"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 9

I agree she should not have been able to change sex. But I am saying gender identity should be a belief that is protected.

Once you are clear sex is real and immutable and no one can change sex having gender identity as a belief pc is a reasonable option. I do not think it is realistic to think we can eradicate everything e.g the GRA and gender reassignment pc.

I appreciate your point of view as it has been awful for women who have lost jobs, careers and been subjected to vile abuse. However, there is a small core of people who have also been harmed by TRAs and that are those who are not activists but have gender dysphoria. I don’t want it to be legal to not give them a job or to provide a service just because they have gender dysphoria.

I agree we need to, but there are 2 sides to a conversation, as you see whenever someone decides to vist and tell us all how wrong we are while asking for sympathy and pity and, basically, to shut up, run along and give them what they want. The conversation has to start with 'the law is single sex spaces are only for people who belong to that single sex. If you don't, then it's not our responsibility to give up our rights for you, so stop demanding that we do and go and ask for some for yourselves. Think of all the trans-friendly loos that could have been bought with the money wasted by Fife and Darlington.

Sorry, that was clear from your message. What I meant is: she shouldn't have been able to change sex, full stop. There's no need for any alternative gender recognition at all.

Unless you're suggesting it as a bone you could throw "No, we won't change your sex, but you can have a gender change instead" ? I would have said yes a few years back, but not now that we've seen the damages of a pseudo recognition of gender everywhere, used liberally for and by people who usually do NOT have a GRC.

That is what I am saying should happen,

This is very interesting. If anyone has access to HSJ can they see if there is more information in the article on who NHSE have sent and/or which directorate (department) the person is from?

@FWSsupporter there is a much better solution to the Keira Bell example : she shouldn't have been allowed to change her legal sex in the first place. Lies have no place on official documents.

Couldn't have phrased it better than @ProfessorBinturong

Gender Identity could be far more flexible and allow people to change or to not have a GI.

There is no need for legislation or paperwork for a personal belief. Nobody has a government issued certificate to say they believe in Tarot cards, or transubstantiation. Nor do they need an official revocation process if they change their minds.

It is incredibly easy to only think about this in relation to men with AGP.

Keira Bell was observed female at birth. She decided she was transgender, took cross sex hormones, had a double mastectomy and went through the process to get a GRC. Her sex on her birth certificate was legally changed to male. Keira later realised she was not transgender. Nothing can repair the damage to her body but she has been left in legal limbo because there is currently no legal route to change her legal sex on her birth certificate back to female. I think that is appalling and is why I would like legislative change to allow Kiera to be able to correct her birth certificate.

Had the legislation distinguished between sex and gender identity Keira would still legally be female as she would never have changed her sex because it’s real and immutable. Gender Identity could be far more flexible and allow people to change or to not have a GI.

Baroness Cass found there were different routes to children becoming gender questioning, for some it was CSA. I can believe an abused child may have PTSD which includes gender dysphoria I.e. if I am a boy the abuse will stop. Baroness Cass found gender questioning often resolved by adulthood but for those adults where it persists the ability to change their Gender Identity (not their sex) may offer some relief without locking them into a permanent change.

I have been clear sex is biological, real and immutable and the legislation must reflect that. SSS are a red line and must be respected.

I hate terms like birthing parent and chest feeding and disagree with the terms being used instead of mother and breast feeding. However, on an individual human level a pregnant trans identifying female asking for these terms to be used for them whilst giving birth is something I would do.

I agree the focus is always on men, I am thinking about this from a woman’s perspective. The SC was clear there may be times where a trans identifying females masculine presentation may make it lawful to exclude them from female SSS. At the same time it is not lawful for them to use male SSS nor does that give them privacy and dignity. Employers and service providers need to make provision for these trans identifying women under the gender reassignment protected characteristic.

TRAs stance of no debate was punishing for women, we need to have open and difficult conversations that consider all the options and don’t stereotype all trans people as men with AGP.

Perhaps we should start from this point.

Expecting women to undress infront of males is not even beginning to be compromising.

What ever you think about DrU and RH, legally they were not entitled to use the women’s changing room but legally their employer was obliged to find a suitable solution for where they could get changed and their dignity and privacy was respected.

For either of them, was it ever established that they had met with hostility or opposition in the men's changing rooms? As far as I am aware it wasn't - they chose the women's for their own gender affirming purposes.

As an aside how many people of either sex don't like communal changing rooms? Should they also be requesiting another place where their dignity and privacy is respected?

In principle, yes. In practice, if you go for that, then guess which group will be at the bottom of the list and expected to compromise. I don't think I'm the only person here who's fed up with compromising. Everyone else is having tantrums and saying they'll do it later so why should we have to be the adults in the room?

@Easytoconfuse I agree following the law as it stands is the first step. There are then a lot of intervening steps which centre women and girls but ultimately we need a long term solution that is reasonable and proportionate for everyone.

I see your point, but I think complying with the law as it stands is a good place to start. I'm afraid I'm not interested in the philosophical side. People can identify as whatever they like, but I want to be able to go to the loo or be in hospital or change my clothes without having to share the facilities with a man who may genuinely believe he's a woman, or may not.

As it stands, everything seems to be concentrated on the hurt feelings of the transgender, and I don't want to be the human equivalent of a sticky plaster and a kiss better when so few people care how I'm feeling.

