The Times reporting on dyspraxia claimant winning after being disciplined for forgetting trans colleagues pronouns

[SpringCalling]

Worker who forgot trans colleague’s pronouns wins disability claim

https://www.thetimes.com/article/1d9a35df-478c-4033-a8c5-baf072feba80?shareToken=901f34445e06a9db66e3fcf1958cf17b

Yet more pearl clutching from NumbersGuy! It's in every post of his 😂

His misogynistic stereotypes need updating for 2026. Hardly anybody wears pearls anymore.

Body dysmorphia may be a real condition but it’s only real in that persons mind.
Somebody can desperately want to be thin and feel like a fat person in a thin person’s body, they can even identify as thin but it doesn’t change what everyone else sees.

Isn't this the second ET in recent months where a woman has caused havoc in the workplace because of alleged misgendering and made complaints about co workers? She (a psychologist in the NHS if I recall ) lost her case?

This case, I think?

Haech Lockwood, the claimant who still works for the NHS trust, filed complaints of harassment relating to gender reassignment at the tribunal, following nine incidents, including where they were “mis-pronouned” and “deadnamed”.

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/non-binary-trans-protections-gender-reassignment-lockwood-v-cheshire-and-wirral-nhs-foundation-trust/

Ah yes - thanks @Greyskybluesky We discussed it at the time:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5451419-employment-tribunal-finds-nb-does-not-meet-pc-of-gr

Dumb is forever? I’m sure she would have passed her English GCSE by knowing the proper use of a pronoun.

Maybe you were off that day - or failed?

I'm finding that bottom paragraph VERY interesting!

"Thompson ruled that the university’s investigators decided that Sylvester had harassed her colleague “because of a situation arising from her disability, and they were personally liable for her discrimination claims”. The university’s investigation into the harassment claim was not fair or impartial, she added."

So the university’s investigators were "personally liable for her discrimination claims". I can read that two ways - that these investigators' (management?) poor way of investigating was the sole reason the discrimination case was brought to the tribunal, or - their liability is financial and they will have to personally fund the compensation rather than the university.

I'm hoping for the latter, but it's probably the former. If it were the latter, I think that would put paid to these horrendous witch hunts once and for all.

The problem is that if you don't believe no matter how hard you try, you'll trip up.
You can't make yourself or someone else believe. Cos that what the human brain does - you can't hold two thoughts in your head at the same time and get it right every time. The cognitive dissonance is impossible to over ride.

As we saw in the Peggie Sandie court case - even people who say they believe, don't actually. I believe there was only one witness in the entire case who didn't trip up.

So if you HAVE to say prefered pronouns under threat of discipline you are in effect asking the impossible and this will be only be enforced in cases where a transperson doesn't like another colleague. Aka bullying.

This is the problem.

Your only choice at work becomes to avoid anyone who makes these demands because its toxic. Thats as a employer and an employee.

One of the things I found out very quickly in my own family (and i see it in other families) is how you just can't win with this and how your intent isn't ever taken into consideration. In so many other crimes (eg voueyrism) you have to prove intent is malicious and sexually motivated and yet for the non-crime of 'misgendering' you don't have to do the same.

The sooner this is tackled as a way of abusing and bullying other members of staff the better. Its a lie that can not be upheld. Its an untruth that supports a fantasy. It is the height of entitlement and selfishness to expect others to.

Something I find strange about this case:
Surely the burden of proof should be on the people investigating the woman, to demonstrate that she acted with malice? It shouldn't be on her to prove that she simply spoke with the ordinary habits of language?

Most people, other than a specific cohort of youngish people who have grown into adulthood in the context of this ideology, are primed to allocate pronouns on the basis of sex and it takes a certain amount of persistent mental effort to keep doing the opposite (especially in a context where you have work requirements that are making demands on your cognitive resources).

In a way, this woman was fortunate in having a documented reason why she was finding it hard. But plenty of other people might also find it particularly hard and not have such documentation. Anxiety, menopausal brain fog, stress, etc., as well as various forms of neurodivergence. Do all such people have to prove that their language use was without any agenda of hostility? Why, seemingly, is no consideration given to the idea that the offence of 'misgendering' is only substantiated if there is evidence of hostility to the trans identity, and of an unwillingness to keep that hostility out of the workplace?

