Employment Tribunal finds NB does not meet PC of GR

[DrProfessorYaffle]

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/h-lockwood-v-cheshire-and-wirral-nhs-foundation-trust-and-others-2401211-slash-2024-and-2407178-slash-2024

"Although the claimant has taken steps to change attributes of their sex
from female, by changing their name to a name which can be identified as of
either sex, and has changed their preferred pronouns, those are not in our
view attributes which are for the purpose of moving from one sex to the other,
they are steps in the process of moving away from the female sex to a
different gender identity, ie that of non binary. The claimant is not proposing,
nor do they intend to take any steps to reassign their sex from that of female
to male.
105. We therefore find that the claimant does not have the protected
characteristic of gender reassignment."

It is almost like they are saying there are only two genders not eleventybillion!

Good another president set, NB is even more bogus than 'trans'. 😁

There are loads of really good points made in the judgment.

Non-binary can't meet the protected characteristic of gender reassignment as it doesn't exist in law in the UK.

The Gender Recognition Act, the basis for the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, only recognises male and female genders.

It has been established in the Ryan Castellucci case that the GRA does not allow for the legal recognition of non-binary gender.

And the notes on applying for a GRC on gov.uk specifically underline this: "You can only apply to be recognised as male or female. Non-binary genders are not legally recognised in the UK."
https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate

I think this is really interesting:

Incident H: 10 January 2024: Allocating service user to C despite Case Alert
saying user “would prefer to see a female therapist”.
65.On 10 January 2024, the claimant was sent a request by their administration
team from a patient for a review call. The claimant noted on the patient system
that there was an alert that the patient would prefer to see a female therapist.
The claimant checked the notes on the system to see if there was a record of
the conversation with the patient, but there was not. The claimant emailed
their line manager, Mr Woodward and the manager of the Administration
Team to bring it to their attention and raise a complaint.
66.The claimant was caused distress and felt “invalidated” by this exchange

This is similar to something that happened in the ERC case where the client wanted reassurance that their therapist would be female.

How far have we gone doesn't this rabbit hole when HCP want to deny their sex to patents for whom this is important?

I've never understood how 'trans' and 'non-binary' could come under the same rainbow-alphabet-umbrella. If there were any logic at all in gender ideology, it would surely be argued that to be trans, you have to be transitioning from one thing to another thing, so from one binary to another. The exact opposite of claiming to have no 'binary' at all.
Frankly, if it weren't part of the ridiculous TRA stable of nonsense, I'd fairly happily term myself 'non-binary', what with the fact that I'm not a Barbie doll, earn more than DH and do most of the diy in a terribly unfeminine way that would have trans identified males telling me how badly I do womanning.

It just underlines to me that some people who claim to be some flavour of trans are grievance factories. You'd have to be mad yourself to knowingly employ one of they/them. Asking for pronouns on forms or at interview is just self preservation. You need something to try to screen they/them out.

I do think itis a very grey area as the line about 'proposing to undergo' does not spell out what that means.

And this judgement is saying that because she didn't choose a sexed name or undertake any treatment, she doesnt meet the threshold for PC. But conversely this may mean that someone like Upton or Rose does, because they gave themselves a traditionally female name.

It's interesting that the claimant feels strongly that Trans Awareness training should be mandatory and that it would cover them.

This judgment confirms that it's percectly permissible to discriminate against NB individuals before any interview by chucking any application in the bin where the individual claims to be NB.

Reading this I have huge sympathy for the other staff involved, and for the line managers dragged into managing this situation.

It would be impossible to just get your work done.

The bit about putting paper all over glass because they felt 'unsafe'......

And then the sickness record and needing to wfh

If Upton had claimed to be NB he wouldn't have been allowed near the female changing room.

NB seems to be an identity chosen by girls who want to opt out of the difficulties of being a woman but don't buy into the trans narrative enough to want to damage their bodies.

She asked for a copy of her contract which was issued in her “deadname” and then complained about seeing her “deadname”. What a nightmare individual to work with

Good grief. That's a shocking case study of how one individual attempts to exercise an insane level of coercive control over others in the workplace to obey their niche demands.
And is this person a therapist in the NHS???

I've come across a fair few male enbies.

All of them are trying to appear cool and edgy and different and interesting and/or trying to keep up with the "queer" Joneses.

... grievance factories ...

A new term to me, covers a lot of ground in just two words

That bit about the glass is 😮

Also: the claimant could not show what they meant by "unsafe".

My jaw is on the floor at this person levelling accusations at people who were run off their feet doing their jobs

Interesting - I wonder if they will appeal?

Incident H 10 January 2024: Allocating service user to C despite Case Alert saying user “would prefer to see a female therapist”. 136. The respondent’s administration team was aware of claimant’s non binary status. The claimant jumped to the conclusion that the patient was incorrectly allocated to them, without making any enquiry to check if that was correct. That is why they felt offended. The claimant could have asked the administration team, particularly if they didn’t see anything on the notes which assisted. Rather they immediately raised the matter with their line manager and the administration manager, and the patient was reallocated. In fact, there was a perfectly reasonable explanation. The patient had been asked if they had any preference for the gender of the clinician for the review call. They didn’t. We find that in all the circumstances, including that a full apology has been given it was not reasonable for it to have had the effect upon the claimant which they suggest, and which is required by section 26 Equality Act 2010.

Bloody hell...they sound, very, very insufferable.

Issues of reasonability and reciprocity.

The judge has been as kind as possible.

I'd like to be able to watch tribunals like this live as well, rather than just the gender critical claimants, because I think it would be really interesting to see the judge / ET panel peak in real time.

Haech - is this pronounced 'aich' as in H from steps?

There are so many sections of this where the complainant demonstrates toddler levels of intransigence while other NHS staff listen, explain and repeatedly apologise. Yet the apologies are rejected with Haech demanding apologies from the whole team.

Definitely.

The bit about coercing unfamiliar pronouns and ways of speaking, and the panel making mistakes is good.

It shows that the panel could empathise with the claimant's colleagues and the situation they found themselves in

Isn't it revealing about how a self absorbed individual can wreak such havoc in a workplace?