That this transgender person..

[ClassSize2022]

Should not have been in the ladies changing room? Especially if naked from the waist down.

I can imagine being very frightened in this situation as a biological woman having to share a changing room with a man.

NHS transgender worker wins payout after boss asked about underwear

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3e15f7c2-0779-11ed-a986-fc91b4ad48f0?shareToken=b22ada0c3a8e04d703e4eb229fb47802

transgender worker wins payout after boss asked about underwear www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3e15f7c2-0779-11ed-a986-fc91b4ad48f0?shareToken=b22ada0c3a8e04d703e4eb229fb47802 Times article

Why is the nudity the bar?

If you had an inteuder in hour Garden you'd call the police surely ? You wouldn't wait until they broke into your shed or pissed in your pool before you called.

Amd its the same here. They are male. They walked into a female changing room to get undressed. The line has already been crossed.

@Discovereads Yes, as I’ve said, I read the report. And I repeat - nowhere in the report does it confirm that the handwriting on the note does not match the handwriting of the claimant. Her handwriting sample was collected in anticipation of investigating the handwriting of the entire department, but it was then decided that this was not necessary.

So to say anything else from that is pure speculation. Just like I could speculate that no further handwriting samples were taken because the claimants handwriting matched. We have no idea of knowing, because it is not mentioned in the report, and to make such conclusions is just conjecture.

And I don’t think you adequately addressed the point about her falsely accusing a Filipina colleague - she said she was 85% certain it was her, until the tribunal judge pointed out that it conflicted with her earlier evidence, as which point she accepted that it couldn’t be her. How could she be 85% certain that it was someone she had never met? And please don’t just copy and paste the report again, I have read it.

Uh huh. You’re very determined to minimise the indecent exposure it seems. Why do you not believe the woman? Is it because the TW is male and therefore thier word carries more weight? Why do you believe this was the only incident?

Nudity is an essential component of indecent exposure.
And your analogy makes no sense. The management of the Trust had decided and informed staff before her first day at work that the TW could use the womens changing room, so she was not an “intruder”

They didn’t “suddenly decide to be transphobes” they had been bullying her for a year before there was the “naked from waist down in the changing room” allegation. A full year before this allegation, the TW overheard two colleagues plotting to stitch her up. So, it’s just coincidence that allegations start happening?

Who had being bullying her?
Didn't the conversation incident happen at a different site to the claim that the TW was naked from the waist down?

Did they ask the women if they were comfortable with their changing area becoming mixed sex? Or did their opinion and feelings not count? The trust could have provide a third space. They thought so little of their female staff they did not even think of this option. They would rather indulge the feelings of one male, who it seems had an agenda according to the tribunal records.

The women weren't asked though were they? Consent was not obtained from.those it really.mattered from. That male knew this. They know they are male and have no place in the womens changing room. They are responsible for their own actions.

Floor to ceiling mixed sex cubicals have been proven to have shockingly high incidents of sexual harassment and rape compared to single sex.

A curtain provides neither safety or privacy.

I also doubt very much whether the NHS, which is financially on it's knees has the money or space to provide adequate third spaces. Not that these would ever be deemed good enough because, as noted in this case a 'compromise' of the tw getting changed in a single cubicle was ignored in favour of them using the shared space.

Get it into your head. Compromises aren't good enough. Whatever you offer isn't enough.

Start prioritising women's safety and dignity and stop prioritising the feels of males, who may or may not have penises. (But they usually do)

Even if no penis is present it is a red herring. A male body and the statistical sex and violence likelyhood of being male stays the same regardless of gender feels. In fact, looking at the ministry of justice information we have, all evide CE suggests it could be higher risk than the average male in the population.

But the alleged conversation about ‘stitching her up’ happened in the different hospital to the one that alleged she talked about her underwear, and that she was naked from the waist down.

So it couldn’t be the same people, could it. The claimant actually made no allegations of bullying towards colleagues in the second hospital, and was more concerned with raising grievances about the managing absence policy. The woman who raised the comment about taking her underwear off is documented to be a supportive friend and colleague to the claimant.

So yes, it could be a coincidence. Or the claimant is the common denominator here.

It’s not “quite a few women”
Mrs Hawkshaw got a statement from ONE woman alleging this and “naked from waist down in the changing room” doesn’t necessarily mean exposed penis in the communal area of the changing room.

What else can it be? If a male body is naked from the waist down ie no pants then their geniltals will be visible. If you can see enough to know that there are no clothes below the waist then the penis will be visible. Give me an alternative explanation please?

Just counted up and there were 24 complaints made by the TW 23 were not upheld and effectively found in favour of the trust as in the trust did not discriminate or victimise the TW abd acted in accordancewith the law/policy. One was upheld which was that the questions relating to the TW wearing/not wearing underware were asked because they were a TW.

Even then given the comments made by the TW about them taking off their underwear and the comment made that a staff member had seen them naked from the waist down it could be argued that the questions were relevant.

Nudity is an essential component of indecent exposure.
And your analogy makes no sense. The management of the Trust had decided and informed staff before her first day at work that the TW could use the womens changing room, so she was not an “intruder”

Discovereads Without consultation with the women using this space I would consider this TW an intruder. Many, many other women would too. Also many decent men.

I’m confused @Discovereads how can a male be naked from the waist down and the penis not exposed? It’s not like on telly where there’s pixels. Why are you so determined to defend this male and gaslight women into accepting male people onto their spaces?

