Employment Tribunal finds NB does not meet PC of GR

If that means being both sexes simultaneously as opposed to neither

1. obviously impossible in the real world
2. hasn't been specifically tested in court in the UK.

I think there's a hint in the government page on applying for a GRC - "Non-binary genders are not legally recognised in the UK." Note that is says "genders" in the plural. "Non-binary genders" would, IMO, include "Two Spirit Gender".

If it goes to appeal and is upheld, yes.

How is it in relation to the Two Spirits Gender would you know?

Oh no! I did notice some other typos but not that.
That just goes to show how hard it is to rewire your brain to this language even when it's literally the focus of the thing you're writing.

Haech needs to grow the fuck up.

Yes that, but also wrong sex medical treatments that can cause serious harm or loss of life to the patient, or in the case above cause a miscarriage because no one was aware of the pregnancy.

One of the so called allies I've butted heads with over this was all for concealing the sex of a patient, and didn't want to acknowledge just how dangerous that would be in a medical setting. That's just wilful stupidity, or worse.

Those "allies" worry me and enrage me in equal measure. They are capable of understanding the danger but will keep banging the validation drum and shouting down people who raise reasonable concerns. But there are vulnerable people out there who won't know this danger exists, or might not have the capability to understand it. They are being encouraged by the dangerous misinformation from those allies who offer only validation, and they won't listen to reason because the allies keep up the narrative that we are bigoted, phobic, and want to erase all people with a gender identity.

I think you're right.

In para 122 it also says: "At times in this Tribunal, both counsel
and the Judge have failed to use the claimant’s preferred pronoun. On each
occasion the person involved apologised. The claimant says they did not take
offence."

Combined with the so-called incidents of her colleagues failing to read her mind to use her prescribed pronouns, it all demonstrates how onerous and unnatural prescribed pronouns which don't match sex really are. Despite the manipulative claims that it's simple politeness and the easiest thing in the world to mangle your language on command.

"Misgendering" and "deadname" are both cult concepts used to control. The sooner they disappear the better.

Good catch! I hope the Judge has by now ordered herself and all panel members to send a written apology to Mx Heach, and has had the Rainbow Pledge added to the end of all oaths sworn in her court, by way of demonstrating true heartbroken sorrow, and a desire to do better in future.

I think I've spotted a misgendering (correct sexing) in paragraph 133. Stand by for an appeal!

No I know that but I just think that whilst we can all agree that no one who falls under a protected characteristic of gender reassignment should be discriminated against or harassed because of that, we need to clearly delineate who that means so we can work out what that means for other protected groups ie mainly women

”asking that others use their preferred pronouns of they and them”

Looking at the case, ‘asking’ seems a little mild. I think ‘demanding or else’ seems a bit more appropriate.

Wait til they hear about the Supreme Court judgement protecting pregnant transmen.

Not the way I'd expected to spend Friday evening, but that was a total pleasure to read. 😊Such clear reasoning and a refreshing willingness to call out unreasonable behaviour, in this case entirely on the claimant's side. Gosh, she must be an insufferably self-absorbed person to work with.

Yes I remember when that happened.

I've had arguments with TRAs on here where I've pointed that particular case out, and that contrary to the TRA beliefs we are far from being phobic or bigoted, or wanting to erase or genocide trans identified people. I as a mean old TERF seem to care more about the health and wellbeing of trans identified patients in a medical setting, than the so called allies who come here to tell us all how mean we are for not putting validation over everything.

I thought this particular claimant sounded so divorced from reality that I am not sure she was noticing any of those things. The judgment comments at one point about her lack of insight into how intimidating her own behaviour was to others.

She just sounds like someone completely wrapped up in their cult beliefs and own distress. I am not sure that any of the external stuff is meeting needs, she just sounded very very internally focused on the "rules" of being NB.

It's power.

Since becoming an employment tribunal aficionado , I must say I've learnt a lot about how well thought out and lengthy thd decisions are. I'd previously assumed that there would be a brief 'guilty/not guilty' verdict with a cursory explanation at most. These judges certainly earn their crust.

To be perfectly honest, if I'd requested a female HCP and got given this person I'd have been worried they would have instigated a struggle session as soon as I failed to greet they in the properly effusive manner, and I think I'd have felt that they'd deliberately coerced and controlled me. I imagine they'd be rating my required apologies as 'disappointing' on the Grovelling Scale.

So, yes, if someone wants a female HCP a non binary person is probably not appropriate.

She did sound very unwell. I do wonder the extent to which she was immersed in Reddit and being egged on.

It is worth reading the judgment all the way through as it comprehensively throws out her harassment claims. I think it is sad that the final paragraph was necessary.