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

Whole situation was entirely avoidable if the Trust had complied with the law and provided single sex spaces

Absolutely. This should be the take home message for NHS trusts. An enormous payout should sharpen the mind.

I work in an predominantly working class male environment and whilst some would accept any person there are some who would not tolerate this at all .
If one of us ladies came and said this had happened in our bathroom they'd probably get beaten up . We have recently had a guy convicted of paedophillia and we are doing absolutely everything to make sure no-one finds out , apparently the company has a duty of care

Gaslighting as it's finest. When you have no truth all you can do is lie and minimise.

Is this like when a hospital claimed a female patient was never raped because ‘there are no men on the ward’? The CCTV evidence proved otherwise. The hospital gaslit that poor woman for a year. Turns out there was a TW on the ward who had committed the offence.

@Discovereads the claimant only conceded that it wasn’t the Filipino staff member when it was pointed out, during the tribunal, that it was inconsistent with her earlier claim that the person speaking was ‘posh and English’. They were in no way pressured to name anyone, they were just asked if they recognised who it was, which seems a very reasonable thing to ask, given the seriousness of the investigation.

With regards to the notes, the claimant says they destroyed the first note without showing anyone. The HR department decided not to proceed with handwriting analysis for the second note, as it was written in block capitals and it would be too hard/costly to identify who had written it. The claimants handwriting was never actually analysed, and no where in the report does it confirm that the handwriting on the note did not match the handwriting of the defendant.

@PaddleBoardingMomma I don't have a problem with that each to their own but it does seem odd to want to show it off in a ladies changing room

The boundaries of what is acceptable and what isn't are becoming so blurred in order not to offend anyone it's difficult to know anything

You haven't addressed my point that by allowing some males into female spaces it is women doing ALL of the compromising.

because i have offered several compromises and only one of them involves this. (curtained cubicles) the others involve 3rd spaces based on biological sex or self-contained floor-to-ceiling rooms.

Just stamping your foot and saying "no" isn't helping anyone. Whoever is doing it. What is your solution aside of doing that?

Because otherwise we get status-quo which is, on the part of authorities and companies: TWAW and they can go in women's spaces. Many many people aren't happy with that. What do you suggest?

I have no desire to see anyone's genitals. Ever. I'm in Germany, though, so sometimes i do get to see vulvas all over the gym changing rooms because Germans don't tend to worry about getting naked. Even with members of the opposite sex in the case of saunas and nude bathing areas (which are very common). I put up with it because it is culturally acceptable here (and i don't go to mixed nude areas). I wouldn't be happy about being confronted with a penis when it's not expected but i haven't had that. Yet. If/when it does happen i will suggest compromises.

No you are mistaken, Mrs F was the hair net colleague, the colleague the TW thought might have said the comments was a Mrs Marshall and she only thought that because Mrs Cooke wrote a note listing who was in/around the changing room at the time of the incident. There’s no indication that the TW had ever previously met Mrs Marshall.

“The Claimant was in one of the toilet cubicles and was breathing heavily. Ms F was not sure if she was crying or struggling to breath. Ms F saw the Claimant later – about 10.30am – in the sandwich room, when she had cause to ask her to pull her face mask above her nose. At about midday Ms F went into the changing room, when the Claimant had just left. The Claimant’s locker was next to hers. She saw 2 hair nets on the floor by her locker, so she went into the rest room and told the Claimant she thought she had dropped her hair nets. The Claimant went to pick them up. Ms F also noted that another colleague had told her that the Claimant had been crying at about 9.30am.”

“When Mrs Cook’s note was provided to her during the initial disclosure process, the Claimant noted that Mrs Cook and Mrs Marshall had had a conversation in the changing room while she was in the cubicle, so she decided that they must have been the perpetrators in respect of the changing room incident. At that stage she presented her third claim, naming them as the perpetrators and as named Respondents. The only basis for identifying them was Mrs Cook’s note.”

”When she gave her oral evidence, Mrs Marshall had a strong accent and it was clear that her English is far from fluent. It was at that stage that the Claimant, fairly, indicated in response to a question from the Employment Judge that she did not believe that Mrs Marshall was one of the people she had overheard.”

You can be “naked from the waist down in the changing room”- a room that includes toilets, shower and private cubicles without exposing yourself because you’re in one of those private walled/screened off areas of the changing room.

If they were in private how would anyone have seen that they were naked from the airway down? Why would someone have complained if it was in private?

The knots you are tying yourself in to excuse the indecent exposure are quite something.

It strikes me that you know it's not acceptable to show a naked penis in a female changing room. But the end point of this gender ideology is that there will be naked penises in female changing rooms. And it seems females are not allowed to be upset, scared or complain about it. Why do you support that?

I dont think this situation was avoidable.

Reading the judgement it is clear that the TW had an agenda from the off and the majority of their complaints were fuelled by their constant absence, refusal to work full time as agreed when the TW accepted the role and the trust correctly following the absence policies.

