Gender again. Sorry!

[Ianonabike]

Almost forgot:

What then of the Equality Act 2010? We considered whether there was any provision in that Act that might render the policy of permitting Rose to access the female changing rooms ‘lawful’. There is nothing in the Act that we could see (or that we were taken to) that confers on a transgender employee the right to use the changing facilities that accords with their declared or affirmed gender. The Equality Act 2010 protects those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment from discrimination, harassment and victimisation, in the same way that it provides such protection to those of other protected characteristics. However, that does not translate into a positive ‘right’ on the part of a trans woman to use the female changing room (or for that matter of a trans man to use the male changing room).

 

[monkers]

Almost forgot:

Did they find anything that made it unlawful?

 

[CXRAndy]

Another victory for women


View: https://x.com/i/status/2012169275474087990

 

[Ianonabike]

“The trust subjected the claimants to harassment related to sex and gender reassignment by permitting the claimants’ biological male, trans woman colleague to use the female changing room and requiring the claimants to share that changing room without providing suitable alternative facilities.”

I've seen people crowing about the fact that Rose himself wasn't deemed guilty of harassment. I think the point is that the judge recognised that a man's presence alone is the problem; hence this decision actually strengthens protections for women. Keeping men out of women's spaces doesn't depend on proving the creepiness of a particular bloke. I'm no legal expert (not even a pretend one), but the fact that those claims made by the nurses were dismissed should give him

For reference, this is 'Rose' Henderson.

less ground for appeal, as you can't appeal something you agree with.

Also a relief that there doesn't appear to have been any AI bollox used in the judgment.

 

[monkers]

I've seen people crowing about the fact that Rose himself wasn't deemed guilty of harassment. I think the point is that the judge recognised that a man's presence alone is the problem; hence this decision actually strengthens protections for women. Keeping men out of women's spaces doesn't depend on proving the creepiness of a particular bloke. I'm no legal expert (not even a pretend one), but the fact that those claims made by the nurses were dismissed should give him

The judge can recognise that as a personal opinion. However he doesn't go on to say that is a point of law. In fact he said this ...

The Equality Act 2010 protects those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment from discrimination, harassment and victimisation, in the same way that it provides such protection to those of other protected characteristics. However, that does not translate into a positive ‘right’ on the part of a trans woman to use the female changing room (or for that matter of a trans man to use the male changing room).

Leaving aside the fact that the judge chose to say ''trans woman'' rather than ''transgender woman'' which is the better fit under the law, he states that there is no positive right for Rose Henderson within the Equality Act. However having no positive right does not translate into it being unlawful to be there, which is the reason for saying there is no criticism of the conduct of Rose Henderson. This is the reason I asked you the specific question that you didn't answer.

 

[spen666]

When you do read it later ...

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content...Trust-2501192-24-Others-Reserved-judgment.pdf

... you'll find that Rose Henderson was cleared of any wrongdoing.

You'll also read that the Trust's policy allowing Rose Henderson to use the changing room was lawful.

which paragraph (s) in the 134 page judgement make that finding?

The judgment is critical of the Trust for not providing suitable alternative accommodation for nurses who wished to have a changing room that would not be used by Rose Henderson.

 

[monkers]

which paragraph (s) in the 134 page judgement make that finding?

3. The complaints of harassment in so far as they relate to the use of the female changing room by and the conduct of Rose Henderson whilst so using the changing room as pleaded in paragraph 23(b) of the Amended Particulars of Claim, are not well founded and are dismissed.

 

[spen666]

I've seen people crowing about the fact that Rose himself wasn't deemed guilty of harassment. I think the point is that the judge recognised that a man's presence alone is the problem; hence this decision actually strengthens protections for women. Keeping men out of women's spaces doesn't depend on proving the creepiness of a particular bloke. I'm no legal expert (not even a pretend one), but the fact that those claims made by the nurses were dismissed should give him


less ground for appeal, as you can't appeal something you agree with.

By"him" I presume you mean Rose Henderson .

That being the case why would you think that whatever the finding they could even consider an appeal.

Rose Henderson was not a party to the proceedings, so would not be unable to appeal. Only the parties to the case could appeal a finding

Also a relief that there doesn't appear to have been any AI bollox used in the judgment.

 

[spen666]

Worth noting ...

The Judgment of the Tribunal is:

Non of the paragraphs you quote say the policy was lawful.


Please don't twist the judgement to make false claims to suit your ideology.

Try sticking to what the judgement actually says.






NB For what its worth, it's a first tier decision and not binding on other tribunals, so on both sides the claims it supports their position is limited

 

[monkers]

Non of the paragraphs you quote say the policy was lawful.


Please don't twist the judgement to make false claims to suit your ideology.

Try sticking to what the judgement actually says.






NB For what its worth, it's a first tier decision and not binding on other tribunals, so on both sides the claims it supports their position is limited

I am reading the judgment exactly as written.

