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.

Say “no” to males in women’s spaces.

That's a high bar and feeling uncomfortable about the existence of trans people does not meet it.

Feeling uncomfortable about seeing make genitals on display in a women's changing room certainly does meet it.

Feeling uncomfortable about being in a vulnerable state of undress, alone in a women's changing room, when a male walks in and stays in the room with you, certainly does meet it.

Indeed.

As we know, people have NEVER been known to "embellish" the truth (cough cough) to further their own agenda.

Look how HATED and MARGINALISED I am etc etc.

See Jussie Smollet.

Actually a sex offender (with previous convictions) was charged in the wi spa case.

If you read the judgement @Hearach15, you'll see that the claimant was given permission to change in a cubicle. The alleged conversation that they overheard was at a time when other women were in the changing room and they didn't hear it. The court accepts these women's version of events.

The claimant was also asked to write an account of what happened when they received the second note and to write down what the note contained. They decided this was evidence that management thought they had written the note themselves. This complaint was not upheld.

The Trust chose not to contest the claimant's version of events. Given that the "Tribunal found that the Claimant had a tendency to misremember the detail of events, and in many respects the detail of her evidence or the questions she asked in cross-examination was not fully consistent with the contemporaneous documents", I think we can legitimately question the veracity of most of their accusations.

Women who are trans aren't men 😀

Women who are trans aren't men

Accidentally correct, women are never men. But transwomen are males.

Agree totally.
"Women who are trans" (ie women who identify as being trans ie "trans men" are not men. They are women. Adult human females.

If you are talking about "trans women" - then they are male. Adult human males.

As you know.

This

I suppose there is a possibility that exposed male genitals were accidentally in view in the women's changing room.

This isn’t my first rodeo with your nonsense which is why I put “males” and made no mention of men.

The “true self” of a trans identified man is that they are male. It is not possible to change sex. They were male the day they were born and will be male the day they die and every day in between.

they may be unhappy to be male or suffer from a mental illness but they are still male. And while no one should be bullied, equally women have the right to privacy in changing rooms and not to be flashed by males.

Maybe you should move to one of these Republican states that have passed a a bathroom bill. Sure, you'll have no access to abortion but at least youll be safe from all these awful trans people who checks notes get changed in changing rooms.

Dontwanttoberudeorwastetime
Say “no” to males in women’s spaces.
Women who are trans aren't men

Dontwanttoberudeorwastetime said nothing about 'men'.

Say "No" to males in women's spaces. Males, however they identify.__

I got a line with “checks notes” or are we just playing for a full house?

They are men. They are biologically men. Unless you mean trans identified women?

if they have Xy chromosomes they’re men. That can’t be changed.

Oh dear, Hearach15, are you descend into petty nastiness now? Whodathunkit?

I think this judgment is being somewhat misrepresented in this thread (and elsewhere).

There was no TW wandering around half naked in the work changing room.

The series of events was:

1. TW is upset about something and struggling with the hot weather. Asked a colleague for support in the changing room, and made a throwaway comment that they were so hot they had taken off their underwear.
2. Colleague went to fetch manager, reported TW was unwell, and repeated the underwear comment as part of a recanting of the conversation with the TW.
3. At a later date, the second manager took TW to one side, and questioned them in great detail about if they had taken off their underwear.

The judge has found that that excessive questioning of the TW about their underwear was discrimination. The judge set out 5 or 6 reasons for this, and one of them was a comment that a female in the female changing rooms would not have been treated in this way.

Again, on the information given in the judgment, at no point was this TW wandering around naked in female spaces.

I also think that disagreement about the appropriate comparator (ie, saying that the comparator should have been a male in the female changing rooms) is ultimately irrelevant here. The judge had multiple other reasons for making a finding of discrimination. Another path for the judge to reach that conclusion would have been saying that a non-trans person (of any sex) would not have been grilled to the same extent about whether they had removed their underwear. I think the judge has just made one slightly careless statement in their 61 page judgment.

Can I not have privacy, abortion rights and the right not to be flashed in a changing room? I know I’m a woman and it might seem awfully much but it just seems like some basic rights. Why don’t you check your notes on that one.

What about the trans women who HAVE committed sexual crimes and assaults?

Are you saying they don't exist?

Surely to negate the chances of it happening, ANY male should not be allowed in an intimate female space!

Or is the odd one or two victims just collateral damage in order to validate the feelings of the "safe" ones?

Well, we don't KNOW who the safe ones are, do we?
If it protects even one woman or girl from harm then I couldn't give a crap about the validation of someone who "just wants to pee/change in peace".

I’m having dinner but I will contradict the previous comment point by point afterwards if no one else has done it (and the rage hasn’t worn off.)

Not actually the previous comment, the comment by lookleft that was remarkably confused about the judgement.

This has to be a joke

Pardon me?

Eh? Of course they do. That's what all the exceptions the equality act are about. Vetoing males in women's spaces. They absolutely have the right. The legal right.

If the NHS has just said no males, irrespective of gender identity, none of this would've happened.

I hope they've learnt something.

I guarantee that every other NHS trust has.