Employment Tribunal finds NB does not meet PC of GR

I had naively assumed that the non-protected status of 'being non-binary' was already established (I was confused by the 'non-binary passport' case!), so this was interesting and welcome news, thank you for posting it.

It's a well-written judgment and positively influenced by FWS (making it, I hope, the first of many). It's crystal clear now that, in law, sex is M or F only, and 'proposing to undergo' in Section 7 means only actions or proposed actions within the specific GRA framework - someone who does not intend to live in an acquired gender which is the opposite of their sex does not qualify.

NBs are still protected from harassment at work as are all of us, and the tribunal considered the harassment claims and rejected them as trivial/accidental/non-malicious/IT glitches etc etc. I can see that the claim could have succeeded if there was persistent gratuitous misuse of name and pronouns, in a way intended to distress, and if the employer did nothing about it. I think that opens up a different angle on the topic (enforced speech, protected belief etc), so will save for another post...

I always assumed there were more female NBs than male NBs and for the same reason as @PrettyDamnCosmic but agree there are quite a few male NBs doing what you describe too.

I'm absolutely certain there will also be a few male predators who saw a perfect opportunity open up for them under the guise of a "brave" NB identity too.

Then there's the common garden arsehole, like Eddie Izzard who seems to be doing it for the cool points, career opportunities (although I don't think I've seen him act in anything as Suzie, and it's not like he'd be getting paid the lower wage most actual female actresses get because everyone knows he's really a bloke!), and the extra added bonus that he got to shout at a bunch of teenaged girls for objecting to his presence in a women's toilets once 😡

The woman in this tribunal sounds like a nightmare for everyone, but I find it particularly concerning that patient care came last, and her perceived victimhood eclipsed everything. She's a therapist? 😬

That was a fascinating read, what a nightmare heather/haetch would be to work with. I really felt for the individual quoting a patient who had ‘misgendered’ H but was flummoxed because she didn’t know if you should correct the pronouns for the patient or quote them verbatim, what a total nightmare to work with. The staff around her are very long suffering.

"The jarring disconnect between these policies and the reality of how these individuals play out their demands in the workplace puts employers in very difficult situations"

Agreed. Part of me is delighted that the NHS, who are so complicit in pushing all this nonsense, are the ones having to deal with the consequences in this case.

Yup, this is my main take-home message!

Isn't it just! You can see why workplaces just try to placate them & hope they in turn will behave like reasonable adults

newsflash - no accommodation other than total capitulation is ever enough so you may as well just manage them as you would any other underperforming bullying member of staff

Isn't it revealing about how a self absorbed individual can wreak such havoc in a workplace?

There are so many sections of this where the complainant demonstrates toddler levels of intransigence while other NHS staff listen, explain and repeatedly apologise. Yet the apologies are rejected with Haech demanding apologies from the whole team.

Haech - is this pronounced 'aich' as in H from steps?

I'd like to be able to watch tribunals like this live as well, rather than just the gender critical claimants, because I think it would be really interesting to see the judge / ET panel peak in real time.

Incident H 10 January 2024: Allocating service user to C despite Case Alert saying user “would prefer to see a female therapist”. 136. The respondent’s administration team was aware of claimant’s non binary status. The claimant jumped to the conclusion that the patient was incorrectly allocated to them, without making any enquiry to check if that was correct. That is why they felt offended. The claimant could have asked the administration team, particularly if they didn’t see anything on the notes which assisted. Rather they immediately raised the matter with their line manager and the administration manager, and the patient was reallocated. In fact, there was a perfectly reasonable explanation. The patient had been asked if they had any preference for the gender of the clinician for the review call. They didn’t. We find that in all the circumstances, including that a full apology has been given it was not reasonable for it to have had the effect upon the claimant which they suggest, and which is required by section 26 Equality Act 2010.

Bloody hell...they sound, very, very insufferable.

Interesting - I wonder if they will appeal?

That bit about the glass is 😮

Also: the claimant could not show what they meant by "unsafe".

My jaw is on the floor at this person levelling accusations at people who were run off their feet doing their jobs

... grievance factories ...

A new term to me, covers a lot of ground in just two words

I've come across a fair few male enbies.

All of them are trying to appear cool and edgy and different and interesting and/or trying to keep up with the "queer" Joneses.

Good grief. That's a shocking case study of how one individual attempts to exercise an insane level of coercive control over others in the workplace to obey their niche demands.
And is this person a therapist in the NHS???

She asked for a copy of her contract which was issued in her “deadname” and then complained about seeing her “deadname”. What a nightmare individual to work with

If Upton had claimed to be NB he wouldn't have been allowed near the female changing room.

NB seems to be an identity chosen by girls who want to opt out of the difficulties of being a woman but don't buy into the trans narrative enough to want to damage their bodies.

This judgment confirms that it's percectly permissible to discriminate against NB individuals before any interview by chucking any application in the bin where the individual claims to be NB.