Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Trans woman’s employment tribunal to begin next month

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. “suggested it was possibly a phase I was going through which we should talk about later.”

    It should be hard to believe, in this day and age. Sadly, it is all too common.

    I remember reading, decades ago, that the UK breeds bad managers. After 40 years in employment and reading this, I think this is as true today as it was then.

  2. Juliet Jacques in her excellent fortnightly blog for the Guardian talks about employment discrimination for trans people.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/aug/25/transsexual-people-sex-work

    I would say workplace discrimination happens to most LGBT people. It would be interesting to compare the number of job applications a LGBT person needs to make before they get one compared to a heterosexual.

  3. OrtharRrith 27 Aug 2010, 7:54pm

    I hope she is able to win this case. I myself faced similar circumstances a few years ago and was unable to prove it in the end. The fact that Rachel has the evidence to show that they thought she was a good employee before they learned of her transsexual status is great and can’t be argued with.
    Good luck to her.

  4. Liz Church 27 Aug 2010, 8:09pm

    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/195520/The-6ft-3in-man-fired-for-going-to-work-in-a-dress-

    What was that about misgendering?

    The tone of the DM article was *superficially* respectful. Why did the headline start -6’3″ Transsexual- ? Why the intimate medical details? “Sex change” instead of “gender reassignment”? Previous name and photo, of course. What’s a deed poll for if not to abandon the previous name?

    Alter-ego? It’s the same old nasty Daily Mail with the subtlety turned up a notch.

  5. Liz,

    I know we won’t quite agree on this. I see the difference: you see the problems that remain. There are issues with the Mail piece this time round. However, compare and contrast the treatment of Rachel’s case

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305971/Transsexual-sacked-forced-apologise-colleagues-wearing-dress-work.html

    with that of Vikki-Marie, just two years back:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-557868/Transsexual-trucker-wins-sex-discrimination-case-turning-work-dressed-woman-called-Vikki-Marie.html

    This is an improvement, and something to work with.

    Jane
    xx

  6. Well done to Rachel – but given the report on the G3 website this week that PinkNews now sometimes publishes the IP addresses of people who post comments here I don’t really feel able to say anything more although I would like to

  7. There are parts of this story i ahve a problem with and to be honest i doubt this person is TS. Before you jump down my throat here is why.
    1) You do not tell your employer you are turning up next day as the opposite gender thats utterly ridiculous. This takes planning for the employee as well as the employer to get things sorted out properly.
    2) This person didnt know they had to be under medical supervision for the RLE
    3) In other papers then didnt know you need 1 years RLE before they could have surgery

    This person, in my opinion, has done no research into changing gender. They seem to have acted on the spur of the moment and to be blunt come across as a trannie who is going to far. I am in no way condoning what the employers have done and if found guilty should have the book thrown at them but this person has acted irresponsibly and once again has drawn unfavourable attention to those who are really TS and do things properly.

  8. Louise, not all of us are good at doing our research, or following up things. I get the feeling that when she finally decided to transition, if she didn’t do it there and then, then she might have put it off, plus, the article will never give you the full facts, no matter how good / bad the journalist.

    Also, as far as the RLE thing goes, I had to restart mine for Charring Cross, after I’d completed nearly two years under Russel Reid. I eventually had surgery in 2006, but I’d first gone to my GP in 1997 and was refused, went private in 1999, and wasn’t reffered to the NHS till 2001.

  9. Louise how dare you say Rachel is not TS!

    Many people transition before they reach a gender clinic. As long as you can provide sufficient documented evidence of RLE then it can used by a gender clinic. Is is more than likely under the supervision of her local psych. You are TS if you say you are its a condition that’s self diagnosed.

    I also see no reason why you think Rachel is responsible for the knowledge of newspaper journalists when it come to RLE. All the other papers have picked up the story she gave her local paper and re-written it using their own take/agenda of it.

    “This person, in my opinion, has done no research into changing gender. They seem to have acted on the spur of the moment and to be blunt come across as a trannie who is going to far.”

    You come across as one of those HBS fascists that say anybody over 25 is not TS.

    I think you owe Rachel an apology for making such a sweeping statement that she is not TS and the assumption you make about who she is and how she is going about her transition.

  10. OrtharRrith 28 Aug 2010, 5:07pm

    @Louise: This is were YOU are wrong –
    “1) You do not tell your employer you are turning up next day as the opposite gender thats utterly ridiculous. This takes planning for the employee as well as the employer to get things sorted out properly.”
    No article I’ve read indicates that Rachel did not plan her transition. Simply telling your employer is all you need to do regarding work – maybe informing them of when you’ll need to attend hospital, etc etc. The rest is down to them to be honest. They don’t need to know more.
    “2) This person didnt know they had to be under medical supervision for the RLE”
    As others have said this could be a case of one medical proffesional not talking to another. Rachel may well have been under medical supervision which is not being recognised by her local Gender Clinic.
    “3) In other papers then didnt know you need 1 years RLE before they could have surgery”
    How do you know that Rachel didn’t? (aside from the fact that it’s 2 years RLE not 1 – unless they’ve changed it in the last couple of years). It looks to me more like the papers who have the information wrong.

    How can you claim that someone you’ve not met is or isn’t a transsexual woman? Particularly when solely baased upon newspaper articles that don’t contain all the information.

