NHS Fife tries to silence nurse

[Hoardasurass]

So as has been mentioned on threads about the Darlington nurses a nurse is sueing NHS Fife over its trans staff policy.
The poor nurse was forced to get changed infront of a man in the female changing facilities, when she complained about it she was 1st told to change in a cupboard if she didn't like it, then they tried to bully her into swapping shifts so she didn't work with the man in question (she wouldn't), then they wanted her to move hospital (again she refused) so then they suspended her without pay for months until her solicitor got involved and now they are trying to gag her by insisting that the court case (starts in February) must be held in secret (I wonder why) and will be in crt next month asking to restrict reporting on the case.

This case is really important in Scotland because the trans staff policy that's going on trial in this case is the Scottish government's own policy used in all public sector organisations in Scotland and works on self id. So when this case is won it will finally kill the Scottish government's self id policy in all public bodies

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/nhs-fife-fights-secret-hearings-33877891?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

I'm very much hoping that someone will try and correct the judge for misgendering. They're so entitled about this sort of thing, their narcissism will mean they don't see the shooting oneself in the foot aspect. Need a supply of popcorn.

That would be hilarious!

It'd be almost as hilarious as when - in multiple cases so far - the gender ideologues who tried to get women fired for misgendering and believing in the reality of sex (and in some cases its importance for safeguarding) couldn't stop using correct sex pronouns about trans identifying people when giving evidence!

It really just showed them up for the bullies they are given they couldn't even do the thing they were trying to impose on others in court, when presumably they'd been practising beforehand (if they had any sense).

The judge has ruled that Dr Upton can be called a man 👨
https://t.co/zxjvKU9Tn9

Awesome! That is fantastic! I'll read the link now..

But Judge Sandy Kemp, who presided over the fiery hearing on Tuesday, has ruled in favour of Ms Peggie.
He acknowledges this may be “painful and distressing” for Dr Upton, but does not accept that being described as a man in the employment tribunal setting amounts to harassment.
Better than I was hoping for although Judge Kemp rows back a bit later.
I can't help feeling this is a very important ruling because other women will be able to cite it - Darlington nurses, for one - and it should influence other judges.

Well, I feel that this is promising news. The judge now seems not to be a trans ideologue and open to differing philosophies.

Is there no consideration that being gaslit about the sex of someone who's sexually harassed you might be 'painful and distressing' for women. Or it might be 'painful and distressing' not be be able to access the single sex services you need. Or that it might be 'painful and distressing' for your organisation's policies (yes looking at you NHS) to prioritise the wants of a tiny minority of one sex class over the needs of the other, all whilst coercively controlling language and behaviour. Or that it might be 'painful and distressing' to need single sex services, see a space labelled 'women' and then enter to find a man with his cock out (possibly wearing a skirt)? So being lied to by your organisation as well as being subject to the crime of indecent exposure.

All of this is fucking 'painful and distressing' and a lot more so than not everyone in the world agreeing to participate in your delusion and using sex deception third person pronouns about you.

Why is the 'pain and distress' of the many, many women affected never considered?

And there is no way to use accurate sex pronouns 'gratuitously' or 'offensively' when the person in question is male. It's just normal English usage and a statement of observable fact.

So lovely the judge has decided women are 'allowed' to use normal English but careful now just in case you enrage a nasty man by using normal English too often. Talk about coercive control!

Hear hear. The judge did at least say this:
“What appears obvious to me from the documentation I have seen is that the matters referred to in the pleadings have caused distress and upset at the least to both the claimant and the second respondent.
“All concerned with the case should I consider seek to minimise further distress and upset as far as is possible in the complex circumstances of a contentious case such as this.” (my bold)

So that is at least a nod towards Sandy Peggie's feelings, even though he appears to give more weight to the "distress" of Dr Upton at merely being accurately described.

But still much more concerned about male hurty feelz when they don't get to force unconsenting women to do their bidding than reality, truth or fairness (or normal English language use), apparently.

