A Trans Former Editor At The Times Is Suing For Transphobic Bullying And Discrimination

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/patrickstrudwick/times-sued-transphobic-bullying-former-editor

I found this part particularly interesting:

As well as the standard employment law charges such as discrimination and victimisation, the case also rests on an argument that has never before been tested.

O'Donnell and her lawyer — Robin White of Old Square Chambers — allege that it wasn't just what happened in the newsroom but also what those inside it published in the newspaper about trans people that constituted a hostile, transphobic place to work.

Should O’Donnell be successful, therefore, it would mean a newsroom’s output could be deemed an internal, employment issue too. News outlets may in future have to consider how their coverage of trans people and other minority groups could be in breach of employment laws that protect members of these communities on their own staff from discrimination and bullying.

From reading the article it seems that this is quite a significant part of their case and it seems that this could be quite interesting to watch.

On the one hand it can be argued that this individual was subject to horrible bullying and her pleas for her employer to stop inciting public transphobia were ignored.

On the other it could be seen as a tale of an employer who simply could not cope with the demands of their employee who were demanding that didn't consider science in their discussion of a current issue.

I suspect it’s a concerted effort by TRAs to silence publications that they haven’t hitherto managed to roll over by their threats and bullying.

This will be very interesting indeed because the press in general aren’t very keen on having their free speech curtailed. Also one would have to examine the content of the output the complainant is concerned about, and whether it is actually transphobic or whether it’s based in fact, or the opinion of the author. As we already know the TRAs have a hard time distinguishing between facts and hate, and an unshakable belief that their opinion is the only right and true opinion and that no one else should be allowed to speak. Unless the panel is made up of TRA they might have a jolting ‘fall into reality.’

As for the other aspect of what the paper publishes. That could be fun - every woman working on a newspaper/magazine could bring a claim about the sexist, misogynistic crap churned out on a daily basis. This could be a turning point for women.......

Interesting that this point seems to have missed Patrick Strudwick entirely.

Strudwick also has history criticising Janice Turner (Times journalist)

Pink News coverage of December 2018 journalism awards to Janice Turner & Patrick Strudwick:

'Columnist Janice Turner wins award, sparking controversy about trans rights'
(extract)
Openly gay MP Stephen Doughty has criticised the choice of awarding a journalism award to columnist Janice Turner in virtue of her role in “whipping up inflammatory prejudice against transgender people.”

British Journalism Awards organisers Press Gazette awarded Janice Turner the prize for comment journalism of the year at a ceremony on Monday.

The prize, which considered submissions published between September 2017 and August 2018, rewarded journalists who “brought new ideas and thinking to bear when discussing a matter of public interest.”

Turner, whose work is regularly published in the The Times and The Sunday Times newspapers, has faced criticism from LGBT+ campaigners and the trans community." (continues)

Journalist Patrick Strudwick, LGBT editor at BuzFeed UK, denounced the British media attacks against transgender people while accepting his award for Specialist Journalism.

“I never thought I could be a journalist. Growing up I would read what newspapers said about people like me: that we were ‘poofers’, a danger to children, that we deserved to die of AIDS.

“Now the media has another scapegoat, another target: transgender people. I worry deeply about the effect this has on trans people. I think that we can sing better songs,” he said in his speech, which he quoted on Twitter.

“Last night after my acceptance speech, so many journalists, mostly women, came up to say that they too are appalled by the transphobia on Fleet Street, that trans-exclusionary feminists do not speak for them,” he later added, thanking those who approached him.

Among those who congratulated Strudwick on his victory was journalist Paris Lee, who was recently announced as British Vogue‘s first transgender columnist. “Well done, thank you and shame on every single person who was in that room who is complicit in the media’s relentless bullying of trans people,” she wrote."
www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/12/11/times-janice-turner-award-trans-rights/

Among those who congratulated Strudwick on his victory was journalist Paris Lee, who was recently announced as British Vogue‘s first transgender columnist. “Well done, thank you and shame on every single person who was in that room who is complicit in the media’s relentless bullying of trans people,” she wrote."

