I know it’s a sensitive issue but this really seems like fairly irresponsible and one sided reporting of a very complex and nuanced issue.
No woman should be forced to change her clothes in front of a male colleague
byu/KVothe1803 inuknews
Posted by KVothe1803
25 comments
I don’t think it is a sensitive issue. I think it’s incredibly, painfully straight forward.
What is the other side to ‘I don’t want to be forced to get naked in front of men’ that you think isn’t being properly platformed here?
I’m surprised that the Guardian/Observer ran this. I know it’s just an individual opinion but no way this gets run a few years ago.
No woman should be forced to change her clothes in front of ANYONE.
Fixed
It comes across as an extremely one-sided and biased piece of writing, doesn’t it.
I’m not even that sensitive to this sort of thing as I’m not trans myself, but it still surprised me just how blatantly the author has an axe to grind here
It seems to me that there’s a really simple solution here that respects the rights of trans people while also respecting same sex spaces, and that is to base the changing facilities you use on the genitals you own rather than the gender you identify as.
Gender reassignment surgery has existed for many years and is well established at this point. If a person is committed enough to their identity to undertake such a surgery, then it seems reasonable that they should be able to switch changing facilities to match their new genitals. If they choose to retain their birth genitalia, that’s absolutely their right and choice, but it means they use the facilities that match those genitals.
No person at all should be forced to remove clothing In front of anyone (aside from law enforcement when absolutely required)
No person (male, female, or other) should be forced to change in front of ANY colleague (male, female or other).
Individual cubicles in unisex changing rooms and bathrooms.
Fixed.
Why does everyone insist on carrying on the fucking debate when it’s that simple.
Honestly torn on this, because on the one hand I want trans people to be able to live their lives in the way that makes them happy. But on the other hand, nobody can dictate what another person is comfortable with, and trying to do so is starting to backfire.
Perhaps the solution is lockable changing cubicles for everyone. After all, many people don’t want to change in front of anyone else at all for various reasons. A lockable cubicle would be a nicer facility for all, just as those places with individual loos including sink and dryer serve the double purpose of being accessible to all regardless of gender and being a lot nicer to use.
Women have rights, too.
Women’s spaces are for privacy and dignity. Not for men to seek thrills or validation.
Incredibly poor reporting from an obviously TERF viewpoint. The nurse was not suspended for raising concerns about sharing a changing room with a trans colleague, and her legal team isn’t arguing that she was. The nurse also refused to work with the doctor point blank, ignored patient care instructions from that doctor, and used her anti-trans views to create a hostile workplace for that doctor. Her legal team are essentially arguing that this is all absolutely fine because the doctor was trans, and the nurses right to express a philosophical belief trumps any employment protection for trans people.
Which is absolutely wild.
No cocks in the henhouse
There should be separate changing spaces for the sexes or a mutually exclusive sharing arrangement. Noone normally likes unisex spaces.
Anyone who has actually read anything about this case will have noticed that it was not “just” her not wanting to change in front of a colleague, which, by the way, nobody was forcing her to. She was being incredibly nasty, discriminatory (refusing to work with said Dr even when it was detrimental to patient care) and said absolutely vile things that amount to workplace bullying – not OK in any workplace, regardless of who is at the receiving end.
She’s not some innocent shy wallflower who’s just trying to change in peace(!) – she’s a hateful bigot who was out to make another colleague’s life much worse.
No **ONE** should be forced to change in front of **ANYONE** they aren’t comfortable with.
Fixed it for ya
Mens feelings seem to take priority even over women and girls safety and privacy.
Yeah seems pretty simple.
Women should have access to women only changing it she so chooses.
Whether or not the man identifies as a woman is irrelevant.
The buried lede in this article is that Dr Upton started making potentially career-ending accusations about Ms Peggie and patient safety, on the strength of how slighted she felt. So this person took it upon themselves to try and get Ms Peggie fired for completely made up reasons, because of what had happened.
Bizarrely NHS Fife were on board with this and tried to stymie proper investigation into these accusations, etc. One can only assume there is/was some equally “ideology at all costs” people at the helm.
The idea that a man who identifies as female is literally a man, and must without fail be treated as a potential rapist, has become a cherished principle for some bigots.
What’s one sided about this? It’s totally right.
Women should cover their faces so men can’t perv over them
Agreed
As with so many such cases, what looks simple from a headline is nothing like as simple in the minutiae of the case itself. Not one of the parties – nurse, doctor or NHS Trust – has handled the matter in anything resembling good faith, so trying to draw binary (pun absolutely intended) conclusions from this tribunal will be futile.
Remember when the US branch of the Guardian had to ask the UK branch to tone down the rabid transphobia and hate?
Not sure Op/Eds are news either, might as well post someone’s opinion from Facebook
It is really nuanced, complicated and you’re absolutely right, the reporting is inaccurate, almost the the point of being misleading.
As I understand it…
Ms Peggie was not forced to change in front of a Dr Upton.
The law does not allow an individual to be compelled to change in front of anyone. This is not in question at all.
The emplyment tribunal is there to decide whether Ms Peggie was unlawfully discriminated against when she was suspended. Her suspension was based on numerous factors, actions and behaviours; not her wish not to not have to change in front of Dr Upton.
She alleges the discrimination is on the protect characteristic of her belief. In this case, the “Gender Critical” belief that gender is immutable and cannot be changed. It is already established from previous decisions that this is a protected belief. So the case revolves around her conduct and behaviour and not her beliefs.
I am not a lawyer, and so very happy to be corrected!
I mean, this is blindingly obvious to anyone with a brain.
Comments are closed.