Mick Hartley

A strange tale from the Telegraph:

Calling a trans woman a ‘w—-r’ is discriminatory because the insult is commonly used in reference to men, an employment tribunal has suggested.

We can safely assume, I think, that "w—-r" is "wanker". Is it really so rude that the wankers at the Telegraph have to censor it?

The swear word is not a gender-neutral term and so using it against someone who has transitioned would constitute a breach of equality laws, a panel concluded.

To insult a trans woman without being discriminatory, female-specific slurs should be used instead, the tribunal suggested.

Its ruling came after a trans bus driver sued the company where she had been working for gender reassignment discrimination.

Amanda Fischer claimed that another employee called her a “w—-r”.

The agency worker also claimed a driver drove too close to her because she is trans, which made her fear for her life, the tribunal heard.

She lost her case after the panel decided the “w—-r” incident had not actually occurred.

In addition, the bus company had argued that the swear word could be used against both men and women.

However, the panel ruled that if it had been used against her it would have been discrimination.

So there we have it. It would have been discriminatory if it had been said, but it wasn't said, so it wasn't discriminatory. Case dismissed.

But can "wanker" be used against both men and women, or only against men? One for the philosophers, perhaps. What would Judith Butler say?