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

Exactly. The judge should have shut down that question, not argued about whether the trans woman looks like a woman!!

It is interesting, isn’t it? I wonder if many in the Tribinal were male as women can tell much more easily. On a few films/tv programmes, sometimes I will say of a character who is supposed to be a woman, ‘that is a man’. My husband will go ‘do you think?’ I google, and confirm my instincts.

"Surely this could have all been resolved easily, cheaply and in the first instance by building a third changing room?
I wonder if they had built a trans changing room would they still have faced legal action"

Trans advocacy groups argue against third spaces and if the Trust identify as 'trans allies' they would not deem this to be sufficiently supportive of trans people.

The trans doctor knew that their presence in the single sex provision was disturbing the nurse. If a third space was acceptable to him, I expect he would have volunteered to change in the cupboard offered to the nurse.

I expect he was/ is seeking affirmation for his identity and/or power.

So you think she should have acquiesced to the suggestion that she, a female, should change in a cupboard so that he, a male, could continue to use the female facilities? You’re massively missing the point that the doctor, who Im certain knows the differences between the sexes, wants validation for his fetish by other women publicly confirming that he's really one of them.

I think Kendodd meant a third space for men who want others to pretend they are women which clearly doesn’t work when they want others to pretend they are women.

I hope it is not like the other case where another hospital gave the male carte Blanche access to undress and change in a place ostensibly for women. Obviously by doing that, the hospital did not care if the women objected to a male in their midst who would see them undressing and changing. Whilst undressing amongst the women, that chappie allegedly was displaying his visibly bulging male appendages (covered by his undies I hope).

Of course women are wrong when they see a bloke as a bloke. Bit of lippy, and a silk scarf, and bobs your auntie.

It sounds very much like the other case.

I disagree. It does matter that they look like men and to say ‘but what happens if they ‘pass’?’ is coming at this from the wrong end that caused the problems in the first place. The GRA arose from a case where a man said it breached his privacy to be referred to as a man. If you see pictures of him he is clearly a man, so to call him that does not breach his privacy. It does not matter if they ‘pass’ because in nearly all circumstances they don’t (especially undressed). There are no privacy issues at play for the men in question so that argument should be dismissed.

I wonder whether the good lady doctor will be obliged to appear at the tribunal?

I mean both really.
If a third space was offered, logically the transwomen should have it due to being a small number needing a smaller space. Someone upthread said third spaces aren't acceptable to trans advocate groups. Great. In that case if only the hospital (or other employer) had provided a third space for transwoman. I would really love to see one of them have the balls (pun intended) to sue their employer demanding access to the female changing rooms and showers despite having their own space not with the males.
On this case though, I wonder how the nurse will stand (I assume it's just her not a group of other female nurses). She was not forced to share this changing room or have no changing room. She was offered another private, female only space. I think this could be a weakness. What the nurse is arguing for is the transwoman out of the female changing room (good for her) but any argument she makes about her privacy, comfort and dignity is undermined by the fact she was offered a female only alternative.

I wonder whether the good lady doctor will be obliged to appear at the tribunal?

Dr Upton is cited as a respondent, not sure whether that means more likely to?

“I would really love to see one of them have the balls (pun intended) to sue their employer demanding access to the female changing rooms and showers despite having their own space not with the males.”

Like the McBride situation in Congress in Washington. Where not only do members of congress have their own private ensuite, plus gender neutral toilets in the main building but want free access to female only toilets.

And males thinking it was ever a great PR exercise to protest by storming the female toilets and taking video in there.

I would really love to see one of them have the balls (pun intended) to sue their employer demanding access to the female changing rooms and showers despite having their own space not with the males.

That is not how they operate. They don’t go to court, they threaten removal of Stonewall (or equivalent) status, they threaten and dox employees who don’t agree. They instigate petitions condemning the decision maker and try to get them sacked. They write to suppliers warning them if they don’t withdraw their services the same will happen to them…

In that case if only the hospital (or other employer) had provided a third space for transwoman. I would really love to see one of them have the balls (pun intended) to sue their employer demanding access to the female changing rooms and showers despite having their own space not with the males.

I agree. Service providers need to start doing this. It's perfectly reasonable to make the adjustment of requiring the one male to use a third space where women have an expectation of privacy and dignity.

Her dignity had already been compromised (to put it as mildly as possible) so I hope that point will be made with great clarity by Naomi Cunningham, who I have little doubt will also have a lot to say about the disciplinary process. It sounds as if the disciplinary process was handled badly, and I strongly suspect the Trust's policies were not followed correctly.

That is not how they operate. They don’t go to court, they threaten removal of Stonewall (or equivalent) status, they threaten and dox employees who don’t agree. They instigate petitions condemning the decision maker and try to get them sacked. They write to suppliers warning them if they don’t withdraw their services the same will happen to them…

Yes, they do, but they're bullies, and that what bullies do. People (and I mean in authority) need to stand up to them where possible or we are never going to get anywhere.

@BananaAppleOrange - I think we are saying the same thing here? That it doesn't matter if a trans woman 'passes'; one law has to be made that will apply to all, whether or not they 'pass'.

It could just end up being cat and mouse though. Many (most) of the women could end up in another changing area to escape the designated ‘women’s’ one where they had to undress in front of men.

Then the men would call on the hospital to give them access into those spaces, and on and on it would go. With the hospital forcing women to undress in front of men at each step. And forcing women to be subjected to the exposure of men undressing in front of them in said space.

In real life they entail the crimes of voyeurism and exposure.

Her dignity had already been compromised (to put it as mildly as possible) so I hope that point will be made with great clarity by Naomi Cunningham, who I have little doubt will also have a lot to say about the disciplinary process. It sounds as if the disciplinary process was handled badly, and I strongly suspect the Trust's policies were not followed correctly.

Yes, exactly.

As discussed earlier in the thread, Naomi's opposite number in this case is Jane Russell, who was involved for the respondents in both Maya Forstater's and Allison Bailey's case.

A person (A) harasses another (B) if—
(a)A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and
(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect of—
(i)violating B's dignity, or
(ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

Expecting a female to get changed with a male violates her dignity and creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment for her. The harassment does not require the man to be ‘in her face’ nor is it just or mostly from the man in question - the harassment is also, and more significantly, from her employer for placing her in that situation,

There's something really offensive about the idea that if a man is more successful at deceiving people into thinking he's a woman, then he's somehow deserving of the right to be considered a woman than if he's unsuccessful. Deceit is still deceit.

Yes but the law has been based on assuming they do and then saying ‘but it doesn’t matter, we can have a law that depends on if they pass’. It should have been based on assuming they don’t. That it is clear to everyone that they are men.

Well, NHS own guidelines clearly state that consent to treatment, including examination, must always be Voluntary and Informed. I’m not sure why that wouldn’t apply with regard to whom, exactly, it is doing the examining.

I agree.