Transgender person wins Employment Tribunal

[ProfessorSprout]

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7aed66ed915d670dd7f91e/Miss_A_de_Souza_E_Souza_v_Primark_Strores_Ltd_-2206063-2017-_Final.pdf

Very interesting case (I’m in HR). Primark have really messed up here to be honest (poor investigations and actions against those who have behaved very badly).

But what I’ve found interesting is that the recommendations regarding transgender policies and education. With being in HR, I struggle with this and it crossing with my own opinions on transgender women/men. At what point does the (employment) law apply if someone self ID’s.

I mean we want to protect transgender people form harm, but compared to other groups there are clearly a disproportionate number of transgender people who are sexual harassers or whatever themselves.

@Speedy85 another interesting document with the exception of it being 31 pages long because every HR Manager has ample time to study 30 odd pages and read up on 20+ websites about transitioning.

The expectation is to go so far above and beyond that it laughs in the face of “normal support” of an average employee.

If Sandra had a bad car accident and now had one leg, would there be a communication brief to everyone employed about her accident, with advice to not be naturally curious and instead seek out websites on amputation disabilities? (First picture highlighted yellow under Questions)

Mine and mouthandtrousers‘ point about IT systems is referenced too (first picture) - with the pink example being so easily done (especially when there are more than one system for data holding).

And, in theory, I could be at risk of indirect discrimination now accordingy to the second picture as we request, as a matter of course, evidence of a persons date of birth and eligibility to work in the UK. This is normally and most usually either a Passport, or a Birth Certificate.

I mean we want to protect transgender people form harm, but compared to other groups there are clearly a disproportionate number of transgender people who are sexual harassers or whatever themselves.

Is that your opinion or do you have evidence?

JustAnotherPoster00

Is that your opinion or do you have evidence?

Cross dressing fetishists are officially included under the transgender umbrella. Stonewalls own website confirms it.

The typology is that characteristics would include late transitioning, being straight ( I.e. attracted to women) and not having had genital surgery (although this last one can still happen).

Cross dressing fetishists become aroused by presenting as women (autogynephilia).

Insistence on pronouns and being treated as female as possible will be arousing. As would access to female spaces.

Of all the transwomen in prison, nearly half are there for sex offences. An overrepresentation.

Cross dressing is the most common paraphilia amongst any male prisoners (whether they identify as trans or not).

Historically, autogynephiles and transsexuals were separate. One characterised by a sexual motivation, the other by gender dysphoria.

Now they are not.

If you know what you are looking for, you can often tell, but it's not reliable. And legally, there is no distinction.

The thread below will give you an idea of how women are being screwed over this.

Treating men who fetishise women as women is breathtaking arrogance.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3101834-trans-widows-escape-committee

I'm sorry on this one OP I disagree. I disagree with the current trans movement but this was not really a case of anti-trans as much as it was a case of harassment. That she got £49k was relatively soft as harassment cases have uncapped punitive potential.

The staff bullied this person- disregard whether it's a he or she or whatever- no-one should be bullied at work. The work, when presented with these facts, manifestly failed to do anything about it. I would recommend ANYONE in that situation takes their employer to ET as it is an awful thing to work in a bullying environment. If the manager can't deal with that then they shouldn't be manager.

The recommendations are all relatively straightforward (edit your PowerPoint slides to include references to trans issues and maintain confidentiality) and in this case I would say primark only got a slap on the wrist.

The fact that TIMs are more likely to be sexual harassers wouldn’t create an additional duty of care to women who work with them. In the same way we are not expected to provide some sort of extra protection from ethnic groups that are more likely to be convicted of violent offences.

Thanks ProfessorSprout.
The loose plan atm is to get it as clear and compelling as possible, get it formatted and made into an attractive printable pdf leaflet (if anyone has skills in that regard to spare ) to use the text to form the basis form an online petition, to distribute it as widely as possible - targeting groups such as sports facilities/teams, religious groups etc, and use the contact list gained to perhaps have a boycott strategy or letter writing/twitter campaign. ...
Any other ideas welcome...

heathersmom

Excellent post.

It's almost my biggest bugbear with the whole thing.

Men and women are not coming at this from a position of parity.

The inherent power dynamic between men and women is being wilfully ignored.

The fact that this country has legislated, and is considering further legislating, to uphold and protect a sexual fetish is mind-boggling.

Women who are forced to be complicit in validating the sexual fetish of an autogynephile, to my understanding, are being subjected to a sexual offence.

It's not consensual. Women are unwittingly participating in a sexual act by validating a transwomen's identity which they find arousing.

The original gender recognition act, I believe, assumed that there were tiny number of transsexuals, about 5000? Which is why the legislation was thought to be fairly negligible in terms of effect.

I don't believe there is any data that is being collected to distinguish between autogynephiles and transsexuals.

But the typology is fairly clear. And women know it.

