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."

Nick Wallis has round up blogs to help

It really doesn't hold up.

And TRAs have long since said gatekeeping is bad. And I agree that it is unethical to require mutilating surgery to qualify for something.

But this mentions that her NB name stands for something, and this worries me because a lot of female NB take on more masculine/can be male names and do have mastectomies. So does this ruling encourage/incentivise more definite measures?

This is the point

• No case
• Illogical
• Not founded in law
• And literally hysterical- oh I requested my files & they sent me a contract I signed in my ‘deadname’ so I committed my own offense but blame them for not doctoring the contract
• But someone actually funded this nonsense despite no protected characteristic

Sandie & the Darlington nurses were chased by their unions - and they had cause and a protected characteristic

The ideology is rooted in power structures and access to money. F@ckers.

The definition of GR in the Act is only to try to spell out an unlawful ground of discrimination. It isn't supposed to be a generalized definition with any applicability outside of that specific Act.

I don't think I agree that it doesn't cover anyone. There are a bunch of people it very clearly does cover - and a bunch of people it very clearly doesn't. Then there are some arguable cases who should be covered and aren't, and perhaps shouldn't be covered and are.

Maybe one can understand "for the purpose of reassigning their sex" as meaning "for the individually satisfying but ultimately futile purpose of reassigning their sex". It doesn't have to be physically or legally possible - it can still be the protected person's purpose.

What has remained very irritating for me was that a patient seemingly requested a female therapist, and H was annoyed that she had been assigned to the patient. Because her image of herself was more important than patient comfort or consent.

I doubt the patient would have been interested in H’s self involved gender struggles, but wanted a biological woman.
In the end the patient wasn’t really bothered, if only the claimant had been more interested in patient recovery and less involved in her own image.

edited because it posted too soon!

Is this the start of employers being able to sack vexatious employees . And make the power play of TRAs a disciplinary act.

And the appointment was cancelled and assigned to someone else! I guess the patient probably dodged a bullet, but it's extraordinary that patient care was a lower priority than an entitled therapist's feelings.

I can't get over any of it. All those people bending over backwards to apologise and make amends, and being required to work towards an 'optional' rainbow pledge, when they shouldn't have had to, and in circumstances where noone had done anything actually deliberately wrong.

People who solicit and seem to 'collect' apologies generally get on my wick. But that damned Heech's demands for better and different apologies over and over again is completely batshit.

The mandatory training at my employer (NHS Trust) includes some very ideology-heavy equality and human rights modules. One lists not making eye contact as a micro aggression. An autistic doctor raised that this was potentially discriminatory towards autistic staff a year ago, but it still hasn't been changed. This individual, however got non stop apologies and an endless power trip for her made up identity.

She did sound very unwell. I do wonder the extent to which she was immersed in Reddit and being egged on.

It is worth reading the judgment all the way through as it comprehensively throws out her harassment claims. I think it is sad that the final paragraph was necessary.

To be perfectly honest, if I'd requested a female HCP and got given this person I'd have been worried they would have instigated a struggle session as soon as I failed to greet they in the properly effusive manner, and I think I'd have felt that they'd deliberately coerced and controlled me. I imagine they'd be rating my required apologies as 'disappointing' on the Grovelling Scale.

So, yes, if someone wants a female HCP a non binary person is probably not appropriate.

Interesting.

I still think there is so much grey in this.

And I think the interplay with the much wider definitions used by Stonewall and the Trans policies we've seen in these tribunals.

They would argue saying you're Trans (as Haech did in a formal letter) would afford you the rights and protections in these policies and for some that would include time off for operations and demanding changed ID badges and changed email addresses etc.

They have been led up the garden path as to what legal protections they have for these unrealistic expectations they've been encouraged to have!

You do wonder whether there's a realisation that all the eggshell walking and apologising and performative obsequeousness is merely a veneer coming from fearfulness, and in no way reflects genuine feelings. And whether the aim is the control, fear and forced submission involved, or whether they really do believe they can force people to do and feel as they wish, and the performance creates genuine reality. Or whether the constant drama is what meets the needs.

Since becoming an employment tribunal aficionado , I must say I've learnt a lot about how well thought out and lengthy thd decisions are. I'd previously assumed that there would be a brief 'guilty/not guilty' verdict with a cursory explanation at most. These judges certainly earn their crust.

It's power.

I thought this particular claimant sounded so divorced from reality that I am not sure she was noticing any of those things. The judgment comments at one point about her lack of insight into how intimidating her own behaviour was to others.

She just sounds like someone completely wrapped up in their cult beliefs and own distress. I am not sure that any of the external stuff is meeting needs, she just sounded very very internally focused on the "rules" of being NB.

Yes I remember when that happened.

I've had arguments with TRAs on here where I've pointed that particular case out, and that contrary to the TRA beliefs we are far from being phobic or bigoted, or wanting to erase or genocide trans identified people. I as a mean old TERF seem to care more about the health and wellbeing of trans identified patients in a medical setting, than the so called allies who come here to tell us all how mean we are for not putting validation over everything.

Yes, the meanest of the mean to want to avert lifelong sexual dysfunction and urinary problems for someone who is completely healthy

Not the way I'd expected to spend Friday evening, but that was a total pleasure to read. 😊Such clear reasoning and a refreshing willingness to call out unreasonable behaviour, in this case entirely on the claimant's side. Gosh, she must be an insufferably self-absorbed person to work with.

Wait til they hear about the Supreme Court judgement protecting pregnant transmen.

”asking that others use their preferred pronouns of they and them”

Looking at the case, ‘asking’ seems a little mild. I think ‘demanding or else’ seems a bit more appropriate.

No I know that but I just think that whilst we can all agree that no one who falls under a protected characteristic of gender reassignment should be discriminated against or harassed because of that, we need to clearly delineate who that means so we can work out what that means for other protected groups ie mainly women

I think I've spotted a misgendering (correct sexing) in paragraph 133. Stand by for an appeal!

Good catch! I hope the Judge has by now ordered herself and all panel members to send a written apology to Mx Heach, and has had the Rainbow Pledge added to the end of all oaths sworn in her court, by way of demonstrating true heartbroken sorrow, and a desire to do better in future.

I think you're right.

In para 122 it also says: "At times in this Tribunal, both counsel
and the Judge have failed to use the claimant’s preferred pronoun. On each
occasion the person involved apologised. The claimant says they did not take
offence."

Combined with the so-called incidents of her colleagues failing to read her mind to use her prescribed pronouns, it all demonstrates how onerous and unnatural prescribed pronouns which don't match sex really are. Despite the manipulative claims that it's simple politeness and the easiest thing in the world to mangle your language on command.

"Misgendering" and "deadname" are both cult concepts used to control. The sooner they disappear the better.