2013 Guardian article includes interview with Paris Lees who was working for Trans Media Action:

(extract)
"In 25 years, [James] Barrett has seen trans people become "a networked bunch" – more so than other people, he thinks – thanks to the internet. Lees, who also works for Trans Media Action, says social media is the "essential catalyst" for the transformation of trans people in society. "Society is in transition and we've woken up from the operation and there's no going back. We can't pretend that trans people don't exist any more," she says. "People have been taking the piss out of trans people for 60 years. The narrative on trans issues has been controlled by people who have no understanding of them. Social media is about us grabbing the narrative back and telling our own stories – this is our reality, this is what we go through and this is what matters to us." (continues)
www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/22/voices-from-trans-community-prejudice

TRans Media Action / OnRoad Media
www.onroadmedia.org.uk/work/trans-media-action-phase-2/

www.onroadmedia.org.uk/about/

I see another home goal.

This has the potential to seriously backfire on the trans lobbyists. If this person loses, The Times are liable to increase their reports on trans non men who use self ID and people’s fears on being considered transphobic to access women’s spaces for nefarious reasons.

Did this person think they could just sign up for the "fun" dressing up part without all the bollocks women have to put up with?

In fairness, this has actually been the experience for most of the high profile MtF people. They must have been gutted to find they were actually getting treated "like a woman". Reminds me of the MtF who complained about not being allowed to study at an all male college. Like, welcome to the end point of your own campaign ffs. What did you think identifying your way into an oppressed class was going to be like?

If the summary of the tribunal case at the start of the article ("transphobic discrimination, harassment, victimisation and unfair dismissal on the grounds of gender reassignment") then O'Donnell is not making any claim of sex discrimination, and the discussion of "sexism" in the article (and here!) isn't really relevant.

I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that this means O'Donnell will be seeking to prove less favourable treatment than a man without the "gender reassignment" characteristic.Because the "comparator" for a gender reassignment discrimination situation is someone of the same biological sex.

Anyone got a share token for this old (2011) write up on the lawyer taking the case?

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-tried-very-hard-to-be-male-but-it-just-didnt-work-out-nt8lk5cbxrf

The picture from the buzzfeed article made me do a google - I don’t know many middle aged women barristers who would wear that skirt and boot combo... presumably White thought more favourably of the Times 8 years ago!

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-tried-very-hard-to-be-male-but-it-just-didnt-work-out-nt8lk5cbxrf?shareToken=67c2de40737bebd6a73f4a8598f75857

Her witness statement mentions the culture of bullying and talking over women. In her view, less able men were the first to be considered for promotion and more able women were invisible.

She is describing a misogynistic culture and sexism. I know how that feels all too well.

This is interesting. Was she treated in the same way as other women when it cam to pay, working conditions and promotion?

Obviously, she can't claim sexual discrimination and has to rely on evidence to back up her claim that she suffered discrimination on the grounds of her reassignment.

The papers have latched onto the sensational aspect of her claims of transphobia, but have ignored the substance. One to watch.

Because the "comparator" for a gender reassignment discrimination situation is someone of the same biological sex.

So to win a discrimination case they have to prove that the Times treated them not as a man but as a woman?

My irony circuits are overloading.

They are bringing this action right after Janice Turner has been 100% vindicated on her claims so their timing is lousy.

"So to win a discrimination case they have to prove that the Times treated them not as a man but as a woman?"

No - that they were treated less well than other men because of the protected "gender reassignment" characteristic.

The way the company treated women isn't relevant. It may well be terrible, as people have said - but it isn't relevant. (NB this is, as I say, based on that first sentence - O'Donnell may be claiming sexism as well, but that isn't what the article says).

It almost seems as if O'Donnell's dragging (irrelevant) sexism into the proceedings is a deliberate attempt to suborn sexism to gain sympathy for the entirely different actual claim that is actually before the tribunal).

Interesting case which I'd be surprised if ODonnell wins.

The descrimination doesn't from reading look that strong - I'm not a lawyer but The Times seem to have counter arguments backed up with some evidence.

Trying to restrict the press in regards to what and how they report won't be taken lightly. As the press are already accountable for what they write, can't see them getting very far. JT just won a prestigious award much to TRA disgust.

As for trying to bring in sexism that seems irrelevant and a bit of smoke and mirrors maybe to try and bolster a weak case?

Newspapers have a duty to publish news stories.....they can’t hold back for fear of upsetting a minority group......this just highlights how some trans people find the reality of life itself transphobic. With the reforms of the GRA consultation of course there was increased coverage of the clash between trans rights & womens rights.

I'd be upset by being described as a Trans Former.

Optimus Prime was no journalist.

This case being decided in favor of the employee would be the death knell of the free press, whatever remains of it. Many stories would have to be spiked because some employee, somewhere, might feel it was hostile.

