Transwoman wins employment discrimination case against NHS for being treated differently from women in changing room

[Clymene]

I thought there was a thread on this but I can't find it. Maybe it was deleted? I shall choose my words very carefully.

The court found that the unnamed employee had been discriminated against because they were asked questions that a woman would not have been about whether they had been undressed in the communal women's changing area.

Judge Davies said: 'A concern about the woman's state of undress in the changing rooms was likely to be connected with the fact that she is a transgender woman.
'This was a communal changing room with a shower cubicle. It did not seem to the Tribunal likely that there would have been a concern about a cisgender woman in a state of undress while changing in such a changing room.
'The Tribunal therefore concluded that [the manager] asked the questions because of a concern that the woman as a transgender woman might be in a state of undress in the female changing room.
There were also several serious allegations against several female co-workers but while the Trust accepts these incidents happened, no perpetrators were ever identified.

There were a number of other complaints but they were dismissed by the Court.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11027471/Trans-NHS-worker-wins-discrimination-case-confronted-underwear.html

I am sure I'm not alone in finding this story very disturbing.

It was deleted. I suspect this one will be too.

I thought we were led to believe that Transwomen are so dysphoric about their bits that they'd hide them and never get them out in a changing room. 🤔

We all know what the reality of this is. Clearly we're not allowed it say it on here though.

The rights of females to privacy and dignity clearly don't matter.

Why was it deleted? It's a story that it in the news.

It was deleted, due to speculation and posts apparently crossing the line. So let's avoid speculating about the TW involved and stick to the legal aspects, I think would be wise?

My take: the judge has applied the wrong comparator; the TW was treated differently based on sex not gender reassignment. I.e. they should be compared to a non-trans man, not a non-trans woman.

But I doubt the NHS Trust will appeal, as that would mean taking the position that TWANW.

Is sex no longer a protected characteristic? Must have missed the news

I have been in changing rooms and shower facilities. No one has seen my fanny. Why would I wander around undressed from the waist down? 🤔

The note was offensive. Some of the language used in the alleged discussion - particularly the use of the pronoun 'it' - was offensive. That is undeniable and should not be accepted.

But surely the judge is mistaken. She says a woman would not have been treated in the same way as the Tw, therefore the Tw suffered discrimination. However the comparator for a male with the PC of gender reassignment is a male without that PC.

Also, if the women having that conversation could not be found, not witnesses to the conversation, how can anyone be certain it occurred?

Come to think of it, why does the judge consider that the people having the conversation were women?

I hope this gets overruled on appeal. Otherwise we may as well legalise indecent exposure and flashing. The perpetrators will simply have to claim to be transgender to get away with it - in any women’s changing room or toilet.

Tribunal used the wrong comparator.

I saw this, then it seemed to disappear! Anyway, I agree, very disturbing, the transgender woman WAS treated differently precisely because they are still a man and supposedly found it completely normal to walk round the women's changing room with no pants on. So yes, they were discriminated against as they were treated like a man and not a woman, though how you can tell someone is transgender without clothes on gawd only knows.

They were also left crying and shaking because someone left an offensive note (they shouldn't have done) and seemed to be surprised that women didn't want them in their changing room and shower.

How this even got to court is beyond me.

I hope this one doesn't get deleted.

I think it's important than women, especially those working in the NHS, understand they have no recourse to complain about indecent exposure in the female change rooms because it is not female people currently being protected by discrimination laws.

*that

That is absolutely true. I hope no one would defend those or the overheard conversation.

But the court found that the Trust had investigated and followed due process so they can be put aside I guess.

This sort of reminds me of the poster on here who wanted to change in the communal women's changing rooms in the spa at Centerparcs. They were given a separate changing room outside the women's communal one but threatened to sue so CP backed down and said they could use a cubicle within the communal women's changing room.

It's very disappointing how little women's right to privacy and dignity seems to matter.

Baffling, isn’t it? I can’t imagine why someone would do that . . .

Great. What a brilliant use of NHS money. Paying someone off because of a comment about their underwear. They were left crying and shaking?

No one bats an eyelid when an actual woman is abused at work - as we have been for centuries. I have received disgraceful comments (about much more than my underwear!) and physical abuse from employers, due to being a woman.

Actual woman have to put up with far worse than a comment about their underwear, and don’t get to sue anyone:

www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/worker-who-quit-after-boss-slapped-her-bottom-loses-wrc-case-1.4823779

But surely the judge is mistaken. She says a woman would not have been treated in the same way as the Tw, therefore the Tw suffered discrimination. However the comparator for a male with the PC of gender reassignment is a male without that PC.

No doubt the judge has been the recipient of the grift, sorry training that Stonewall has been undertaking across this country’s institutions.

Has anyone yet read the full judgment from the tribunal?

Can only hope the NHS Trust involved appeals on the legal point of comparator, because no-one else can appeal except the claimant or respondant.

I don't know if it's the heat, but I am getting more angry about this the more I think about it. Man wants to use womens facilities, says he feels like a woman, given the go ahead regardless of the women already there. Then sues because they are not welcomed with open arms.

10 years ago, it would have been the women suing because a man was given access to their changing room and shower.

No, do you know how to find it?

I'm worried this sets a very alarming precedent for women in the workplace, especially in jobs where they have to change out of their uniforms at the end of their shifts on the premises as many public sector workers do.

Want to be treated like a woman?

male boss (on receipt of complaint of nudity) ‘oooo errrrr, bet you have a nice pair, eh? Want to show me so I can see why all the fuss is about? What do you mean no? I was only joking bitch. Where’s your sense of humour?’

no apology, no money, no future in the job.

see how they like them apples…

What an interesting way to reframe the bullying and abuse they suffered

I’ve read it.

it’s clear that the TW in question was extremely difficult to manage. A large number of allegations were brought, all but one was dismissed.

The plan was that the TW would change in a seperate cubicle within the women’s changing room. I have Views on that, but the rights and wrongs of that decision were not part of what the tribunal was to decide, so they did not consider it. I would welcome a case by one of the impacted women looking at that issue, but that will only happen if someone brings it.

When there was the allegation that the TW was naked from the waist down in the communal area, part of the management response was to ask the TW if the TW wore underwear all the time at work. The tribunal said (and I agree) that that questioning was wrong. I think they should have focused on the allegation itself.

The bullying, as described, was abhorrent. The trust accepted it happened so the tribunal took that as agreed.

It got deleted. Is there a way to see deleted threads?

I was very interested on the light someone brought to another contradiction of this ideology. Could not read it all, but something along the lines that they are saying their gender gives them the right to use the facilities that were provided to solve a disadvantage based on biological sex.

the name of the poster escapes me, but I thought that was a nice angle.

The note was offensive. Some of the language used in the alleged discussion - particularly the use of the pronoun 'it' - was offensive. That is undeniable and should not be accepted.

Assuming it did happen it does sound rude.

I do question though the implication (that seems to be now widely accepted) that women/girls who in the process of being abused and are rude/offensive to the perpetrator is somehow so much worse than what the perpetrator was doing.

I was faced with a man exposing himself when I was about 14. I said nothing and got out of there quickly but had I called him some very rude, offensive names I don't think it changes the dynamic of what was happening and who was actually committing an offence.

Would any form of polite objection to indecent exposure in a female space have been acceptable? I doubt it.

It's like Wi Spa again and the NHS are massively letting down their female staff.

no One should be bullied at work

but the idea that women who don’t want men however they identify in their single sex spaces are bullies rather than the men who continually force themselves into womens spaces is an interesting way of looking at it….I’d say a man constantly encroaching on Women’s spaces when they know they’re not a woman is pretty bloody bullying