Edinburgh employment tribunal says no to trans anonymity order

[IwantToRetire]

An employment tribunal in Edinburgh has rejected a plea by Fife Health Board and a trans-identifying doctor for an employment tribunal case to be heard in private, and for the doctor’s identity to be anonymised.

Employment Judge Tinnion emphasised that:

“potential public scrutiny of a witness’ evidence is an important part of the open justice principle, and it is right that witnesses should be aware of that when giving evidence as it provides an important incentive to give honest, truthful evidence.”

The employment tribunal claim is being brought by Sandie Peggie, a female A&E nurse at the Victoria Hospital in Kirkaldy, who was was suspended and then placed under a disciplinary
investigation for a year after she objected to sharing a “women’s” changing room with her male colleague, Dr Beth Upton.

Continue reading at https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/edinburgh-employment-tribunal-says-no-to-trans-anonymity-order/

Thank you

Well, that's welcome news, isn't it? Dr. Upton is already known online and it would, for that reason alone, be silly to keep him "anonymous." Not to mention all of the embarrassing details of the hospital's abusive processes, of course.

The Telegraph have an article on this which I caught on MSN news today. I really liked this quote (my bold)

However, following a case management hearing, Employment Judge Antoine Tinnion rejected calls to hold proceedings behind closed doors and to anonymise key aspects of the case, including Dr Upton’s identity, in any written judgment.
He ruled that the issues at hand were a matter of “legitimate public debate” and “substantial political, moral and legal argument”.

Judge Tinnion said claims Dr Upton could face violence while at work from gender-critical activists was “theoretical, not real” and that he had not been persuaded of the case for secrecy or anonymity orders.

Edit: Archived article here: NHS attempt to hold trans whistleblower tribunal in secret dismissed

Don't forget that to a TRA, saying "I disagree with you" is literal violence.

I thought this part of the case management order is interesting - only the sentence at l120 seems to be being quoted, but in context, it may be an attempt by the Tribunal to be scrupulously impartial. Agreeing that it's obvious Dr Upton is male might be too close to agreeing that sex is real, and lead to accusations of bias! Of course it's possible that what's going on here is that the judge is firmly TWAW, but we can hope. Pointing out that the reported misgenderings do indicate that some people find Dr Upton to be obviously male is a good point...

Incidentally I am not sure it's true, is it, that Dr Upton is already known online? The order says Dr Upton is a rather private person and that seems to be true based on a quick look. Or did you just mean that the name had already been posted online before the anonymity request was considered? If it had I had missed it.

119. The Claimant did not cite any more recent European or British case authority
5 which disputed those legal conclusions, nor queried their at least presumptive
application to Dr. Upton’s own personal circumstances. Instead, what the
Claimant argued was that Dr. Upton has no reasonable expectation of privacy in
respect of her gender status because it is obvious that Dr. Upton is a man based
on physical appearance and attributes (height, hands, hairline, Adam’s apple,
10 gait, and voice). The Claimant invited the Tribunal to look at Dr. Upton, present
throughout the PHCM, to make its own finding in this respect.
120. Addressing this argument head on, the Tribunal does not find that looking at
Dr. Upton it is obvious that Dr. Upton is a man. The flaw in the submission is an
15 implicit assumption that all men look male and have distinctive male physical
attributes, and all women look female and have distinctive female physical
attributes, hence if someone presents with some (or all) of these distinctive male
attributes then those individuals are certainly (or at least highly likely) to be male.
While there may a degree of truth in that contention, the Tribunal takes notice of
20 the fact that some women may look male (to a greater or lesser extent) based
on their physical appearance yet still be female (and identify as such), and some
men may look female (to a greater or lesser extent) based on their physical
appearance yet still be male (and identify as such). The only finding the Tribunal
is content to make, based on Dr. Upton’s own evidence, is that there must be
25 something about her appearance and presentation (the Tribunal makes no
finding as to what) which has led others on occasion who do not know her and
patients on occasion who interact with her to question whether she is female or
think she is male (hence the patient misgendering). There is a significant gap
between that and a finding that it is obvious Dr. Upton is male. The Tribunal
30 rejects the Claimant’s contention that Dr. Upton has no Article 8 right to respect
for her private life in respect of her gender status as a trans woman on this basis.

Can anyone point to any instances of violence by gender critical activists anywhere?
Unless he means the 'literal' violence of reality.

Exactly @kiterunning I work in a university and have several colleagues who have incurred the wrath of TRAs (for example for the awful crime of signing a letter saying sex is real). Those women have genuinely been terrified to be on campus because of rape threats and intimidation including having their email and location shared. The university did nothing in any of these cases.

