Gender-Fluid Dog Caught in Row, Costing Council £60,000

Elizabeth Pitt, a social worker who won damages after being accused of making “non-inclusive and transphobic” comments about a gender-fluid dog during a workplace meeting.

Social Worker Wins Big After Gender-Fluid Dog Debate Turns Nasty.

Welcome to the world where disagreeing with a dog’s identity could cost your livelihood.

Elizabeth Pitt was an average social worker working for Cambridgeshire County Council and leading a normal life until her career was thrown into complete and utter turmoil following a debate gone wrong.

Elizabeth Pitt was accused of making “non-inclusive and transphobic” comments about a colleague’s dog who apparently “self-identified” as gender-fluid. What a time to be alive.

Yes, this is another bizarre news episode from around the world.  

Yes, the dog was gender-fluid. A dachshund with more social awareness than a first-year vegan sociology student at a university march. But when Elizabeth Pitt dared to suggest that perhaps pets don’t have complex gender identities, well, that was just one step too far for some.

As a proud member of her local Council LGBTQIA+ group, Elizabeth Pitt regularly participated in debates and discussions regarding gender and other political matters. The controversial comments came during one of the group’s meetings in January 2023. Ms Pitt commented on a colleague’s pet dachshund, which the owner identified as “gender-fluid.”

During the incident, Pitt and a colleague were accused of voicing “nasty opinions” and using a “really aggressive tone”. They apparently expressed “transphobic” gender-critical views about the dog in question. To make matters worse, they also expressed opposing views on topics such as trans athletes in sports and about women’s spaces. Their views did not conform to the group’s views, causing understandable uneasiness among some of the participants.

It was simply too much for some members to bear, and something had to be done to put Ms Pitt in her place. So they stepped up and did what any decent human being would do. They reported her and tried to get her kicked out of the group.   

It turned out that several colleagues had taken deep offence to Ms Pitt’s observations regarding the dog’s gender, leading to formal complaints. When they reported Ms Pitt, they described her tone as “aggressive” and “confrontational.”

What Did Ms Pitt’s Managers Do?

Management at Cambridgeshire Council promptly accused Ms Pitt of being non-inclusive and transphobic and proceeded to ban her from attending or contacting the LGBTQIA+ group.

Elizabeth Pitt ‘On Trial’? What Did the Tribunal Decide?

Ms Pitt did not take kindly to being ‘put in her place’ for disagreeing with some of her fellow group members. In fact, she went to war with her employers, taking Cambridgeshire County Council to an employment tribunal for discrimination and harassment based on gender beliefs. She claimed that the Council’s response was direct discrimination against her for her opinions and beliefs.

In a shocking turn of events, the employment tribunal sided with Ms Pitt, ruling that part of the Council’s actions were motivated by what the group had interpreted as her gender-critical beliefs. Judge Paul Mitchell mansplained that during group discussions, members are allowed to be direct and honest with their views and that disagreeing with someone is not a just cause for barring, publicly humiliating, discriminating or harassing that person. Wild.  

Ms Pitt Was Awarded £60,000 in Damages:

Ms Pitt was awarded £30,000 for loss of earnings, £22,000 for injury to feelings, and £8,000 in costs. It was also implied that the Council could not fire Ms Pitt for expressing an opinion, and the tribunal recommended that the Council update its staff training to cover “freedom of belief and speech in the workplace.”

The Council’s Initial Response

At first, the Council clearly viewed Ms Pitt’s behaviour of disagreeing about someone having a self-identified gender-fluid dog as completely unacceptable, unreasonable, and offensive, labelling it as non-inclusive and transphobic. They criticised the tone and content of her comments and took clear measures to prevent her from participating in further meetings or discussions.

Was this right or wrong?

What did the Council Have to Say For Themselves After the Tribunal?

After the tribunal’s ruling, the Council recognised that they needed to balance the need for inclusivity with logic, freedom of belief, and freedom of speech in the workplace. They also committed to reviewing their policies and procedures.

Let’s get deep:

What does “inclusivity” actually mean?

Is inclusivity incompatible with common sense, humour, freedom of belief and freedom of speech?  

You decide.

Until next time.

PS: Readers who love animals might enjoy this article about giant spiders being re-introduced back into the UK or about how a 60-million-year-old fish once thought extinct was found alive and happily swimming around.