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

His behaviour if going into a change room he wasn’t entitled to use and dismissing - and even complaining - when he was challenged.

this is a man who claimed he was a biological woman, let’s not forget.

The best illustration of his being a sexist pig is that, when asked by a flooding menopausal woman to leave the changing room to give her some privacy, he, a biological man, refused.

Additionally, genderism in itself is sexist, because by conflating sex and gender, it diminishes the reality and importance of sex.

Nobody has an identity if you don't subscribe to identity politics, people are just people, men and women, boys and girls that's all that's needed for those of us whose brains have not fallen out.
While you're scolding everyone for not taking Upton's fantasies seriously, how come you're not taking everyone's perception of him being a sexist pig equally seriously.

If a man you knew was in the womens changing room and was taking notes on which women were waiting outside for him to leave so that he could add them to his eventual complaint, would you think that was fine and dandy? Or a little bit sexist?

And even if it was behaviour linked to him claiming to be a woman, the Equality Act doesn't give men with the GR PC the right to ride roughshod over women's sex-based rights. He had no right to be in there, at all, and he engineered it so he could then try to get Sandie sacked. So, overall, abhorrent behaviour from a man towards a woman. Sexist is the bare minimum his behaviour was.

I don't think bullying an individual online due to their identity is acceptable.

PPs continue to insist that DU is a sexist pig simply because he claimed to be a woman / biological female and asked to be recognised as such. (peppered between accounts of his so-called "behaviour", which btw don't fit that facts). That position amounts to calling DU names simply for being trans. I don't think that is behaviour worthy of respect in a civil discussion, and I don't think it should be tolerated on mumsnet.

I think it should be possible to discuss gender critical beliefs and policy related to the provision of same sex facilities (the latter being what this case was really about) without resulting to online bullying of a real person simply because they are trans.

Yes please. I have been asking for a long time for some one to define trans.

Can you explain to me please, what I have said that doesn’t fit the facts?

No, we’re calling him names because he’s a sexist, misogynistic man who bullied women for refusing to go along with his delusion that he was a woman.

along with his delusion that he was a woman.

Exactly!!

He is deluded. He is a man.

if he’s not a man, what does the trans part of trans woman mean?

He’s a male. A woman is an adult human female. He claims to be a “transwoman”. The only criteria to be a “transwoman” is to be male. Therefore he cannot be a woman. So he is either deluded or lying. Which is it?

Not sure Dr U is here. It is not bullying if nobody is being bullied.

I would also question whether Mumsnet commenters have the upper hand in terms of power over Dr U. Dr U appears to me to have blown up NHSFife and gone to Australia. Seems to me to fit a different pattern than that of being bullied, rather like the making of contemporaneous notes about a woman not wanting to undress in front of him.

I think your understanding of what's being said in this thread is a wilful misunderstanding. There have been a number of comments made that have stated they think he's a sexist pig because of his actions and attitude towards the women who objected to him being in their changing room.
Pointing out he's a man who claims to be a woman is not bullying it's telling the truth because as a man he can't be a woman.
Discussing him and the trouble he's caused is not online bullying it's an online discussion forum and if you're someone who doesn't think 'identity' is a reality, it's not bullying to say so.

For people who don't understand, if you want explanations about why people might think these men are sexist pigs, could we take it off this specific thread and maybe go start a new one discussing the particulars?

Within that opinion will be the full knowledge of Upton’s conduct at the tribunal, the evidence given about him, and the evidence he himself gave. Which included stating, on oath, that he would ignore a woman asking to be examined by a female and examine her himself, even though she hadn’t consented, as if his ideas about himself trump her consent. That’s just one example.

In his eyes, women don’t matter. If that doesn’t qualify to be called ‘sexist’, what on earth would?

You’ve jumped on this discussion at thread 63 - more than 62,000 posts in - and have chimed in to a conversation with a full backstory that you can’t expect posters to go over in every post.

You may believe DU is deluded, you may believe DU is a man, but hurling vicious insults because he identifies as a woman/ female is bullying a person for being trans.

Describing a man as a sexist pig is hardly a viscous insult is it? A sizeable portion of the male population are sexist pigs.

What vicious insult's, saying a man is a man is the truth, when did the truth become vicious for you?

This thread, unlike some of the previous 62, wasn't even about BU until the interrupteron made it so. Please could anyone who wants to discuss trans identities go and do so on a different thread and the rest of us can get back to following this tribunal about a union's duty to its members?

No, the vicious insults are things like "sexist pig", "narcissist" and many of the other names DU has been called.

It should be possible to express gender critical opinions without resorting to that.

Happy to

It seems to me to be terrible advice to ‘treat it as an extended holiday’ in any case. It seems belittling and dismissive, rather than a constructive response to support a member with a workplace issue. You know, closer to saying ‘don’t worry about it because we certainly aren’t going to’.

This reads to me like 'its just pin money for women, not real money that men need'.

Extended holiday indeed. Just like a Permanent Vacation courtesy of the Mafia.

Is he here, being bullied? How is he being bullied if people are talking about him, not to him? There's no reasonable expectation that he is here to see it / read it.

No one is throwing anything at anyone, this is a conversation which includes people's actual opinions which includes that his behaviour and language used while giving evidence in court and under oath was disgusting and illustrated his highly sexist ideation and disregard for women's bodily autonomy in his capacity both as a private individual and a Dr.