Darlington nurse case flying under the radar

The nurses had to bring in an expert witness to state that women don’t like to get undressed in front of men. Earlier in the tribunal the (male) head of HR for the trust had claimed, when questioned, that it was no worse for women to change in front of men than it would be for men to change in front of women.

(as per previous post)

BBC coverage of Jo Phoenix evidence today
not on the Health page
hidden well away
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgk8gjkn3xo

I'm surprised there hasn't been more press interest.

This was the first case of its kind that I looked into, on twitter originally, I think. And the interview with the four nurses in summer 2024 was what made me realise what is actually going on, and how it affects women in everyday jobs.

I must admit, I have previously been fascinated by Christan Concern cases for all the wrong reasons because they don't seem to win many cases and I have never been surprised by that (!) .

But in the Darlington case they seem to have instructed a solid legal team and I've followed the tribunal avidly.

Autogynephiliac being pandered to at the expense of women.

One can't help but wonder why "Rose" chose that profession.

The 🍏doesn't 🍂far from the 🌳

I read that the legal fees for the NHS Fife case were estimated to total around £1,000,000. And that's before any compensation. I wonder if this will cost a similar amount?

Such a tragic waste of NHS money that could be spent on saving lives.

As tax payers we are all paying for it.

And the NHS is on its knees yet they have unlimited money to defend themselves in this sort of madness

And let's not forget that when one of the nurses - who is a survivor of childhood sexual abuse - needed gynae surgery, the male she and others had complained about was scheduled to be present during her surgery:

But worse was to come for Karen. By, as she says, ‘an unhappy coincidence’, she was due to have a gynaecological operation at Darlington Memorial Hospital in August 2024.

To her horror, she discovered that Rose was scheduled to be involved.

The procedure would be part robotic, and Rose’s role would involve being at the bedside, passing tools to the surgeon.

“It is difficult to put into words how I felt,” Karen said, “I immediately knew this was ethically wrong and that my condition would be made worse and more painful with the stress it would cause.”

With a colleague, Karen approached the theatre manager and explained the situation, the legal case and how Rose’s involvement would be “completely inappropriate”, and that she wanted women involved in the operation.

Astonishingly the theatre manager said: “But Rose is a woman”.

She added that she thought Karen was being “prejudiced”.

She tried to explain that she was not singling Rose out, but that there was clearly a conflict of interest and because of her childhood trauma she wanted women involved in the procedure.

Regarding Rose being removed from the operating team, Karen was asked: “How do you think that would make Rose feel?”

She was given the choice of cancelling her surgery, trying to get it done at another hospital, or allowing Rose to be part of the operation. Any delays would prolong the pain she was in and had been for some time.

After putting her position in writing, the theatre manager wrote to her and said that her request could not be accommodated “due to clinical and staffing skill mix issues.”

With legal support and advice from the Christian Legal Centre, days before the operation, Karen went to the Patient Advisory and Liaison Service (PALS).

After outlining her situation, PALS swiftly made the decision that it was not appropriate for Rose to be involved.

Despite what the theatre manager had said, it appeared very possible to reallocate staff so that Rose was not involved in the operation.

“I believed this was purely vindictive and demonstrated how low they were prepared to go,” Karen said. “Gender identity was placed above patient and staff care. They tried to punish me for the legal case I was part of and for opposing gender identity policy within the hospital.”

Who says:
Women must undress in front of anyone their manager deems appropriate. They must not complain.
A) NHS managers
B) A pimp

Tried to edit - meant to say Female nurses.

The Darlington case involves a male operating department assistant, the Fife case involved a male doctor. Same issue though. Nurses must comply with getting undressed in front of males.

26 women in the day surgery unit (over 50% of the female staff in that department) signed the complaint letter.

Yep! He was kept updated as well as to which nurses had been intimidated into withdrawing their name from the group complaint as well.

Whereas the women weren't even told the investigation into their behaviour had been put on pause.

Yes. This is usual in the NHS.

Apparently so.

Just waiting for the usual complainants to arrive and scold the OP for putting this in AIBU because anything related to this subject MUST be confined to the naughty corner (AKA the feminism sex and gender discussion board). Particularly NOT the other feminism board.

This exactly. The female nurses complained. Tumbleweed. Then the male dr in his holey y-fronts complained because he felt discriminated against and all hell broke out.

The female nurses were told they were totally unreasonable and needed re-educating and the best person to re-educate them was obviously the male dr with the holey y-fronts

Absolute fucking madness 😠

It really is very odd that this employment tribunal hasn’t had way more publicity, especially given that there was quite a lot in the press when the women first went to the media.
What the tribunal has made clear is that the nurses only approached the media because their complaints about the disturbing behaviour of the trans identifying man in their changing room were not being addressed.
Instead, their names were given to said trans identifying man so that he could intimidate them, and they were threatened with disciplinary proceedings. Some, under this pressure, withdrew their complaints. The NHS Trust prioritised the man and ignored the women. Evidence given by managers in court made this overwhelmingly clear. Some of the responses were quite shocking in their callous disregard for the dignity, privacy and safety of the women (the alternative facility they were offered was tiny, opened directly onto a corridor and was not fire safety compliant, while the man had free use of the female changing room).
It’s well worth skimming the relevant threads about this in the Feminism section.

The transwoman, who calls himself Rose, admitted in court that he wore boxers with holes in. It's very hard to believe he has gender dysphoria when he didn't mind exposing his genitals to his female colleagues.

Didn't he also ask a pregnant nurse about the size of her breasts?

This kind of harassment of women is happening in hospitals all over the UK. It should be front page news that nurses are still having to put up with sharing changing rooms with any man who claims to be a woman.

There is a long running thread on mn on the feminism board, if you are interested.

Is this the case where the staff member stripped off to holey boxers because they were needed to accommodate his "equipment"?

IIRC multiple nurses complaints went nowhere for years and then the special staff member complained and an investigation was launched within a couple of weeks.