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.

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.

Depends on which bits. Adam’s apples are so bad they have to be covered over in photos. Flat chests for TW are so awful that hormones have to be taken. Facial hair on TW is so distressing that it’s worth putting little boys on hormone suppressants in the hope they don’t develop it

… but ladydicks? No, ladydicks are something to be proud of. There’s no question of removing them, and lesbians have to learn to accept their wondrousness.

Very disturbing, facial hair, male genitalia and disregarding women’s boundaries. I wonder why the women didn’t want them to be there but felt unable to speak up publicly. No witnesses to the alleged comments, unable to identify who sent the notes, but burst into tears and gets compensation

How long before MN delete’s us for bingo card references..

How can they all accept that the notes and the conversation took place, without any proof, other than the person themselves stating it?

Motorina. Thank you for reading it. Did they mention the comparator in the actual court papers? Because it's my understanding that the comparator should be a man, not a woman.

The note was wrong.

It should have simply said that women don’t flash their genitals in public. But given that women are being muzzled left right and centre, I think such a polite response would have also gone down badly.

And the women I know don’t shake and cry easily. So much for stunning and brave.

Here is the response I got from my local Chief Superintendent when I asked if it would be indecent exposure if a man who identifies as a woman exposed his penis in a women's changing room....

Finally TPenman discussed a scenario where someone who was male to female transgender entered female
public changing rooms and what if any offences would take place. Generally in law there needs to be an
action which is a constituent element of a crime together with a knowledge or intention of wrongdoing. By
way of example Exposure under s66 Sexual Offences Act 2003 requires the prosecution to prove that there
was an intention to cause harassment alarm or distress.

In the scenario provided by TPenman police (and CPS) would need to be satisfied of this intention. The
simple presence of this person in the changing room would not constitute an offence. Perhaps a contrast is
in changing rooms generally people expose themselves (in the act of getting changed) this doesn't mean
that everyone who uses public changing rooms automatically commits an offence. It is also of note that the
person (male to female transgender) also has rights, there are a number of articles under the European
Convention on Human Rights which would require careful consideration. What is clear is that societal
changes have not caught up and where some buildings have gender neutral facilities not all do.

Subjecting women to the view of your naked male genitals is abuse, and far more serious abuse than a note in a locker.

The notes and the way colleagues spoke about the claimant do sound discriminatory and have rightly been found to be. I am also unclear why the claimant's usual underwear habits were queried as that doesn't seem relevant.

However, we've been told for years that concern over letting males into women's changing rooms on the basis of their stated or assumed gender identity are unfounded. That we already have laws in place to prohibit criminal conduct, etc. But how can we report, investigate or prosecute alleged criminal conduct (indecent exposure) if any investigation is unable to ask basic questions about their behaviour and state of undress as to do so is discriminatory?

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

It is a protected characteristic and I think the trust could easily have protected those women.

The problem is that the let the transwoman into the women's changing/showers in the first place. Once you do that you are saying your facilities are not single sex.

This just goes to show that you can't operate single sex exemptions on a case by case basis because you can't ask intrusive questions of anyone, even if she keeps getting her cock out.

What a pity they can't identify the two people talking outside the door and the letter writer. Shame no cctv in the corridor to see who was about at the time? Real pity....

How is this not sex discrimination by creating a hostile working environment for female staff? Female staff are entitled to appropriate changing facilities where they are not exposed to male genitalia.

Male wins right to continue doing what ever the fuck he wants.
Females lose right to complain.

Same as it ever was.

Years and years ago, a poster on here said we are legalising indecent exposure. And that's exactly what it is. If a male, any male, can access a female only changing room (not mixed sex, so the women do not have a choice), and expose their genitals, how is that acceptable?

The women have absolutely no choice.

Mmm, I wonder if there was any proof of who wrote the notes? They sound like something out of a bad storyline to me.

is there a scale of how bad things are and how we should be affected by them? I’d be more affected by receiving a bigoted note from work colleagues then I would accidentally catching a glimpse of a willy.

Exposing genitals in a changing room is not therefore automatically an offence, because genitals may be expected to be exposed in a changing room. And people exposing them there are not found so for the purpose of offence.

But the assumption there is that the genitals in a changing room are all of the same sex. So the assumption is that the genitals are attached to a person who has the right to be in that room. And there is no law that says males may not enter females' changing rooms.

There is, however, law that says that deliberate expose of genitals to cause distress in those who may see them is an offence.

Most GC women understand that the sort of male who desires to enter women's spaces (with or without exposing any genitals) is precisely the sort of male who should be kept out.

So it all boils down again to whether women have the right to set boundaries for themselves.

Generally in law there needs to be an action which is a constituent element of a crime together with a knowledge or intention of wrongdoing. By way of example Exposure under s66 Sexual Offences Act 2003 requires the prosecution to prove that there was an intention to cause harassment alarm or distress.

This is interesting because this is the only law women have recourse under for this type of scenario and it works in the opposite way to Hate Crime law which is what a male person with an identity has recourse to.

In Hate Crime law it is the perception of the person who feels offended against that matters but when it comes to indecent exposure a women is expected to prove a man has a bad intentions and the fact she feels violated is not enough.

If it comes to it I will garden like a harpy for that appeal.

I’d be more affected by receiving a bigoted note from work colleagues then I would accidentally catching a glimpse of a willy.

Where cubicles are used, genitals are rarely exposed, even accidentally, because there is no need to expose them.

How is accessing a female only changing room where you're clearly not wanted, removing your trousers, and then removing your pants, and then saying you had to do it because you're, er, too hot, accidental?

Doesn't it make you sick? The NHS it's on it's knees at the moment too! 13 hour wait for ambulances and 9 hour waits in A and E and they can fund this shit!!

😡

Presumably it would have been open to this NHS trust to make use of the exceptions in the Equality Act act to ensure that women have a private space to get changed away from people with penises. If they had done so none of this would have happened. Hopefully they’ll learn their lesson but I can imagine instead they will attempt to “re-educate” the women involved with a stonewall inspired EDI course and a commitment to removing all boundaries around who is entitled to see them in a state of undress.

Subjecting women to the view of your naked male genitals is abuse, and far more serious abuse than a note in a locker.

Yep. Indecent exposure is against the law for good reason. A man should not be in communal womens changing areas because he is not a woman.

Isn't the fact that this person's own admission that women were aghast at them being there, to the point of having conversations, and writing several notes, enough to indicate that the person in question knew that their presence was making women uncomfortable?

Not just that, according to the person's own description of the conversation, the women were scared.

The person can't have it both ways. They talk about hearing a conversation where women were thinking the person was predatory, and still insisted on taking their trousers and pants off in the space in question.