On the other hand, this should be a great way to shut down all production of pornography involving abuse or mistreatment of women. How can porn companies employ women in back-office roles etc while creating a hostile work environment by creating scenes in which women are mistreated?

To be fair if this was happening to a woman, I would also think it was right to sue. It shouldn’t happen to anyone, whatever protected characteristic they possess. I don’t like the ‘welcome to our world’ comments because being discriminated against should not be a natural part of being a woman and should be challenged.

Hmm. I am not convinced by the case she is making against the Times as an employer as I do not see the discrimination very clearly. Maybe that is because I work in a male-dominated environment and I am used to it, but it seems a bit ‘why are they not paying attention to meeeee??’

I think the case about the atmosphere being transphobic because of the material being published is more interesting, though. As a single parent, I find some of the assumptions made about single parents in the opinion pieces and comments fairly offensive. There was also an article recently about working mums causing obesity which had an offensive headline - which was eventually changed. So the casual offensiveness is really not exclusive to trans people.

But there is also a genuine public interest issue around aspects of the transgender experience and it is hotly contested in the public sphere which makes it quantitatively different - but it would be difficult for any newspaper not to report on it. The Times coverage does not shy away from confronting the issues and I can see why that would make O’Donnell uncomfortable. But the Times also publishes opinion pieces and letters from transgender/transsexual people as well who reflect different opinions than I feel O’Donnell would like to see. So the discussion is nuanced and complex and not just one set of voices. To see it just as relating to oneself is myopic and a bit entitled.

It's mentioned somewhere that this person has two children. That likely means they fit into the colonising side of things that Must Not Be Named.

Doesn’t it say that other staff members made disparaging jokes about trans people? Surely that’s direct discrimination, not ‘look at meeeeeee’?

Pota it is alleged, unless there is evidence to back up the claims.

If a woman was bringing a claim for discrimination against her employer, I can guarantee that there wouldn’t be ‘look at meeeeee’ comment and a reminder that this is just alleged. Fine, it’s alleged, but if true, it sounds like discrimination.

Anyone bringing a claim against an employer needs some kind of evidence not simply to say something happened. I don't know if it happened or not and even if it did there needs to be a credible witness or something else to back the claim up.

The "look at meee" comment I would say is more about a person trying to dictate what the press can and can't print. Newspapers print news and now quite often opinion pieces. The news needs to be factual and sometimes those facts maybe offensive to various groups - doesn't mean it shouldn't be printed, everyone has the right to be offended. Opinion pieces are generally topical and about debating issues - again depending on the issue being covered different groups may or may not be offended, those groups can then express their opinions should they so choose. So for someone to try and restrict the press -
not just the times as the precedent if set would impact on all of the press - because they felt uncomfortable or offended over a very small % of the articles published by a particular publication is very all about MEEEE, I must not be offended - but will offend whoever the hell I like.

No - that they were treated less well than other men because of the protected "gender reassignment" characteristic

That isn't correct. The test is were they treated less well than other non trans employees , whether male or female. It really isn't outwith the bounds of possiblity that faced with 3 applicants equally qualified to do the job that an employer would not pick a trans person over a non trans man or woman.

The way the company treated women isn't relevant yes it is.

Hmm, okay, I am not sure how I would have read the case if it was not tied up with an attempt to close down debate about a public interest issue that affects women as well as transgender people. I agree that what is published in some opinion pieces is offensive and I agree that could make individuals feel uncomfortable. Does that mean they should not be published? And where does that leave the journalism in the Times which asks very genuine questions about children and young people going down the trans pathway, or about the erosion of same sex spaces? These are public interest questions beyond the individual.

It brought to mind a story which was shared in a staff meeting where I work about three years ago (predominantly male, I was the only female in the room). It was about a (male) manager in the United States who was informed that a male colleague was coming out as transgender. The response was by the manager was ‘excellent, that will improve the gender gap’. Everyone in the room laughed, while I just sat there thinking ‘what?’

I don’t know. Maybe my ‘it is all about meeeee’ comment came from a certain amount of frustration at the shit women deal with on a daily basis but are not brought up to expect any different (and definitely not brought up to be difficult and abrasive but taught to be nice), alongside the attempts to close down discussion pointing out the reality of sex-based difference and gendered social expectations around it in one of the only newspapers which offers this perspective. I don’t know.

I cannot say it is something I personally want to debate extensively though, O’Donnell has her lawyers and her court time for that.