Professing a religion doesn't entitle me to ignore the law and neither does disability. The disabled only get 'reasonable adjustments' to facilities, so how about if the transgender get the same thing? In this case, 300 women used the changing area at Darlington but the feelings of one man who identifies as a woman was considered to be more important than all those women's because no one ever bothered to ask how they felt, and when they spoke out they were treated appallingly. That is NOT reasonable.

legally their employer was obliged to find a suitable solution for where they could get changed and their dignity and privacy was respected.

Based on what exactly? A new haircut and a change of pronouns? Bullshit. No one is obliged to pander to someone else's delusions. They are men and they have a designated space that's perfectly suitable. Let them use it.

Whether we like it or not the GRA and EA2010 recognise gender reassignment. It is not unreasonable to think defining Gender Identity as a belief

Reassignment and identity are different things. Only the former is in legislation - and I agree that's in need of a proper definition.

Gender ideology (again, not identity) could be protected under the EA belief regulations if it could be defined in a way that passes Grainger. I don't believe that's possible in anything like its current form(s).

Is it possible.to define gender identity in a way that isn't sex (which it clearly isn't, or they couldn't diverge), sterotypes (change over time and culture, and we really don't want stereotypes enshrined in legislation), or a mental health condition (already covered by disability, and not something TRAs would accept)? We keep asking, and nobody's yet managed it.

It is much wider than SSS. It’s about being a part of society.

The religion and belief pc provides protections for people of faith. We self identify as Christian, Jew, Muslim etc. and this is taken at face value. There is no test to prove how faithful you are before you can claim discrimination.

Being Gender Critical is also a belief which is protected. Again this is taken at face value. There is no test to prove you are GC.
Edited to add Maya did that for us all.
Sandie Peggie is gender critical but until this all blew up she may not have realised it. A lot of people are GC but probably don’t realise it until they are in a situation where sex matters. They don’t have to realise or declare it beforehand to be protected.

Whether we like it or not the GRA and EA2010 recognise gender reassignment. It is not unreasonable to think defining Gender Identity as a belief and offering similar protections is a reasonable position. The legislation can set out limitations where sex based rights take precedence e.g. SSS, sex to be recorded on passports, driving licences etc.

The principle of SSS is not complex, but working out the definition of GI and the limits of protections is.

Employers and service providers need legal clarity. What ever you think about DrU and RH, legally they were not entitled to use the women’s changing room but legally their employer was obliged to find a suitable solution for where they could get changed and their dignity and privacy was respected.

If it's a legally defined same sex space, then the only action then the responsibilities are to use the correct loo. If this means that people who identify as a gender rather than their biological sex get harrassed then the person doing the harassing should be dealt with under their employer's misconduct at work policies or by the police. I know this is hopelessly old fashioned but it worked well for years.

Unless someone can understand why women who don't want men in their same sex space are transphobic, mean and nasty and, quite often, Mumsnetters, but the answer to a man who identifies as a woman and says they're scared of using the gents loos is not to do anything about the presumably equally transphobic, mean and nasty blokes. There couldn't be another reason for being desperate to use the ladies, could there?

Thanks for that link @BoreOfWhabylon
Nuala McGovern was so hostile towards Bethany, it really is shocking.

Nuala McGovern’s sanctimonious virtue signalling is the reason that I can barely listen to WH anymore. Permeates beyond the gender issues.

I think what you say is entirely reasonable and so well explained.

Ironically, the most fertile source of legal protection from discrimination on the basis of 'gender' is the protected characteristic of sex. Any attempt by a dutyholder under the Equality Act to require a person to manifest the gender presentation of their sex is discrimination on the basis if sex, and unlawful.

Also, despite the arguably-inappropriate terminology , the 'disability' protected characteristic should cover 'gender reassignment' as it was actually conceived of (and publicly represented) when the GRA and the Equality Act were passed.

Receiving a gender reassignment certificate is tied to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The challenges of living with this diagnosis are the whole reason for allowing latitude in the recording of sex, just as the challenges of living with a disability generate the rights to (e.g.) permission to park where others can't.

Under the Equality Act, 'disability' is interpreted widely. I only learnt this relatively recently. I had thought you have to be 'registered disabled' in some way to qualify for protection, but of course all that is required is having a physical or mental condition that has a "substantial, long-term, and adverse effect on one's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities".

I do understand that the terms 'disability' and 'impairment' (which I think may also be used in the act) are offensive to people who qualify for the GR protection. But there are lots of contexts in which they are equally offensive to people with other sorts of differences, e.g. deafness. To the extent that language generates a sense of stigma or negative judgement, that should be campaigned against in the same way as for other conditions, and perhaps different terms can be evolved (so long as this is organic and not top-down).

If, and to the extent that, gender reassignment does not involve a condition that has "substantial, long-term, and adverse effect on one's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities", what would be the justification for the special provisions that employers, service providers, and public bodies need to make for people with this PC? The only possible answer to this question is that they must do it in order not to discriminate against them on the grounds of their beliefs. And of course, this is already baked in to the protected characteristic of belief.

I actually meant come up with a definition.

However, whilst they don’t change the law they do draft the legislation and make the amendments as it goes through parliament.

A civil servant can't actually change the law. A law still has to pass through parliament.

Good luck.

I'm not at all surprised no one was available for interview on Woman's Hour, given how obnoxious Nuala McGovern was to Bethany when she interviewed her previously
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0025479