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."

This was my concern.

The degree of anxiety this woman is suffering, as well as distorted perceptions, paranoia, etc, suggest they are in need of a lot of support themselves.

But even with the cab rank rule, they would still have to believe that the points of law they were arguing were correct, or at least not completely wrong.

As sympathetically towards the complainant as possible, I would think it's very likely that there would be diagnoses involved in work capacity considerations. The statistical likelihood is very high.

If you ever hear a barrister say "I am instructed to say...", it means that they don't believe that the points of law they are arguing are correct.

I think it's bread-and-butter for a barrister to argue a point of law they think has a slim or even no chance of being accepted by the judge.

What's interesting here is the suggestion a barrister has to argue in favour of a point of law with which for personal reasons they strongly want to fail.

I'm fairly sure RMW could argue either side of "NB is a protected characteristic" with a straight face, even if one side doesn't have much chance of being accepted.

Have now RTFT and I can now see that the bit I picked out had already been discussed quite a bit.

I'll echo PPs' comments that it seems mad that a solicitor wouldn't advise the claimant that there is no case to answer here. It's a total waste of public money defending this kind of nonsense. I guess those in the legal sector that made money (on both sides) might have enjoyed doing so though.

Just read this determination. Imagine working with this person. What a nightmare.

Well, it looks as if on this occasion respondents remained neutral, the claimant based claims on both possibilities, and everyone left it to ET to decide. So we still don't know what RMW 'thinks'.

May I ask, why are you a professor now?

I wonder if this person will appeal. The non-binaries must be raging. 😡

Can't believe they still work in the same place with the same people.

Therse people have been really put through it.

May I ask, why are you a professor now?

You may. I am still a professor because I forgot to change my username back before making a first post on this new thread. Perhaps that's best couched as saying I was a visiting professor on another thread and I'm still visiting?

I've heard there's no time limit....or that no one checks....

Hmm. I must have missed a professor-related joke originating on another thread. I see you are not the only one......

Was this case supported by any of the trans organisations?

It seems quite astonishingly badly thought out for an individual to change their name to something quite unusual and then take a spurious case to tribunal, knowing there was always a high risk that an anonymity request might be refused and that the undead name could forever tarnish their reputation with prospective employers?

This woman seems as daft as the NHS Fife employee/snitch who naively believed she could put the Benidorm Chat in the hands of her employer, with no possible comeback for her own shortcomings?

Hahahaha sorry I missed the post above and came is as yet another professor 😂

I don't understaaaaaand!
Why did them put paper up on the window?!? Is it a spell? Will a misgender bounce off the paper and rebound back on the literal violencer? And if so why don't all trans and NB folx just carry round a note book to deflect the evil of an accidental "she / her / he / him / sir / madam"? Them could save theyselves a whole lot unsafeness and crack on with doing some actual work.

@theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw
On the last page of this thread https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5446619-sara-morrison-v-bff-thread-5
you'll find a good explanation of the reason behind the sudden award of many professorships (other academic awards and distinctions also available)
😉

Just reading the judgment and it's quite breathtaking what they have demanded throughout.

I don't understand the prof thing either but I haven't had the time to grapple with the SM/BFF threads! I may do this weekend - unless some kind soul could give me a quick recap?!

"Non-binary"
Is yet another sneaky way of damaging what the word 'woman' means:
'Woman' now means 'only feminine'.
You can't be a masculine woman anymore.
You have to conform to feminine stereotypes.

I wonder (in the Haech case) how many times the Judge ctrl+F'd "she" and "her" after writing the judgment, to make 100% the Judge hadn't misgendered the claimant...

I will lay good odds that the Claimant was supported and funded by their trade union
probably one of the usual offenders - Unison, Unite and their ilk

I'm pronouncing it Hake. Like the fish.

These people are utterly insufferable. The papering of the window because she felt “unsafe” was absolutely ridiculous and juvenile.

It's really painful to read. I keep having to take breaks becuase it is making me squirm too much imagining the poor colleagues suffering this, and through covid chaos times as well.

I should probably put paper over most of my laptop screen so I can only see a few words at a time.