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

So again, these women had no say in their space becoming mixed sex. The trust did not follow the EA 2010. This TW did not have a GRC. You seem very very sure that everything this TW said is the gospel truth @Discovereads it is only women who have an agenda?

So you agree that their penis must have been on display?

On the loo? Why would I see anyone on the loo, male or female?

Shower? Were the showers in full view of everyone? It would have been mentioned if they were naked.

Naked from the waist down before or after a shower? So also fully naked at some point? Well that wasn't mentioned, so unlikely to be the scenario here.

To determine whether someone was naked from the waist down you would have to see the pants area, so also see the genitals. Yes?

Are you saying you can’t tell whether a clothed male body has a penis? Come on. Don’t be ridiculous. You only need to look for a slight bulge between their legs.

Im not painting anyone as transphobic, the comments these women made were transphobic.

It's pretty clear from the judgement that the TW is not the type to stick to an agreement. What are you so convinced that they didn't break the agreement to change in private areas?

No
You don’t have to “see” anything to know someone is naked from the waist down

No the Tribunal judgement doesn’t indicate the TW is “not the type to stick to an agreement”. But go on making things up.

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

Discovereads has a point there. Beggars belief why the management agreed to this at the outset, given that the private cubicle is within the communal women's changing room and without consultation with female staff. Disaster waiting to happen

Stonewall Champion eh? That explains why this person was allowed to access womens changing rooms, and why women weren’t consulted ,but told this would happen regardless. Why they haven’t been charged with indecent exposure and sexual harassment is the big question. If they had been offered some other facility this would never have happened. Women are angry. Frankly I am appalled to think that unknowingly, a young work experience trainee, for example might have had to put up with this. When I was young and naive I had to, after being redeployed after a breakdown, and expected to be kind, put up and shut up about the man watching me in the changing room.
I don’t understand why they were allowed to be anonymous despite conducting their own case, while other women were dragged into it and had to be identified.

You don’t have to “see” anything to know someone is naked from the waist down

How do they know then? Telepathy? Intuition? Come on!!!

why would I be looking at someone’s genitals @Discovereads ? Really? Are you condoning ogling now! You are now accusing these women of staring at the TW genitals? On what proof?

You’re really making a stretch here. Someone complained a male person was naked from the waist down in the female changing area. Males have penises, therefore a penis was seen.

No the Tribunal judgement doesn’t indicate the TW is “not the type to stick to an agreement”. But go on making things up.

They agreed to work full time then broke that agreement. There's evidence littered throughout it that they did not have a track record of sticking to an agreement.

Why would a TW who is being bullied for a year by transphobic colleagues

But they were not bullied for a year.
There were 3 accepted incidents two on the 28th July 2020 one being the conversation 1 being the destroyed note. The second note was found on the 11th August 2020. Your claim makes it sound as if the TW was bullied daily/ weekly for a year.

You don’t have to “see” anything to know someone is naked from the waist down

Please explain how.

No, I’m going by what the Tribunal found as facts- “Happened”. For the things the Tribunal said did not happen, I’m also agreeing with them.

The NHS Trust management may have been wrong, but that doesn’t excuse transphobic bullying and plotting to get rid of a colleague because they are a TW. These women should have taken their concerns to their management not engaged in a campaign of transphobic abuse and bullying.

At no point did anyone say a penis was sighted/flashed/flaunted/waved.

A female colleague had reported to the manager that this individual was "naked from the waist down" in the changing room, so the inference is that they did. Add that to the supposed "overheard" comment.

Do you agree @Discovereads that if a penis is on display in a female changing room than that is unacceptable?

No
You don’t have to “see” anything to know someone is naked from the waist down

Yes, you do. How else?

Can't believe I'm having this conversation.

Maybe the women were totally treating the TW like a woman and going all ‘mean girls’. It’s not like there have never been instances of women bullying women is there?

The NHS Trust management may have been wrong, but that doesn’t excuse transphobic bullying and plotting to get rid of a colleague because they are a TW. These women should have taken their concerns to their management not engaged in a campaign of transphobic abuse and bullying.

How do we know that it was these women that posted the note?
The facts are it was a conversation nobody else heard and the women were not identified. It was 1 note nobody saw and another which again could not be used to identify the writer.
There was no campaign to force the TW out and the fact is the TW chose to resign not because of those 3 incidents but because they were rightly been taken through the absence management procedure.

Even if they were, that still doesn’t excuse the trust’s decision to allow a male bodied person to use the female changing room.

I can well imagine that some bullying took place and I’m not attempting to excuse that (if it happened). Women do have the right to stand up for their single sex spaces though.

Seems so strange that nobody could locate the women who said all those beastly things about the transwoman.

They did though, the claimant told them who they thought it was. However it was proved that it was highly unlikely to have been them as they didn't have the "posh" English accents the claimant claimed, one was Filipino. The claimant then dropped that accusation against those women and said they didn't actually know who it was.

That do, they definitely do. It is only people like @Discovereads and the TRA who believe all spaces should be mixed sex. Sane people know single sex spaces are important for women’s safety, dignity and comfort

After a brief discussion with my husband I have it under authority that the only case in which you would have a bulge is while actually wearing underwear or if you have an erection. Bulge while naked from the waist down, probably not. 😂

Sorry that was to Discovereads and her "bulge" explanation.

Oops. You’re correct. The TW was bullied from first day of work until they went off sick due to the stress on 13 August 2020. I missed the fact they were then transferred out of the department to Royal Hallamshire where they started work on 21 Sep 2020.

The Tribunal looked at the 3 incidents she reported but noted:
“She also said that the changing room incident was not the only incident she suffered at work.”