I cannot believe we have got to this point. When men who fetishise women and womenhood are being protected by law, enabling them to pursue their fetish with impunity.

The "not outing" data requirements conflict seriously with the normal standards for proof if ID. And the idea that the data outs you is rather sad, people may pass on first or second glance but working with someone daily will soon remove any illusions.

Birth ID and passport ID is the gold standard. If the employee in this case flew anywhere it would be in the male name. Signing a lease or contract would be ID'd as required by law and be in the male name. References would be in the male name. Turnover in retail can be 100% annually and higher, there simply isn't the capacity to give a bespoke service to people who are not bothering to help themselves in this way.

It's seems whoever wrote those Gov.uk employer guidelines lives in a fantasy world or more likely, works for Stonewall.

I'm not sure why some people seem to be assuming that if a tribunal has come to this decision it must be the correct one. They're as influenced by current social trends and pressure as everyone else. Going by the information given, this person had not in fact transitioned in any meaningful sense and was essentially a crossdresser with no attempt to update documents etc made. This is very much a self-Id related situation, and I'm not convinced that we can assume that the tribunal taking the complainant's word over that of everyone else wasn't a politically motivated decision. Certainly accusing anyone who wonders if that's what happened of being a transphobe who's harming gender critical feminism as a movement is unhelpful.

RE Outing, it really only applies in cases where the individual passes flawlessly. That's not going to be very many people. In the vast majority of cases trans people are read as trans by the people they interact with.

Hi mouth

I imagine the data issues will be cleared up with self id which then allows the transgender individual to amend all their official documents.

Which would erase all proof of their biological gender. If they “pass” then neither employees nor employer would be any the wiser.

Birth ID and passport ID is the gold standard.

I use a different name at work than the one that's on my birth ID and passport - this has not caused me any problems.

Elletorro

I said right at the begging that could be the case but its also more likely to go the other way. In this case the person saw no need to create a preferred paper trail despite having 16 years to do it. The employee decided it was entirely the employers responsibility to manage this on their behalf. The tribunal thinks it's "shocking" that his is difficult!

So once self ID becomes the general way of things who needs any paperwork to say anything, its just what come out of your mouth on that day!

And I love your airy assumption that self ID "erases" all proof!!!! Have you ever used a computer? In a workplace? Yeah it's all gonna just be magically ok......

splendide
Very happy for you.

I need a disclosure and barring certificate for my work. I have to declare any names I previously went by in order to get it - which is a pain as I have been married and divorced twice!

@angryattackkittens I’m not ‘assuming’ anything. Employment tribunal cases are my day job. I have read the judgment, and there is nothing in it at all to indicate anything untoward.

Whether self ID or not didn’t come up as the employer didn’t challenge that the employee had the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Regardless of the bigger questions around self-id, that was bloody appalling behaviour from her colleagues and it sounds as if the management did nothing to stop it. If someone changes their name then people should use it. We didn't continue to call Muhammed Ali Cassius Clay.

I am really angry about this thread. I am very sympathetic to the gender-critical position but also really passionate about preventing discrimination and harassment on the grounds of protected characteristics. This is an entirely consistent position because being harassed on the grounds of being transgender is very different to wishing to protect the protected characteristic of sex being blurred.

None of you were present at the Employment Tribunal and the judge will have weighed the evidence and the credibility of each parties witnesses.
It does your campaign no credit to imply that if some transgender people are activists, sex offenders etc that this person is; and thus this person not be believed or assert their current legal rights. It is right that transgender people not be harassed on grounds of their being transgender...and completely separate to the campaign to protect sex segregated spaces.

Hi user

That’s not what most of us are doing though. Yes there are some people, who are struggling to accept the verdict.

The rest of us are trying to get our heads around how you handle 2 protected characteristics “butting heads”. Because that particular conflict is likely.

Hi mouth

Good grief I never meant to say it would be easy! I’m no friend of data handling.

I imagine this will be a particularly expensive mistake once the data protection changes come in May

Elletorro
The situation of two protected characteristics clashing is not uncommon (eg the religious marriage registrar not wanting to marry same sex couples is one example; the "gay cake" case coming to the Supreme Court is another). The courts will balance the discrimination issues/conflict.

But that does not excuse/justify unwanted harassment on transgender grounds which the Tribunal found to have taken place. If there are concerns by women about shared spaces, these should raised as grievances with management, not by harassing acts.

By being seen to condone transgender harassment will the movement to protect the protected characteristic of sex be discredited

The thread wasn't started to question the judgement, and in spite of that posters have written in support the judgement overall.

User - Your accusations are a bit extreme, is it evidence based or are you just angry?
I don't agree with you that individuals should have to raise this as grievance with managers, this is the whole point of this discussion. Why has this been delegated down to a junior supervisory level, and all the risk shoved into a busy shop manager's hands on a day to day basis, it's massive change that has been railroaded in. They didn't know how to deal with it. This is the issue employers have to get to grips with.