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."

I think its a different one as otherwise 'moira' or M would appear? As a PP said, its a common surname and a quick google confirms there's a few legal folk with that surname

I think its a different one as otherwise 'moira' or M would appear?

Not necessarily. The other counsel's name is given as Ms C Widdett. Now Widdett is an uncommon name and the only barrister with that surname is Ms Ceri Louise Widdett, so only the first initial given.

No other Ms R White's come up in relation to employment law on a quick Google.

It's interesting because of RMW's role in the Taylor case around NB protections.

FWS has been so fundamental.

According to the SRA "Counsel - A term used to describe a barrister".

Barristers act as advocates. Surely if the Tribunal decision refers to "counsel" it must be a barrister, whereas if it refers to an "advocate" then the person may or may not be a barrister (they might be a solicitor advocate or potentially a lay-person acting as advocate)

Indeed, it is reminiscent of Dr U complaining that Sandie Peggy ignored him or didn’t make the correct eye contact or facial expression when he interrupted her talking to another member of staff.

Imagine being on constant alert looking out for grievances, micro-insults, people not responding to you in the exactly correct prescribed manner.

I have never read anything so self-centred and emotionally immature as the behaviour of the claimant in that judgement.

A nightmare to work with.

I don't see it like this at all - interesting! To me, the claimant's case is part of the gender omnicause - Stonewall used to have the mantra "Trans women are women, trans men are men, non-binary identities are valid", and RMW is acting in a case that tests the third part of that statement.

A judgement at Employment Tribunal level doesn't set a legal precedent, unfortunately, though other tribunals may find it persuasive.

And also, as the panel found:

We believe the claimant had not
considered that by doing so, it made Ms Dunn feel intimidated.

This is very true for the Darlington and SP cases too

If the Respondents were in fact represented by Robin Moira White, perhaps he is fed up with flaky non-binary people weakening the position of true trans people such as himself? Perhaps he wants to focus on entrenching the position of men who have gone through surgery?

We will soon find out for sure if Ms White is RMW because of the amount of references to "he" on here. IIRC last time that happened RMW got the thread deleted.

Like the dozens+ of casual interactions with colleagues most people have every day of the frigging week?

JFC indeed!

The claimant very much saw themselves as under the umbrella of Trans:

On 14 December 2023, with the support of their manager, the
claimant arranged for an email to be sent to those in the Primary Care
Psychological Service within the Trust advising that the claimant wished to be
known as Haech Lockwood, that they identified as Trans/gender fluid and did
not identify as male or female....

an outcome was agreement upon a positive way forward to support the
claimant and others who were transgender....

They say that by not ensuring that all staff were
properly trained in Trans Awareness, and in not having systems in place to
ensure the claimant’s correct pronouns were used, they were subjected to
unwanted conduct which violated their dignity or created the environment

But the judgement states that all respondents were 'neutral' as to the PC of RI and its relevance here

If it was RMW, it was a job, it pays for all that lemonade i like to think he's secretly drinking.

But you can't propose to under go gender reassignment to NB as its not a legally recognised gender nor is it a biological sex, therefore you cant transition to no sex/gender.
Claiming a NB identity and trying to claim that its covered by the PC of gender reassignment is directly analogous to claiming to be a unicorn and claiming that identity is covered by the PC of gender reassignment

I do hope this gets wider coverage in the press? It exemplifies the "McCarthyism" aspect of all this. A colleague insisting that co workers (in the NHS of all places - a place where biology and science should matter) are schooled in "correct speak" in order to deny reality and promote a fantasy ideology that's doing so much harm to society (children in particular).

But i think it does muddy the water and destabilise some of the TRA rhetoric.

Like the Trans people who demand They/She pronouns or who go NB on a journey to Trans.

It does start to try to pin down what you have to do to gain the PC of RI which have a sometimes been claimed to be doing nothing but saying 'I am Trans'.

This claimant stated she was Trans NB and this judgement says that does not confer the PC.

I think a lot of TRA will have a real issue with this.

I do think that if you are sensitive about what people call you and have a choice, it's best to choose a name that is easily spelt and pronounced.

Maybe dry run the name on a baby naming thread.

No idea if it was the same person, but it wouldn't surprise me if some trans activists felt quite negative about the concept of non-binary. Partly because, as someone has said upthread, there is a sense in which the idea of non-binary is at odds with the idea of 'trans'. But mostly because it dilutes the value of trans identities in the 'attention economy'. 'Trans' is a much starker thing if you hold on to the original, 'legacy' concept of it as being 'born into the wrong body', rather thn as one of several possible ways to be 'gender incongruent'.

(I did get a sense, during parts of the ERC tribunal, that Wadhwa felt rather irritated by the non-binary staff member (even though Wadhwa clearly also felt that they had to offer them support), since the non-binary woman diluted Wadhwa's own sense of Wadhwa's special status.)

There's also the fact that most NBs tend to be women, and transactivism basically doesn't want women to have any other role than that of constituting the territory to be colonised.

Well obviously when I come out as NB I will choose the name Balonz.

I think you are right that many people will have an issue with this, but their problem is that the more you scrutinise gender, the less it means.

Apparently Haech is a surname.

I'd like to know how much this tribunal and associated bullshit has cost.

There really needs to be far more stringent process in weeding out nonsense like this.

I cannot see how this person is capable of caring for people who are struggling with their mental health.

And who is paying?