Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #63

Purple, green and white already feature on the Progress flag

I didn’t know that, and in a quick internet search which brings up lots of images I cannot see purple, green and white together.

I can see them separately, but there they indicate something different. Purple is harmony, green is nature and white is non-binary and gender questioning.

I don't think it meant anything other than a factual statement that this was the basis of his associated claim to be entitled to use the women's changing area. I think that in the context of a legal case it is quite common to be quite free with the word 'claim' just as a way of saying 'this is part of the position they are taking in this case'. Rather than implying doubt, or any active reason for disbelieving, its copious use is just a conventional way of signalling respect for the fact that a process of enquiry is underway.

'Claim' is interestingly equivocal. It can be used simply to mean that something has been asserted: its origin is simply 'to shout out', as can be seen more clearly in 'exclaim' and 'proclaim'. And yet it is also sometimes used to imply that the assertion is contested or contestable.

It is interestingly similar to the word 'pretend', which I think used to mean simply to state, profess or claim something. In certain contests, notably 'pretenders' to the throne, it came to mean making a claim that was ill-founded or unjust/wrong/false. I imagine that this evolution occurred because the actual king (or, more generally, the actual possessor of whatever role, etc., was being claimed by the pretender) had the power to position rivals' claims as false, so that 'pretending' came to mean 'pretending without good grounds'. And then eventually it evolved to mean saying things that were consensually untrue, as in children's 'let's pretend' games.

'Claim' is somewhere behind 'pretend' on the same trajectory, and its position on the trajectory (either meaning something close to simply making a statement, or something close to making a contested statement) depends on context.

All irrelevant to the Peggie/Upton stuff, but, still, its the weekend, with no tribunal updates, and since no-one is talking about Tunnocks we might as well fill in with etymology chat

No, exactly, and any change in me is inward and spiritual. I appreciate others not trying to prevent that (I'm aware of the horrors a lot of Christian communities in Nigeria are enduring), but don't expect anyone else to pretend to a faith they do not have.

And I don't expect my faith to give me extra privileges.

Just don't....

DU was claiming the right to access female-only space, which given the lack of a gender recognition certificate was not in any way something he had a right to. The only way he could have tried to get that in law was by making the gender claim.

And again, not having gone through any legal gender recognition process, that was only a claim, not an established right. If it was a right, it would have to be balanced against women's rights. As it was, it was all just wind and bluff.

I'm so slow, I've only just worked out the source of @SirChenjins name.

So you are suggesting that DU was pretending to be trans in order to access the female changing room?

I have no idea why he was claiming anything, and his motivation is neither relevant nor important.

He had no right of access, and that should have been pointed out to him from the start.

I do think that his reporting of Sandie for leaving when he was in there says something about his reasons for being in there.

As it is impossible to change sex, it therefore must follow that ‘trans’ as a state of being also doesn’t exist. Ergo, anyone who states they are trans is pretending to be something they can never be.
This is the very point where people who hold the belief that you can change sex claim those who do not hold that belief are committing ‘trans genocide’. In reality, sex realists are just stating that no, Tarquin, you’re not a girl and never can be because you are in fact a boy.

@murasaki

This is true, he did seem to want her to see him undressing and vice versa. And he allegedly went out of his way to make life hard from the elderly woman who (quite correctly) referred to him as male. So he liked humiliating women, and the gender claim made that easier.

Oh, yes. And his making a note of it that she patiently waited in the corridor outside until he vacated the female changing room. So that she could get changed without a man being present. His nibs wasn’t happy about that at all.

Iirc, he said something along the lines that he tried not to show that he was watching.

Although in his case he was ballsy enough to make it a sex claim, not a gender claim.

Biological woman my arse.

A contemporaneous note at that. 😂

So do I understand this correctly. RCN argument is- if they give a member duff advice (like treat suspension as an extra holiday) and don’t advise them they’re being discriminated against, and the member then takes independent legal advice and is advised they have a case against their employer, RCN can legitimately refuse assistance? Their rules allow them to stick to their original duff advice?

Surely their rules leave them open to being sued for not giving members full and correct advice?
Does the judge have to stick by the RCN rules as SP signed up to, even if they could be impossible to adhere to as SP only found out she had a case by getting independent legal advice after the union “holiday” advice?

As I understand it the judge must decide if the Union acted appropriately, which means did they followed their own polices and procedures. If they did then they're not guilty, the judge doesn't decide whether the P&P's are right or wrong, just whether they followed them or not.
The union's P&P's could leave them open to being sued but that would be a different mater not one for a ET.
Although I could be wrong about that, that's only what I think, going by what I've picked up.

Tha is for the thoughtful response. It's my understanding that "claims" is conventionally used in legal proceedings where there is a question in potential dispute. As far as I'm aware there was never any factual or legal question about whether DU is a trans woman or not, but rather what follows from that

So the OP used that wording to communicate an ideological/ philosophical position that being trans is always a pretence? Even though that has nothing to do with the legal issues in question? Got it.

I think part of the problem is that he wasn't claiming to be a transwoman, he was claiming to be a woman. He said so in court. I'd be ok with accepting his identity as transwoman, so wouldn't use claim, but as woman, no chance. As he is a bloke.

I’m not sure that’s quite right. The judge has to decide whether they discriminated against Sandie.

The union’s defence is that they followed their own policies.

However, cross/examination showed that there is some discretion in how these policies are implemented - particularly whether or not the union will provide legal support.

There were some grey areas where decisions were made by individuals exercising their own judgement rather than following black and white policies.

Did they exercise this judgement/discretion in the way they did because the union had picked a side in the gender debate?

Without wishing to upset @nauticant and, respectfully given that it’s not me starting new threads, I’m not sure discussions about language are true derails. Words and their meaning (and perceived meaning) matter.

There’s a lot of words in these sorts of cases that can be problematic if you think too much about them. The one that always grinds my gears is when sex realism is described as a ‘belief’ (and one that had to prove its merits in court) rather than it being a fairly basic level of established science. And, as relevant to these cases, a long-established method of organising society due in part to significant hard work fighting for women’s rights.

See also the fact that these cases often talk about the Equality Act rather than (as mentioned by PPs) Workplace Regulations. Because beliefs… 🤬

If it is physically impossible to be one thing but you still claim to be so, then yes, you are pretending - or deluded! Upton is a medical doctor so will know that it is impossible to change sex.

No, they're not together -but they're there. Norm would no doubt claim that because they feature, it shows the RCN supports GC beliefs 🙄🤥