Darlington nurses win their employment tribunal

I see Unison have come out on the side of trans people before even reading the judgement. Utterly utterly shameful bias.

https://www.unison.org.uk/news/article/2026/01/unison-statement-on-nhs-legal-case/

The process is the punishment for women who dare stand up to men and the trans cult.

There is of course no punishment for the men who ask women if they have “big pregnancy breasts” or urge them to undress in front of men.

I’m so glad these brave women had each other for support. I hope more future cases are brought by groups of women, as the struggle alone, eg for the magnificent Sandie Peggie, must be very hard to bear.

Love and congratulations to them all xxx

Happy to be a 'transphobe' that paid.

I also like the idea of the 'bigot only' toilets previously mentioned on there as well.

So it's not all bad 😂.

I did. £100, in fact. It was my big Xmas donation.

This.

We can all get on patient engagement panels for local hospital trusts, health boards etc. It’s worth doing.

Also ignores the risk of trans men using men's facilities, as demonstrated in that hospital.

I think that it needs to be acknowledge that risk to men and women is not symmetrical, regardless of how they identify.

Sky news report on it. Refers to "a transgender colleague" and not a transgender woman.
Victoria McCloud on the report now. Says the supreme court thing is a poorly written judgement

Glad someone else raised this as I was very surprised by the poor reporting and platforming McCloud as an expert. His comments on FWS were false and there was no challenged by Sky News. Will need to watch for their reporting as it seems they might have inherited the BBC trans desk.

Over on Reddit, TRAs mentioned trying to get on NHS trusts to influence decisions.

The sooner BP stops playing politics and releases the guidance the better because it's public money that it being spent, money the NHS can ill afford. There needs to be accountability of the NHS staff who failed to take legal advice or adhere to the law. Why aren't people being sacked?

Yes. Let's hope.

I also hope Jo Phoenix is now funded to do some really good sociological research on the extent to which women are and have been a) excluded from public life / the workplace by including males in female spaces and b) harmed and distressed by both this destruction of single sex spaces and also the coercion of false language and McCarthyesque denunciation when noticing material reality etc around it.

The number of qualified women who would apply to work on that project I'd imagine would be very long.

IANAL but moving forward I feel men who now continue to break those laws and boundaries could be seen to be harassing

as could the service provider for not ensuring that these spaces are female only

obviously the law hasn’t changed but everyone appears to have been naive to what the law was. 🤨

There’s no room for “naivety” now.

Is the disciplinary cases against the nurses to do with them going to the press and as a result Rose being identified, although not by them? Anyone know?

I'm not sure I've seen a full description but IIRC a claim for harassment arising from the the nurses
' complaint.

What is Rose’s discrimination claim?

I noticed Translucent being quoted in the BBC article linked just above:
"...most people are inclusive, and cases like this are quite rare"....

Reminder from another thread: Toby Young of FSU says they have had in the region of 1600 cases over 5 years where they have defended women who have been discriminated against for their views on sex and gender. He specifically mentions women having to share 'bathrooms' and changing rooms with men who say they are women. That averages out at 6 cases a week

Quite, how can you know what you would and wouldn't mind until you were in that sort of situation? I don't believe any woman who says she's happy to strip off in front of strange men, and especially when in a designated female only space.

I think they will, as it is not obvious what they could appeal.

The fix is simply changing the TIW policy, as IIUC Rose is already using alternate changing facilities.

The open items are:

• disciplinary proceedings against the nurses, which I assume will be cancelled
• Rose's discrimination claim, which I assume will be settled quietly
• any actions by the remaining 300 users of the changing room who might also claim - I haven't checked time limits

I can't remember whether it was here or on the main thread that it was mentioned, but I also don't understand how/why the tribunal did not conclude that Henderson harassed the nurses simply by being there, even with permission, when he knew he was not wanted, and that the question about getting changed was harassment. Legal Feminist go into this question towards the end of this TwiX thread. I think LF also doesn't think that part of the judgement makes sense, I hope I'm not just misunderstanding the thread.

https://x.com/legalfeminist/status/2012271435100643525

Sadly no. Are you able to give us a quick summary of what he said?

Indeed.

Anyway it doesn't matter if some women don't mind. Some women DO mind, and that's all that matters. Although I realise I am getting uncomfortably close to Kemp's reasoning that it only matters if someone complains - but I actually mean that no woman can give up female spaces to male bodied people because other women don't like it, and that's the end of it.

Yes, how different are these men to the worst MRAs?

Aaand these are the same men who want to be able to go into single sex spaces without us having advance warning (by it being labelled mixed sex) with us and our children. Men who want to 'make us pay'.

Places we know where assaults by men on women can and do happen and it's difficult to get away. From the indecent exposure / wanking of the transwoman in one other thread on here to the rape of the female locked up with men in a psychiatric ward on another.

No thanks. This is WHY we have single sex spaces. To keep safe from men who want to 'make us pay'

The standard of proof in criminal proceedings is much higher, has to be beyond reasonable doubt. That would be very difficult.

Would this type of result be more likely to succeed as a criminal or private prosecution? I can imagine that the nurses are too busy to concentrate on this though.

There is outraging public decency as an offence. Section 5 if the public order act. Also a civil case under the Equality act.

Just thinking out loud here. No idea if feasible.

Rose knew he was causing offence at some stage, his 'friends' knew this when they posted the sign on the door.