Two reasons
#1 There was evidence of a staff plot to get rid of the TW

• The Tribunal found as a matter of fact that the transphobic comments that the TW overhead did happen. These comments basically are a stitch up plot- “drive it out of the department and maybe find a suitable leper colony for it.” “we need to do something but what can we do when management are sucking up to that thing.” “We will find a way.”


• So two unidentified women that use the changing room expressed intent to “find a way” to “drive it out of the department”.

#2 The anonymous allegation as to “naked from the waist down in the changing room” was not mentioned at all (no one knew about it) until the Tribunal interviewed Mrs Hawkshaw as to why she had asked various questions regarding the TW’s underwear in front of Mrs Hulbert.

“The Tribunal considered Ms Hulbert’s account likely to be the most accurate because she was only involved in this matter at the one meeting, and was there as more of an observer than a participant.”

It’s clear the “naked from waist down” allegation wasn’t mentioned at the meeting: “Mrs Hawkshaw had received a report about the Claimant being naked from the waist down in the changing room before asking the questions. She did not mention that specifically, but the questions she asked seemed to be connected with that as much as with the conversation with Mrs Townsend.”

“The Tribunal therefore concluded that Mrs Hawkshaw asked the questions because of a concern that the Claimant as a transgender woman might be in a state of undress in the female changing room.”

""The management of the Trust had decided and informed staff before her first day at work that the TW could use the women's changing room, so she was not an “intruder”"

AFAIK it was agreed that the TW would change in the private cubicle and not in the common area of the changing room. This agreement was broken.

“The Tribunal therefore concluded that Mrs Hawkshaw asked the questions because of a concern that the Claimant as a transgender woman might be in a state of undress in the female changing room.”

Well you would question it wouldn't you as without GRS the TW would still have their penis therefore this is a male in a female changing room exposing their penis.

Again, the changing room had a toilet, a shower and at least one private cubicle. So in any of those three spaces in the changing room you can be naked from the waist down and not exposed to anyones view. You don’t have to “see” anything to know someone is naked from the waist down. In the shower? Naked. Sat on the toilet? Naked from waist down. In the changing cubicle? Naked from waist down at some point if dressing after a shower or undressing and putting on a towel to use the shower.

So a woman raising concern is not to be believed. Right? But everything this TW said is true? Surely then there would be witnesses to these ‘transphobic’ conversations? Funny how the perpetrators could not be found? Seems like going by the documented behaviour of this TW, more a plot to get out of being pulled up for absence/sickness/performance issues. See also James Wallis pulling the trans card to get out of trouble. Do you believe If the complainant had not been a TW they would have had half the accommodations and support they received?

Again, the changing room had a toilet, a shower and at least one private cubicle. So in any of those three spaces in the changing room you can be naked from the waist down and not exposed to anyones view. You don’t have to “see” anything to know someone is naked from the waist down. In the shower? Naked. Sat on the toilet? Naked from waist down. In the changing cubicle? Naked from waist down at some point if dressing after a shower or undressing and putting on a towel to use the shower.

Really?!😂😂 Is this really the position that you are taking? That someone complained that the TW was naked from the waist down while they were in the toilet or shower. Come on. It's just embarrassing for you this.

So how would the person making the allegation know the TW has a penis? Really, the mental hoops you’re jumping through must be exhausting in this heat. You’re determined to paint the women as transphobic bigots aren’t you? Are women not allowed to complain about males in their changing areas? It was not these women who decided it was ok for their space to become mixed sex, so why are they not allowed to raise concerns.

Appalling. Those poor women.

I think it's pretty clear that the complaint was because the TW was not sticking to the agreement to use the private spaces to be "naked from the waist down" in.

Or was it? Why would a TW who is being bullied for a year by transphobic colleagues suddenly decide to stop using the private cubicle that they had specifically asked for due to their transitioning status and anxieties ?

“We begin with a general finding about the Claimant’s evidence. As we explain below, there is no dispute that the Claimant was subjected to transphobic abuse by unknown individuals early in her employment by the First Respondent.”

”As part of the Trust’s pre-employment checks, the Claimant was referred for a pre-placement health screening with Occupational Health (“OH”) in March 2020. The OH advisor reported that the Claimant was fit for work, but noted that she was currently transitioning. This had previously caused some anxieties, including people asking her about it. She had not worked for several years and was also experiencing some anxieties about returning to the workforce and her hours of work. The OH advisor recommended meeting the Claimant before she started work to discuss any support that was required.”

”Mr Swallow and Mr Bulman (HR Manager) therefore met the Claimant on 12 May 2020. They agreed with the Claimant that Mr Swallow would send a note to all CPU staff to say that the Claimant would be joining them, that she was transitioning and that she did not want people to ask her questions about it. This was done at the Claimant’s suggestion. Mr Swallow told the Claimant that there were male and female changing rooms, each with toilet cubicles and showering facilities. They agreed that Mr Swallow’s note would say that the Claimant would be using one of the cubicles in the female changing rooms and did not want to be asked questions about this. Mr Swallow sent a draft of the note to the Claimant. She made some suggested changes, mainly offering personal explanations e.g. referring to the fact that she had suffered ill treatment in the past, or saying that she did not want to be seen as offending anybody.”

Exactly.

Funny how the perpetrators could not be found

I thought this. You would assume that the two women were colleagues of the TW given their conversation that the TW working with them was negatively impacting on them so you would also assume that as the TW worked with them they would be able to recognise their posh English accents out of the staff they worked alongside.

They were all clearly on the same shift that day so how did the TW get is so wrong when naming the women as to choose one with a strong not English accent?