There have been no examples of women picketing TRA events or sending threatening emails in my university yet the same old line about faults on both sides is trotted out.

Misgendering is literal genocide, you know.

It would be odd to deny that a transwoman in the public eye is at increased risk of threats and violence. There are a lot of inadequate people (male and female) whose main hobby appears to be making threats online, plus plenty of twats (more male, some female) who enjoy violence. Homophobia hasn't gone away, and the reaction to men living in a way that breaks gender stereotypes is genuinely frightening. None of that means Dr U isn't male, whatever they look like, and it doesn't mean women aren't under threat too. Why do we have to pretend transwomen aren't at ANY risk of attack? Would that require us to show some understanding and think a bit more? Is that too difficult?

Have you got ANY proof to back this up?

Sorry? Are you seriously implying that men who homophobic men (and women) think are effeminate don't get bullied or attacked? Do you live under a rock or something?

Has Dr Upton ever faced violence or been threatened with violence? This 'purported risk of violence to trans people' is trotted out all the time by TRAs, but in reality it's just blowing smoke. Unless of course you count 'violence' as believing in reality, eg that Upton is a man.

Thanks for the link, @IwantToRetire - excellent reporting.

You can be GC and still agree that Dr U being named and in the public eye increases the risk they will be a victim of violence. As a pp said, it's in fact more GC to talk about why - because they are a gender nonconforming male person. Just like the lesvian couple who were attacked on that bus a couple of years ago. They were physically vulnerable because they were female, but the group attack and the form it took was because they were a gay couple, which is gender nonconforming. To say that 'trans people are at increased risk of violence' may be a cliche but it's true. The frustrating and TRA aspect of it is when people aren't honest as to why that is.

I suppose the key part is Dr Upton may be at risk of violence but not from GC activists - which I assume given the quote in a PP was what they were claiming.

This is the point.

I wasn't implying that transwomen aren't at risk of violence.
Most of these attacks are within the sex industry though and women are far more at risk.
I was asking for evidence of attacks by GENDER CRITICAL ACTIVISTS.

You refute your own argument.

Gender-nonconforming people are at greater risk of assault. A person with a trans identity who does not present any differently to other members of their sex is not at any different risk of assault other members of their sex.

Just to be clear then, you’re suggesting that any adult who is gay or gender non-conforming must have their case heard in private? Presumably all women must also need their cases heard in private then too, because they’re also often exposed to threats of violence if they’re involved in a high-profile case?

There’s no evidence that GC women generally make threats of violence but even extrapolated to the wider population, there’s no evidence to suggest that trans individuals are at greater risk than other groups. In fact I’d argue that women face greater risks by going public with a high-profile case.

I agree we need to be scrupulously fair to avoid mimicking the TRA handbook. However I can’t see any reason to suggest why a trans individual should receive greater protection than a woman. There is a genuine public interest in this case and it’s important that the full arguments are heard properly.

Bet he wishes he had kept his mouth shut now. And stayed out of the changing room.

Having said this, I do have sympathy for him in being so publicly identified, but I guess that is the price (now) you have to pay for thinking that you can ride roughshod over women's rights and dignity.

Does anyone know if we can watch a live stream?

chilling19 · Today 18:28

Having said this, I do have sympathy for him in being so publicly identified, but I guess that is the price (now) you have to pay for thinking that you can ride roughshod over women's rights and dignity.

I have no sympathy for him, resulting from what you said next. He's the author of his own misfortune, it was entirely avoidable.

Longer thread on this case.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/5186317-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse

Well he doesn't care about women's desire for privacy, clearly, and is perfectly happy to invade their privacy without giving them any chance to argue about it, which at least he's had the opportunity to do. And changing rooms are somewhere you expect to be private, court rooms not so much. So you know, you reap what you sow.

The breathtaking arrogance and male entitlement is something to behold.

Man invades women's privacy without their consent in a space labelled single sex and expected to be private. Thinks mixed sex open public space (a courtroom) should give him extra special privacy because what? Only a man could have such entitlement.

He's obviously not scared of GC women (which is the vast majority of women, even if they won't say it out loud) when he's forcing them to undress without their consent in a changing room with him so his supposed concern seems complete bollocks.

Do violent homophobes generally choose to hunt people down because they read about them online? I would imagine this kind of violence is usually opportunistic, in which case Upton is in not significantly in any more danger than previously.

There are loads of gay people (and trans people) posting online with their real names, faces, hometowns and sexuality all manifestly apparent; they don't seem that bothered about the possibility of being stalked down by aggressive gay-bashers.