Yes it's hardly equal is it. Dr Upton wants to force unconsenting women to deny their own reality and describe him in the way he prefers with sex deception pronouns.

Ms Peggie was forced into an enclosed space with this same man who doesn't give a fuck about women's consent whilst he was undressing. Presumably the space was labelled 'women's' so her employer lied to her about the safeguarding and safety of the changing rooms. So she's been subject to potentially indecent exposure, gaslighting, failure of safeguarding, sexual harassment, disregarding of her dignity, consent, disregard for the reality of the comparative safety of mixed sex changing rooms vs single sex and the additional risk this exposes women to, lying about the nature of spaces where she would be disrobed (so essentially being tricked into getting undressed in a place men could enter).

It's hardly the same level of harm and distress is it? Fucks sake.

No doubt the judge is patting himself (?) on the back about how fair this is. It's just not.

Accurate sex pronouns are NORMAL USAGE. Wrong sex / sex deception pronouns are an attempt at coercive control of another. They are not equal.

Dr Upton’s legal team claim this is disrespectful and warn the medic is deeply hurt at being misgendered.

Ffs. Hopefully we are seeing the end of this gaslighting, woman hating, reality denying shit.

themostspecialelfintheworkshop · Today 20:14

But still much more concerned about male hurty feelz when they don't get to force unconsenting women to do their bidding than reality, truth or fairness (or normal English language use), apparently.

I hope I wasn't being too optimistic. I wa jus pleased that he has agreed that Upton cabe referred to by his true pronouns meant that the judge is open minded.

I think the judge's comments are far from ideal, but I think they can reasonably be interpreted as meaning that SP and her legal team are free to use 'normal English' in court, and to speak naturally, but without, perhaps, saying "he" half a dozen times in one sentence, in an attempt to sway the court.

I'm bending over backwards a bit here, but trying to stay positive! 😀

I'm just so fed up of the expectation that we're going to be ecstatic about crumbs from highly sexist courts. I think it's important to call out the sexism.

Agree. The ruling itself exhibits bias as the judge tries to ‘balance’ the truth with a man’s fantasy then saying ‘ok you can mention the truth a bit but not too much’.

If I never hear the word "misgendered" again, it will be too soon.

It shouldn't really matter saying "he" on repeat when referring to the man, however I am still happy that the judge didn't insist on "preferred pronouns" and also didn't allow the doctor to remain legally anonymous.

He's obviously recognisably male in real life because otherwise this case wouldn't be happening. And given that the nurse's team just want to use normal language the ban on harassment is of no consequence - they don't need to harass him to make their points.

There will be plenty of trans activists absolutely furious about both decisions.

Agree. It is an article or faith. It is like a Muslim man in court complaining the non-Muslim female complainant is not wearing a hijab and he finds that distressing.

And to continue the metaphor, the judge saying ‘ok, you don’t need to wear a hijab but you must dress modestly’

Is there of photo of Dr Upton available? The one I have seen looks like a bearded man.

It's this exactly. Allowing men to dictate what women do, even beyond the bounds of what is normal and legal.

It's frankly appalling. It's really coercive control - it destabilises the woman. How many normal usage pronouns will be going too far? It creates an environment when only the woman has to walk on eggshells and can't possibly know what is ok and what isn't and where another sets the ever shifting, entirely subjective boundary as in domestic coercive control. The boundary can shift according to whim and in order purely to punish the woman.

He's a man, as Posie so famously shouted at Lia Thomas. That's just an easily observable fact. We should be able to say this a million times in a row if we want to. It's legal, it's reality.

How are we in a position where a woman being sexually harassed by a man in the mislabelled 'woman's' getting undressed is something that needs to go to court to think about but a woman using normal, standard English might be 'going too far'.

Oh no. Looks like she might end up having to appeal if the Judge’s previous form is to be considered: