Rape centre worker wins tribunal over gender-critical beliefs

14 comments

1. I mean regardless of what you think about gender, a rape survivor has the right to know if they are going to be touched by someone with a penis

2. Some of the stuff said by the tribunal was absurd

   > The Tribunal in this case accepts that as a matter of the general civilities of life it is entirely appropriate in a workforce to call colleagues by their preferred pronoun. The Tribunal does not, however, accept that this involves any breach of a Convention right. Similarly, the Tribunal’s view is that whilst some individuals may be sensitive about having what the respondent’s witnesses termed a person’s “gender history” revealed this is not something which flows axiomatically from the existence of a right to privacy. The cases of G v UK and YY v Turkey were about much more basic concerns.

   Like what? does this apply to other things, do you not have an automatic right to privacy over other similar things? do you not have an automatic right to privacy over being gay? Whether you got an abortion?

   And the idea you don’t have an “automatic” right for people to use your pronouns?

   and these bits

   > At the time the claimant joined the organisation they provided their services to women and all trans-identified or non-binary people.

   I am not “trans-identified” any more than a gay person is “gay-identified”, this is not language used in the Equality Act or GRA, it is a product of anti-trans groups coming up with dog whistle ways to delegitimise trans people while talking about them without using explicit insults and should not be used as is by impartial bodies.

   > We would agree with the claimant’s representative’s
   characterisation of the respondent’s “institutional view as being at the very extreme end of gender identity theory”.

   What kind of partisan nonsense is this for a tribunal who is supposed to be protecting the rights of people, to turn around and call their very inclusion as equals extreme?!

3. Seems like a positive outcome and good news. It’s sad that they had to go through it all in the first place given that it just requires a little common sense.

4. I’m confused, and obviously we’re not seeing all of the story.

   How exactly did the worker hold “gender-critical” beliefs?

   As far as I can see, wanting to know how to respond to a rape victim who wants to know if a non-binary presenting person is male or female is a perfectly reasonable line, and it’s **also** a perfectly reasonable question from the survivor.

5. It really is miserable to be trans in the UK right now, and seeing people with “gender critical” anti-trans beliefs having those beliefs upheld as somehow worthy of respect.

   If you’re on the right wing it’s great news. Look forward, I suppose, to lawsuits from people who hold respectable critical beliefs about sexuality and race, too.

6. Of all the times and places to try to force personal beliefs onto others, a rape crisis centre is possibly the most morally repugnant. I’m very glad this worker won.

7. These judgements are increasingly becoming absurd and making equality law unworkable. 

   The purpose of these cases is clearly to make being trans inclusive unlawful. If you have to balance bigots rights vs the protected characteristic they are bigoted against, then you immediately cannot do meaningful inclusion. 

   Inclusion does not mean you have to include both transphobes and non-transphobes.

   This is a worrying regression in the law, and the Employment Tribunals are ignoring settled Court of Appeal precedents that yes, you are allowed to be inclusive as an organisation. 

   It’s also increasingly the case that the tribunals are awarding ‘hurt feelings due to belief’ compensation amounts far in excess of what you get if you’re abused out of your job for being black, or subjected to sexual harassment.

8. The whole “its not hateful to say minorities are rapists” thing sure gets old

9. The CEO DENIED help to a survivor of rape who questioned having access to single sex care. Let that sink in, a women turned away for questioning extreme ideology.

   The CEO told this women ‘there is no help available for you here’ and further to this, didn’t even signpost her to somewhere where she could access same sex care.

   If you’re reading that and still thinking that nothing wrong happened, you’re delusional and rightfully, the tide is turning.

10. People seem to be already jumping the gun with this and sensationalising it, so let’s just be clear here from the off:

    > The tribunal ruling noted that Ms Adams’ view was that people using the centre should have a choice over who they receive support from on the basis of sex, and that sex is binary and “everyone is either male or female at that level”.

    Everything after this is based on hypotheticals.

    The complainant in question, Roz Adams, has invented a hypothetical situation and come to her employers to ask what the policy would be based around that. It’s not a situation that actually happened. There has already been a sensationalist Times article about this which has framed it as if this rape crisis centre has hired a hoard of trans woman psychologists and are FORCING rape victims to be served by them or otherwise turned away. Whereas in reality not a single one actually exists in this story.

    I also don’t understand why more people aren’t finding this bit ridiculous:

    > The tribunal found that the support worker in question [not the complainant, one of her colleagues] had changed their name to one that “sounded and appeared to be male”. The judgment said that it was “absolutely clear” that a staff member changing their name to one that sounded male was “going to cause difficulties.”

    So for Roz Adams, a woman social worker at a centre for women, working with, for example, Samantha who decided she wanted to be known as Sam going forward caused *such a problem* for her she had to write to senior management about it because she could imagine that *hypothetically* it might stress out their clients to be working with a biological woman therapist with a ‘male’ name.

    I’m curious to read the whole judgement because from what’s laid out here it doesn’t seem to add up, or at least not add up in the way the stories about it are claiming it to.

    E: Here is the exact text regarding the name change situation from the tribunal, which has been linked helpfully in the thread. It is 100 pages long, warning!

    > On or about 31st March 2022 one of the other members of the claimant’s team
    (AB) forwarded an email to other colleagues. AB was formerly known by a
    name which sounded and read as if she was female. The new name which this Support Worker adopted was one which sounded and appeared to be male. It was a name which is on occasions used by women
    but when a woman uses it it is spelt differently. Prior to the commencement of
    the Hearing both parties had agreed that a Rule 50 Order be made preventing
    AB being identified either by their previous or current name. In the remainder of the Judgments the initials AB will be used for this person. Following receipt of this email the claimant and members of her team had a
    concern that service users were being referred to AB might have a concern
    that AB was male.

    That’s it. Samantha changed her name to Sam or Alexandra decided to go by Alex and Ms Adams simply ‘had a concern’ that clients *might* assume that Sam or Alex was a man, even though they actually weren’t.

11. I’m sick of hearing about these fucking “gender critical” nut jobs

12. [removed]

13. Interesting to see so many on Reddit seem to place trans people higher in the oppression hierarchy than rape victims. Bizarre

14. Read the article, unless it’s omitting something, the outcome seems fair. A vulnerable person wants to clarify the sex of the therapist because sexual violence involves violation of body autonomy. Wanting boundaries to share bodily autonomy issues to only a specified race, sex, or gender related to their trauma should be a right.

    I believe there are specific times where it’s pointless to apply equality rules. Say marriage and funerals. If a KKK wanted to only invite white Christian families and rejected a black pastor, should we police them because their private life doesn’t suit our worldy views? Should we sue a Church for not accepting an atheist as a new pastor?

    Trans is a disability of the sex not matching the gender. Whilst this doesn’t need to be an issue in most places, people have the right to gendered safe space. And when people say gendered, it usually means what is their secondary sexual characteristics.