It's About Time!

A judge has told a non-binary health worker who tried to sue their NHS Trust over being ‘deadnamed’ and ‘mis-pronouned’ that they should not have been so offended.

Hurrah! Sanity at last! Well, almost...

Using preferred pronouns to live as non-binary does not have the same protected status as reassigning sex, employment judge Ann Nicola Benson found. The case was brought against Cheshire and Wirral NHS Foundation Trust and six staff members by Haech Lockwood, a cognitive behavioural therapist.

She's a therapist!? I know they say 'set a thief to catch a thief' but I didn't think it worked for nutters too!  

Among the claims from Lockwood, who was born female and was previously known as Heather, were that they were referred to as ‘her’ on a series of IT servicedesk tickets and as ‘she’ or ‘her’ by colleagues during several interactions.

Not a very convincing troon, then, like so many of them? well, actually, not one at all!

The panel, led by judge Benson, said it was relevant that although Lockwood had changed their name and preferred pronouns, they were not proposing to reassign their sex from female to male. ‘We therefore find that the claimant does not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment,’ the judgement added.

In other words, if she'd been a pretend man, the Tribunal would have probably ruled in her favour? 

Lockwood had claimed that the incidents had violated their dignity and left them feeling ‘unsafe’ – but judge Benson said there was no evidence of the conduct having that effect. Dismissing the claim, she wrote: 'Offending against dignity or hurting is not enough.'

No doubt the gender activists will be urging a change in the law to ensure this is recognised in future.