Employer-Initiated Coercive Control (EICC)

I feel thoroughly depressed right now

I agree. The law (civil/criminal/regulatory) is broadly speaking on our side (apart from the GRA which should be repealed), as are up to 80% of the public.

Yet the institutions are intransigent.

In any normal conflict there would be negotiations, but not here. My trans friends characterise such suggestions on my part as tantamount to asking the Jews to negotiate with the Nazis. They are bloody infuriating.

It pains me to say it, but I think we are going to have to accept that we are actually in a culture war, not just a political or legal conflict.

Coercive control is a criminal offence only in relation to intimate and family relationships.

Coercive control by an employer could justify a civil claim for constructive dismissal, but case law is already building for claims based on illegal discrimination as to sex and protected belief, and can more easily be applied analagously to service providers, as well as not requiring the claimant to resign before bringing action.

The underlying problem is that our relationships with employers and service providers are governed by civil law, and the state is reluctant to get involved.

The state is not blameless though, because it has acted in ways contrary to Article 9 ECHR (freedom of religion and belief). The recourse would be an application to the Administrative Court for a declaration of incompatibility under Section 4 of the HRA. The target would have to be the GRA. I do not know what we could do about the state's many infringing practices, such as allowing schools to teach, and public sector organisations to adopt, a minority metaphysical belief system as if it were material fact.

I wonder if this could go into a tweet tagging off the top of my head, Naomi, Ben, Aku Reindorft, FWS, JKR...... the word needs to go out and some broadsheet articles need to be written.

She is followed on X by lots of Terfy people, including Naomi C.

x.com/Psychgirl211

That's pretty much what several people did say in the Peggie tribunal, IMO! Although not in so many words, despite Naomi's best efforts.

Although that thread is truly appalling, the CS 2019 policy on showering and changing is actually better than most NHS trusts seem to provide, even now in 2026, post-Peggie, post-Darlington:

"Where there are changing facilities, showers etc., consideration needs to be given to ensure appropriate privacy for all staff, including transsexual staff members. If one is required to change into work clothes or uniform then an employer is obliged to ensure attention to the issues of privacy of all staff, for instance by the installation of individual changing and showering cubicles."

Interesting isn’t it? Although probably not surprising to any of us. At my work, since the legal duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment, came in we have to do annual mandatory training. And yet here we are. The dots just never join up for some people.

Hmmm. There's a Brighton secondary school who will presumably be using those defences are they're apparently openly coercing girls to undress in front of teenage boys. Here:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5507367-mixed-sex-changing-rooms-in-a-brighton-secondary-school-part-3-were-really-cooking-now?page=1

How about this public service ad from Australia that made the woman who didn’t want to be alone in a lift with a trans-identifying man into the bad guy:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Al5wW8I8In0

Sometimes I think the EA2010 was in fact just a way for a particular cohort of lawyers to get rich.

I'm a bit cynical now.

Ah yes. It makes a mockery of the law and of the EA2010 really. Because a truly vulnerable minority group would never have the capacity to bring it to court.

I hope there is some kind of way of holding institutions breaking the law to account because that's clearly what is needed now.

Great thread - thank you. I was reminded of a thread from back in 2019 where a woman civil servant described how women were being coerced, intimidated and lectured about their behaviour when finding a man in the women's toilets.
It went as far as instructing them on their facial expressions and how they were to walk into the room (and not walk out) if I recall correctly.

Yet nobody in the Civil Service was able to challenge such overwhelming arrogance and dangerous undermining of women's rights to safety and privacy.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3520371-civil-service-trans-policy-what-can-i-do

And now it's escalated to nurses being forced to undress in front of random male colleagues, girls having to undress in front of teenage boys. That's how powerful this allegedly vulnerable minority group are.

Sure, but only if you have personally been affected by this - and it would require you to invest money and time and energy, probably at a time when you are fighting for the medical care that has either been denied to you or been threatened to be denied to you. The process is the punishment, you know?

Naomi Cunningham pointed out: an employer can dismiss you for any - including an illegal - reason; a service provider can refuse service for any - including an illegal - reason. Of course if either of those happen you will have a very clear cut case to take to court - but many people do not have the money, time, energy, external support systems (especially with unions so captured) etc to take these people to court. So the institutions remain unchallenged.

Surely the NHS policies which imply (at least) that women could be denied medical care if they don't accept men can become women should be something that could be challenged in court? That's surely a human rights abuse?

I agree it's good to have a term that covers employers imposing a certain view on their employees. I also agree it could be used to describe all of the cases where people have been sacked or forced to go to a tribunal.
Currently many companies and organisations can get a way with forcing their employees to compile with blah blah blah company values claptrap, so it will be good to have a go to response for their bullying.

It was an excellent point raised on that thread, and definitely deserves a thread of its own too!

EICC. Perfect.

I'm absolutely certain it could be applied.

The hurdle initially, is getting people to understand that a man who says he's a woman is exactly the same as any other man.

Which I think has already been accepted in at least one court, in terms of it being fully understood that a man, no matter how he identifies, in a woman's space, can be humiliating and distressing for the women.

But yes, the entire concept needs its profile raising. Employer Initiated Coercive Control.

EICC. Definitely. I'm going to sprinkle it everywhere.

Thanks TwoLoons. I think it would be a brave woman who'd insist on single sex care or accommodation in the current NHS environment