It won't be the latter. The judgment found that the outcome of the internal investigation was the reason why the Claimant brought her claim. The University will be liable for compensation once it is awarded.

The problem is that if you don't believe no matter how hard you try, you'll trip up. You can't make yourself or someone else believe. Cos that what the human brain does - you can't hold two thoughts in your head at the same time and get it right every time. The cognitive dissonance is impossible to over ride.

This is true. As you say, we saw it in the Sandie Peggie case, but I think it's also been true of every single other tribunal, eg Allison Bailey, Jo Phoenix etc, that there has been a point where either a witness or a barrister has misgendered someone. Usually it's someone on the trans activist side, ironically, who trips up.

Barracker's famous 'Pronouns are Rohypnol' essay explains the phenomenon very well.

I agree with others that it's a shame that the claimant had to use her disability as an excuse for misgendering. People ought to be able to say, clearly and plainly, "I refuse to lie". But the Forstater judgement made clear that, while believing that humans can't change sex was a protected belief, it still wasn't acceptable to deliberately misgender your work colleagues.

Yes - I assume that the course had a more detailed description of her disability than just 'dyspraxia' and that is why the court decided as they did.

Can somebody translate this into English, please?

And it’s also got to work both ways - never mind pronouns or disabilities - had this colleague who was so offended memorised the personal details of all their workmates and remembered to act on those without error every time? Birthdays, Spouse/partner names, health conditions, children’s names/ages, hobbies…. All of those things are the basis for our personal identities but we don’t insist everyone to know/act on this info every time with absolute accuracy. It’s ridiculous.

Dyspraxia overlaps with dyslexia and ADHD. Sometimes autism. Lots of cognitive symptoms like slow processing and focus/memory issues. Being able to filter/adapt visual input and convert to words with contradictory meaning to would be difficult/impossible. For those with undiagnosed dyslexia in the older age group it would be very difficult - no supporting paperwork but all the symptoms. The person who won this case might also be quite young

Yes, the implication is that it's absolutely fine for everyone else to expect to be subject to coercive control in the workplace and to be expected to tie themselves in pretzels and use unnatural, non-standard, wrong-sex English (which can be a safeguarding risk in some situations).

And yes as @KnottyAuty says - plenty of older people may in fact be autistic, dyslexic etc but simply not have a diagnosis. There will be plenty of people in the workforce who do have a disability but haven't been diagnosed . 'Brain fog' is an accepted symptom of menopause - do we middle aged women get a pass from the coercive wrong-sex pronouns?

Mercifully, being old now and finding that society is generally happy to leave me alone, I've only once been in a meeting where it was suggested (by a clearly extremely vulnerable participant) that we share our pronouns in the round of introductions.

I just ignored it. But by the end of 15 or so people saying a bit about themselves, with maybe 5 or 6 doing the pronoun thing, could I remember who had said what? No, I could not. Maybe 1 or 2 names might have stuck for a short while but the pronouns, unless they agreed with the evidence of my eyes and ears, gone in a second.

And some people think I should be prosecuted for that.

The person who won this case might also be quite young

She is 56.

Someone could undoubtedly put it to the test. Under the terms of the Equality Act, you could argue that menopause meets the protected characteristic of disability.

I just wish that "possessed of a compulsive need to tell the truth" was a protected characteristic.

People fall out of reasonably demanding careers in a climate where certain industries are falling apart and are immediately 'dumb' if they have to take badly paid work. What a wonderful world we live in and what wonderful people share it with us.

A literal cry bully.

I really wouldn’t bother.

Yes. I read that on the other thread after I posted. It's really not clear in the article.

Still prioritising gender feels over disability though.

“Body dysmorphia is just an equally recognized diagnosis.”

But this was a patient whose (assumed) body dysmorphia had been treated, using all the latest psychological and physiological treatment in the form of transition.

Are you saying that transition doesn’t cure it after all? It’s almost as if the whole “transition cures body dysmorphia” claim is untrue.

Sad days!