You say you are legally trained. To be honest I'm having difficulty seeing it.

You would surely know that the UK operates a negative rights system. This means that a person has the freedom to conduct themselves in any manner unless or until that is prevented by either branch of the legislature or judiciary. The EqA may not confer a positive right, however without the negative right preventing the conduct, the conduct remains lawful - just as the judge has decided. In other words the judge has decided that the law is silent on the matter.

The overarching positive duties of the EqA and the PSDA are to prevent discrimination.

 

[monkers]

Non of the paragraphs you quote say the policy was lawful.


Please don't twist the judgement to make false claims to suit your ideology.

Try sticking to what the judgement actually says.






NB For what its worth, it's a first tier decision and not binding on other tribunals, so on both sides the claims it supports their position is limited

The policy was lawful. The failure was of implementing the policy.

Was the purpose of the Trust in permitting Rose to share the changing room/ requiring the Claimants to share it with Rose (or any other trans woman) to violate the dignity of the Claimants or to create the proscribed environment?

362. We are satisfied that this was not its purpose. Its purpose was to create an environment that gave transgender employees comfort and reassurance that they would be accepted and supported in the workplace. We observe this is an admirable and noble purpose. All good employers will look to ensure that all its staff are treated with respect. We are only too aware that transgender people are vulnerable to exclusion, abuse, mistreatment, lack of respect and misunderstanding in society. Nothing we say in this judgment should detract from that or be seen as diminishing the values that the Trust espouses in supporting its transgender staff.

What was the effect of the conduct?

363. We were however satisfied that despite the admirable purpose of seeking to include transpeople in the workplace and make them feel included, the implementation of the part of the TIW policy that effectively required the Claimants to share with Rose had the effect of violating the dignity of the Claimants and of creating for them a hostile, humiliating and degrading environment.

Perhaps you should just read down the judgment for yourself?

 

[spen666]

The policy was lawful. The failure was of implementing the policy.




Perhaps you should just read down the judgment for yourself?

You are the one making claims about the judgement. I have simply asked you where it says what you claim, so I can read and understand what the first tier tribunal have decided and why

I have read the judgement and not seen it say what you claim it says.

Your quotes from the judgement do not back up your claims and make it look like you are trying to spin the judgement to say what you want it to say

If the judgement says what you claimed, then it should be easy to say where in the 134 page judgement it says that

 

[spen666]

I am reading the judgment exactly as written.

Yet none of the paragraphs you have quoted say what you claim, namely that the policy was lawful

You say you are legally trained. To be honest I'm having difficulty seeing it.

I've made no reference to legal training. I gave simply asked you repeatedly to show where in the judgement is says what you claimed.

You would surely know that the UK operates a negative rights system. This means that a person has the freedom to conduct themselves in any manner unless or until that is prevented by either branch of the legislature or judiciary. The EqA may not confer a positive right, however without the negative right preventing the conduct, the conduct remains lawful - just as the judge has decided. In other words the judge has decided that the law is silent on the matter.

HeA lot of nonsensical word salad to try to divert from the fact you claimed the Tribunal held the NHS Trust policy was lawful and you are unable to provide any evidence where the judgement says this

Negative rights is irrelevant and nothing to do with the claim you have been asked to back up. The ruling of the tribunal is 180 degrees from what you claim. The tribunal found against the NHS Trust - no matter how much you try to spin it

The overarching positive duties of the EqA and the PSDA are to prevent discrimination.

 

[monkers]

Yet none of the paragraphs you have quoted say what you claim, namely that the policy was lawful






I've made no reference to legal training. I gave simply asked you repeatedly to show where in the judgement is says what you claimed.




HeA lot of nonsensical word salad to try to divert from the fact you claimed the Tribunal held the NHS Trust policy was lawful and you are unable to provide any evidence where the judgement says this

Negative rights is irrelevant and nothing to do with the claim you have been asked to back up. The ruling of the tribunal is 180 degrees from what you claim. The tribunal found against the NHS Trust - no matter how much you try to spin it

So it appears you will continue to say. However any fresher at law school will see past you.

The tribunal found against the NHS Trust - no matter how much you try to spin it

Do you actually read posts? Only it seems not. I clearly pointed out that the NHS trust was found to have failed to correctly implement the policy within the law.

 

[AuroraSaab]

However having no positive right does not translate into it being unlawful to be there, which is the reason for saying there is no criticism of the conduct of Rose Henderson. This is the reason I asked you the specific question that you didn't answer.

The policy that allowed him to use women's facilities was unlawful under the Equality Act. And in fact the judge could find no other law that did give him right of access. Nobody has claimed he was committing a criminal offence if that's going to be your next pivot btw.

This is your usual attempt to sow confusion about what a judgement says in order to leave the door open for trans identifying men to use women's spaces.