  11. People can say they are transsexual if they want but unless they convince the psychiatrists then they will not get any medical intervention, fact. If they are not supported by the medical profession then they are not protected under the laws that transsexuals are. So to say it is self diagnosed may be partly correct but if the psychiatrists say not then you wont get medical treatment.

    As for your comments, OrtharRrith — August 28, 2010 @ 17:07, then it is you who are wrong. According the the Harry Benjamin/WPATH guidelines (2002), The Good Practice Guidelines from the Royal College of Psychiatrists(2006) and the Parliamentary Forum Guidelines(2005), the minimum RLE is 12 months. Some places may insist on 18 or 24 but the bottom line the minimum is 12 months.

    If you read some of the press stories it quick clearly suggests she told them she was coming to work either next day or within three days as a female. They also hint at the fact she didnt know she had to have a RLE and some say she is annoyed that she will have to start her RLE again. Maybe bad reporting but if correct then they have not prepared or done research. Most TS’s plan this for months if not years to transition because they want it done right.
    There are far too many people in the community beng brainwashed into believing they are TS when in reality they are TV. It is as if being TS is somekind of achievement. This is utter crap. No one wants to be TS, apart from those who wont accept they are TV, as this is a horrendous condition.

  12. OrtharRrith 29 Aug 2010, 8:40pm

    What the NHS say, and what the NHS do are two different things. I’ve not known anyone that has managed to get approved for surgury after only a years RLE, infact it can often take a hell of a lot longer.

    “There are far too many people in the community beng brainwashed into believing they are TS when in reality they are TV. It is as if being TS is somekind of achievement. This is utter crap.”

    Where did that come from? Where is your evidence for this? I’ve not encountered or even heard of this before. Yes it’s a horrendous condition that I would not wish on my worst enemy. I’ve never encountered any evidence to suggest people are being pushed to consider themselves transsexuals when they are tranvestite. That seems highly unlikely to me as if nothing else that is what the RLE is to prove.

  13. Louise - but not that Louise, a different Louise :/ 7 Sep 2010, 2:20pm

    How can you suggest that someone isn’t trans? What would they possibly want to pretend to be trans for and be treated like a third class citizen? Whatever happened to diversity? Are you the perfect example all trans people should follow? Perhaps you should write a book so they all know how to do it the ‘Louise’ way. We wouldn’t want them all to do it wrong now would we. :/

  14. > At a recent meeting with the Nottingham Gender Clinic, she
    > was informed that her real-life experience of living as a woman
    > did not count unless it was supervised by the Gender Identity
    > Clinic, and so for purposes of treatment, the clock begins now.
    >
    > She is thus in the odd position of living sufficiently in role
    > to create significant issues in the workplace, but not enough to
    > count for the NHS.

    The hoop-jump-requiring in question is not NHS policy. There is no MHS policy on such matters. It is just a particularly transphobic mental health group at Nottingham trying to make patients believe they have no choices by misleading them into thinking there is a NHS policy they would encounter everywhere, so they have no choice and must comply with their whims. Its about control, which they believe is essential with the mentally ill.

    But we are not mentally ill, at least not usually, not due to transsexuality.

    You didn’t say why this woman was only now being told this rule by the clinic. Was it that she had been waiting along tike on their list? I would expect so, and if so, that it should have been reported too, as newsworthy.

    Another policy at Nottingham is that GPs should not be allowed to prescribe our hormones, only they should be allowed to do that. To provide more control over patients and their bodies. That’s from official NHS minutes.

    Of course some other NHS clinics have their own variations on these hoops and attitudes, but not all, and patients are supposed to have choice.

    Did you not know this, Jane?

  15. OrtharRrith:
    > I’ve not known anyone that has managed to get approved
    > for surgury after only a years RLE, infact it can often take a
    > hell of a lot longer.

    Yes it can, but many only serve the single year set down in the SOC, and a few (usually professional people like doctors or vicars) hardly any at all. Your statistics are obviously a manifestation of the circle you move in.

    In fact Harry Benjamin, who formulated the transition path, never intended it to be a fixed period, and sent many of his patients for surgery well before a year.

    But most in the UK think it sufficiently important to find the money and go private, which the then-head of Charing Cross once admitted was the main motivation in them imposing punitively extended RLE requirements – to save their customers, the local NHS trusts, money. Although the trusts would have wasted more than was saved on those surgeries in unnecessary psychiatric fees, but then someone has to pay the salaries of such “experts”.

  16. Louise:
    > People can say they are transsexual if they want but unless
    > they convince the psychiatrists then they will not get any
    > medical intervention, fact. If they are not supported by the
    > medical profession then they are not protected under the laws
    > that transsexuals are. So to say it is self diagnosed may be
    > partly correct but if the psychiatrists say not then you wont
    > get medical treatment.

    My. Most of the gatekeeping “experts” in the UK are not psychiatrists; check their qualifications. The law protects anyone who has even so much as mentioned to anyone (even on Facebook, and any age) that they are unhappy with presenting as their sex of birth, and then on for life, regardless of what they do about it. The law calls it proposing to seek gender reassignment. Most in the UK are probably now starting themselves on medical treatment and going for surgery with just a letter from their GP and another from counsellor they have met maybe a couple of times. And with no apparent harm.

    It isn’t a mental illness you know.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all