The only way I can see this could have been avoided was to allow the TW to work reduced hours take as much sickness, leave early as they liked, receive full pay and to have none of it recorded or policies followed. Why does this employee feel they deserved to be treated differently?

Thank you Disc I clearly mixed up the names.

However that does not change the fact that the TW was not pressured in to providing a name as you claim and stated they were 85% sure it was Mrs M.

Hopefully lessons will be learnt.

It is unacceptable that the female staff have no choice but to put up with a naked penis in the locker room.

Actually how could the TW claim to be 85% sure it was Mrs M which was based on the TW recognising her voice but then not know Mrs M spoke with a strong not English accent?

Why is @Discovereads so determined to excuse indecent exposure? How would anyone know the person was naked if they hadn’t been in public? Why do you believe all these women suddenly and at the same time decided to become transphobes rather than a male decided to expose himself?

Why is @Discovereads so determined to excuse indecent exposure

Because they don't believe a TW would ever do such a thing or that TW are male.

Maybe it's time for a toilet facility change:
Men / Women / Disabled / ALL
I find that many abled people use the disabled toilets and treat them like a gender-free option, what if there were a gender-free option that kept the disabled free for the disabled?

I addressed the first in an earlier post.

On the second. Yes the TWs handwriting was not analysed by any professional. But the Tribunal determined that Mrs Westwood requested the handwriting sample for the purpose of “elimination” as in it was implied she wouldn’t have accepted the incident as having happened (and thus reportable) without seeing the TWs handwriting for herself.

”Mrs Westwood also asked the Claimant to write the contents of the note on the statement. Her evidence was that she asked her to do so because she anticipated having to investigate what had happened, and thought that she would need to gather handwriting samples from every female member of staff on duty that day, including the Claimant. In the event, she was not asked to investigate it, so she did not ask anybody else for a sample. Mrs Westwood said that she did not ask the Claimant to provide a handwriting sample because she is transgender. She did so because she intended to ask all the female staff members on duty to do the same. She explained that her husband used to be a police officer, and she was particularly aware of the need to gather evidence promptly.”
“The Claimant complains that requesting her to provide a handwriting sample was direct disability and gender reassignment discrimination, and was victimisation because she had complained about the admitted incidents. She says that Mrs Westwood told her it was “for elimination purposes”, and that is what she said in her subsequent appeal of 25 November 2020 (see below).
Mrs Westwood did not recall using that expression, but the Tribunal found it likely that she did. On her own account she thought that it would be necessary to obtain handwriting samples from everybody, so she clearly was asking the Claimant to provide one “for elimination purposes.” However, the Tribunal accepted Mrs Westwood’s evidence that she did not treat the Claimant any differently because she is a transgender woman, nor because she has a mental health disability. She would have asked anybody who complained of finding an equivalent note to provide a handwriting sample. That request may be open to criticism, but that does not mean that the reason why it was made was linked to the Claimant’s gender reassignment or disability.“

It’s incredibly important that such cases are debated. I want to hear from people who think it is ok (and why) for a biological male with a penis to be in a changing room for biological women. Not wearing underwear?

I am not condoning the notes or bullying but there is a huge amount more to this - I hope this pushes hospitals to not allow Men who dress as women into into women’s changing rooms. These have to be safe places for women.

Also if it’s not usual for NHS to remove their underwear then why is this person naked from the waist down as a biological man in a woman’s changing room?

It’s always Women’s spaces. This is for a minority of people and women are being the most affected.

*NHS staff

But I think @Discovereads must think TW are male. The very fact that they take one males word over quite a few women’s, and is determined to defen said male in the face of evidence that male has done wrong, and the fact that they believe the males feelings take precedence over women’s make me very sure they believe TW are male.

Again, I am arguing to protect women's rights. We have tried the compromise of some males in female spaces and in 2022 we have women being called bigots for objecting to fully or partially naked, intact males in our spaces. I am campaigning for female spaces to be exclusively single sex, no exceptions.

The Trans lobby has my full support for any campaigning the might do wrt to provision of safe facilities for themselves as long as they do not demand access to female spaces. What other solutions they may propose is none of my business. My business is women's rights.

I refuse to engage is a discussion about solutions to a problem women did not create because it ALWAYS results in women making sacrifices. Characterising women defending their rights as "stamping their feet" is just more misogynistic bullshit which attempts to shame women into acquiescence under the guise of being the bigger person or the grown up. Women saying NO are not having a temper tantrum, they have found their self respect and are refusing to be crapped on anymore.

I’m not excusing indecent exposure, I’m questioning whether it happened. The Tribunal didn’t even address it, so there is no finding of facts as to whether it happened or not.

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?

Why should women compromise over their spaces? Surely compromise involves give and take. What benefit do women get out of sharing their spaces? Why is the discomfort of trans people in the spaces relevant to their sex women’s issue to solve. That is for trans people to solve in a way which will not affect any other group.

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.