there isn't.

OMG - it's just occurred to me. These sick homophobic and misogynistic TWs who claim to be lesbians probably think that when a lesbian turns them down they have a right to take her to a Tribunal and have her held to account for her bigotry. They literally don't get that your rights as an employee or your rights as a service user are not the same as your rights as a person having a chat or your rights as someone who wants sex.

Gender identity is not a legal status @Discovereads. Despite what stonewall might tell you.

Dearie me.

Gender Identity
www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/classificationsandstandards/measuringequality/genderidentity

Gender Recognition Act 2004
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/contents

Clearly you’re not taking the time read my posts otherwise you’ve have read “U.K. EA Tribunal” and realised oh, this is from the U.K. instead of Canada.

You do know you can't just take random people to an employment tribunal? You do have to actually work for them.

Hang on - "EA Tribunal"? You what? You think that's "Equality Act Tribunal"? No, that's not a thing. That "EAT" was "Employment Appeal Tribunal".

You're getting confused with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, who, sure, do let people like Yaniv bring dumb cases. I can vaguely imagine this driver getting somewhere with them.

I think verbally engaging is fine... but only if you know when to stop.

For example, the driver turns up and there is a Conservative Party poster up.

The driver is a committed labour supporter who literally detests the Tories. He should say NOTHING.

The driver is a Tory supporter who thinks Johnson is the best PM ever. He might say in passing "Johnson's had a tough few weeks hasn't he?" If the response is "that's my husband's poster, I cant stand the Tories" then the driver should probably respond with "the weather's looking good for the weekend isn't it?"

I suspect this trans activist misogynist bully knew exactly what he was doing, but I don;t really care either way. Once the difference of opinion was out in the open he was incredibly entitled, out of order and somewhat threatening. That is a massive customer service failure that requires retraining at best, but, I suspect, the bloke needs to be stacking shelve after hours or to be sacked - clearly not mature enough for customer facing roles.

Dear lord.

At least, they could if there were a tribunal system for grocery store and customer disputes. Which, as far as I know, there isn't.

Im sorry , but it’s not validating “somebody’s immersive fiction” to simply not dispute the (very real) existence of someone’s legal gender identity to their face.

KJK was invited to validate somebody's immersive fiction: she declined.

The existence of someone’s legal gender identity is part of what seem to be your preferred version of the law, which at this point of the thread is looking akin to an immersive reality for you.

Take note. The poster that chairs tribunals has acknowledged that the delivery driver has an arguable case for harrassment against KJK.

I’ve taken note that KJK can also argue otherwise. You should do the same.

My delivery driver thought it was ok, a few months ago, to questionnaire I was still testing and why I was wearing a mask. I told him I didn't want to discuss it with him. I'd already put online that we had covid in the house at the time. I wasn't infected. Passed me off no end. The next time I had him deliver, he didn't hardly say a word. I was fuming. Should've complained but didn't want him to lose his job. However, I fully agree with Kellie Jay and I congratulate her on her work.

Clearly you’re not taking the time read my posts otherwise you’ve have read “U.K. EA Tribunal” and realised oh, this is from the U.K. instead of Canada.

Try reading before responding. Don’t be a pigeon.

Lol…Each statement stands on its own merits or falls in its own shortcomings.
or
You can't just take a snippet of a sentence and use it as a mantra to declare your position true. That's not the way it works. Context matters.

As I'm choosing between the 'lol' assertion of a preferred reality and Motorina's nuanced account based on experience as a tribunal chair, I'm more persuaded by the latter.

I chair tribunals. One of the precepts is that every decision is nuanced and context specific.

You simply can't take one part of one sentence in what is itself a nuanced decision, and apply it as a blanket rule to an entirely different context, in a different social setting, with different power dynamics.

That's just not the way it works.

You can (or the delivery driver could, at least) have their lawyers argue that KJK's words were gratuitous, overstepped the line, and thus constituted harrassment.

At least, they could if there were a tribunal system for grocery store and customer disputes. Which, as far as I know, there isn't.

Equally KJK's lawyers could argue that her words were the expression of a legitimately held belief, made in the context of a political conversation, initiated by the driver, and were thus entirely reasonable.

Those are both legally arguable positions. But they need to be argued. You can't just take a snippet of a sentence and use it as a mantra to declare your position true. That's not the way it works. Context matters.

And that's why the lawyers earn the big bucks.

someone’s legal gender identity

Thee is no such thing.

This is batshit conspiracy theory. Delivery drivers go where Waitrose tells them to go. They don’t cyber stalk and then set their delivery schedule so they can deliver to specific address because they feel like being verbally abused. KJK isn’t even that famous. I’d never heard of her before this thread.

Lol. The issue is was the misgendering of gratuitous nature (or otherwise as in doesnt even have to be gratuitous to be unlawful harrassment). It doesn’t matter if statements beforehand were gratuitous or not. It doesn’t work that way. You can’t say any statement after a gratuitous statement automatically cannot be gratuitous. That’s like saying any statement after a verbally abusive statement automatically cannot be verbally abusive. Each statement stands on its own merits or falls in its own shortcomings.