Originally a comment by Screechy Monkey on For some survivors.

A couple of things that struck me about the ruling (well, more the factual background laid out than the ruling itself):

1. How incredibly mild Adams’ “heresy” was. She wasn’t a “terf,” she wasn’t refusing to use people’s preferred names and pronouns, etc. Basically, a victim asked whether the person referred to as “AB” — who was using a male-sounding name and had recently declared themselves nonbinary — was a man. Adams merely forwarded the request to her superiors with her suggested response and requested guidance, then expressed reservations about giving her superiors’ proposed response that the center doesn’t employ men because, aside from the whole question of whether one considers the CEO to be a man, some nonbinary people claim to have at least a partial male identity.

2. The insufferable pomposity of AB. This is someone who works in a place which relies on a specific statutory exemption to sex discrimination laws, meaning that it can and does reserve certain positions for women only, and acknowledges that victims may want to work with someone of a particular gender. AB then announces to the team that they are nonbinary and will be using a male-sounding name going forward. When this predictably leads to a confused inquiry from a victim about whether AB is a man, AB responds to Adams’ quite gentle and polite discussion with a declaration that AB has been “humiliated” and cannot interact with Adams any more. There’s a strong implication in the judgment that AB was probably advised by the CEO to react this way to create a pretext for going after Adams, but even if AB’s professed reaction was genuine, it’s so pathetic. I’m nonbinary and it’s very important that you all know and acknowledge that. Oh, a rape victim is confused and thinks that I might be a man because I’m using a man’s name and presenting ambiguously? Fuck them, and fuck you for being concerned about it. I’m humiliated that you even raised the question!