A win…but how grotesque that there was ever a contest. Frederick Attenborough at the Free Speech Union underlines how grotesque it all is:
A gender critical social worker was harassed by her colleagues after making ânon-inclusive and transphobicâ comments about a co-workerâs âgender-neutralâ dog, a tribunal ruled. Elizabeth Pitt, who worked for Cambridgeshire county council, was awarded ÂŁ63,000 after bosses reprimanded her for expressing gender critical views at an online meeting.
The background to Ms Pittâs claim is that she made various comments during a Zoom meeting of the county councilâs LGBTQIA+ Group in January 2023. The meeting began with a male colleague claiming that his dachshund was âgender-fluidâ and that he put a dress on the dog âto prompt debate about genderâ. No doubt feeling that thereâs only so much of this sort of thing anyone can reasonably be expected to put up with, Ms Pitt and a lesbian colleague of hers, who was also in attendance, went on the offensive, expressing their belief that sex is binary and immutable, and pointing out that there are two sexes and people cannot change sex.
It was, after all, a meeting for lesbians and gay men. Lesbians ought to be free to say that men are not women in meeting for lesbians and gay men. Wouldn’t you think? But no, apparently that’s too boring now, the only interesting people in LGBT alphabet soup are the ones who claim to be the sex they are not. All make-believe all the time.
The reaction of Ms Pittâs colleagues to hearing perfectly lawful views that they disagreed with, but were apparently intellectually incapable of rebutting, was to accuse her of âsymbolic violenceâ. One attendee described Ms Pitt as having âa really aggressive tone,â and said he found it âquite inappropriateâ that she and her colleague had commented on âtranswomen participating in womenâs sports and sharing womenâs spacesâ.
Wawawa. The women are talking. Make them stop. Wawawa.
Following receipt of these rococo claims, the councilâs management wrote to Ms Pitt to tell her a âformal concernâ had been received in relation to âsome viewsâ she had expressed during the Zoom call, which were âperceived to be of an inappropriate and offensive natureâ.
It’s “inappropriate” to say that men are not women, so lesbians just have to shut up and take dick it.
Management then prepared a report claiming Ms Pittâs âcomments⌠were perceived to be non-inclusive and transphobicâ, had âcaused significant offenceâ, and had been âparticularly inappropriate and ill-judgedâ. It said they had âa detrimental impact on the mental health and well-beingâ of the complainantsâ.
It is not reasonable, or fair, or just, to try to force women to be “inclusive” of men in the category of women.
Four months later, in October 2023, Ms Pitt took the local authority to an employment tribunal, pleading harassment related to sexual orientation and her philosophical belief that gender is immutable.
Her tribunal had been due to commence on Monday 29th July 2024, but after making their former employee wait around for 10 months, Cambridgeshire county council decided to back down at precisely 8:38am on the morning of the hearing. Having accepted liability for direct discrimination on the grounds of Ms Pittâs gender critical beliefs amounting to a philosophical belief within the meaning of section 10 of the Equality Act 2010, it agreed to pay her compensation.
Hostile work environment much?