Trans woman wins sex harassment payout after being “harassed for being female”.

[IwantToRetire]

I found the article really badly written in the sense that it didn't just go through the judgement step by step.

The collections worker said the ruling is “a win for the transgender community” because it “proves that trans people can still win sex harassment claims in their real gender”.

Full article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/13/royal-mail-employment-tribunal-trans-woman/

Also at https://archive.is/jvPEt

Agree with all the above but I guess this is maybe where employers may feel they need good legal guidance. A man can win a tribunal for being harassed as a woman but that doesn’t mean the employer has to treat him as a woman in all circumstances (eg if it overrides women’s rights). I have to say, I can see why there is confusion about this – and how that confusion has been exploited.

This is a good outcome for all.

From my perspective I’m delighted that ‘but I didn’t know she was female so it can’t be sexist’ doesn’t stand up.

Of course transwomen who pass are just as likely as a female to be the victim of sexist abuse that targets females. Transwomen who don’t pass wont be, but are likely to encounter abuse for being trans - because within our misogynistic culture, a man who ‘lowers himself’ to try and be classified as female is deemed worthy of ridicule and contempt. Transmen are also deemed worthy of contempt as they have ideas above their station, but are deemed less ridiculous as it’s only natural to aspire to be a man.

It sounds awful what happened to him. No one should face that in the workplace. I suspect he was actually abused for being trans rather than being perceived to be female, but either way, it should not have happened. If Royal Mail had wanted to vigorously defend this tho, all they would have to do is demonstrate that the perpetrators knew that he was male and the case would have fallen apart. Dangerous legal tactics

Sounds like the lawyers brought both bases tayto - there are also some points won on gender reassignment. Makes sense to argue it both ways then they can neither defend with "but we didn't know he was trans" OR "but we didn't think he was a woman"

Also underlines a GRC is not needed to take such a case (as was suggested in Goodwin I believe). Its well established that perception of a PC is as valid as actually possessing, and was rightly emphasised in the SC ruling.

Would be interesting how a similar case applies to a transman who tbf are more likely to pass to complete strangers at work. I've seen actual men belittled in a similar way in the workplace, usually not fitting in some way. It couldn't even unconsciously be based on biological female sex?

I’m curious about this: Cole said one colleague would “mimic” her voice in a falsetto tone. It suggests to me that he was being bullied for putting on a ‘feminine’ voice. In which case he would be being harassed for being trans, not for being perceived as female.

I wonder how many of his colleagues actually perceived him as female? I wonder whether they were asked directly? I wonder whether, if asked, did they think that saying they perceived him as female would cause them less backlash than being honest about recognising him as male.

It’s wrong to bully anyone for being different. But I find it extremely difficult to believe that Cole was bullied because people thought he was female. Far more likely that he was bullied for his transness.

Did you read the article.

The ruling accepted both discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment and on sex.

Following a hearing in Bury St Edmonds, Employment Judge King ruled the claims for direct discrimination and harassment on grounds of gender reassignment were “successful in part”.

She also ruled that Cole’s claims of “direct discrimination on the grounds of sex” and “for harassment related to sex” succeeded on one allegation of each.

Yes, I did. And it was as clear as mud.

But it doesn’t say which sex.

Reading the Supreme Court judgement would have been advisable in case it was relevant.

It isn’t clear the harassment and discrimination related to sex was because they thought Sophie was a woman. It could have been because they knew Sophie was a man. In fact the odds of several colleagues grabbing at a woman in sight of others are extremely low. Sexual harassment of women at work is generally subtler. I would imagine the men thought what they were doing wasn’t sexual abuse, but ‘just’ bullying. (Teasing, banter).

I agree with @thirdfiddle and the others here, and thanks to @eatfigs for pasting in the relevant paragraphs of the SC judgment. It's nice to see that one way or another people are legally protected against being bullied for behaviour or appearence that doesn't conform to the usual stereotypes about their sex.

And that "trans" people are well protected by the Equality Act 2010 both before and after the SC judgment.

I think Cole has got the bit about being "listed as a female victim" wrong, that's not how the Equality Act works, but then again Cole isn't a lawyer (and neither am I).

Good to see bullying being called out, but I suspect a bit of male privilege here. So many women suffer that kind of harassment but never get to court, let alone receive compensation. Women's complaints are so often dismissed or belittled that most give up before they get that far.

Yes, I said that in the OP, but luckily for you and me, other contributors to the thread point out the the view point of the person being discriminating is the deciding factor.

Some were bullying because they saw a female, some were bullying because they saw someone who is trans.

And the judgement was that the court thought this was true on some occassions.

But the decision doesn't mean that the court is saying the bullied person is actually a woman.