With all the recent examples of organisations failing in their safeguarding duty of care towards women and children, I am curious if this aspect of law is applicable - that of Undue Influence
From a mind control perspective, undue influence is the weapon of cults, cultic (abusive) relationships and corrupt organisations. It is at play where Cluster B dictator types aim to command and control people, whilst draining them of their assets - time, sex and money.
Undue influence is any act of persuasion that overcomes the free will and judgment of another person. People can be unduly influenced by deception, flattery, trickery, coercion, hypnosis, and other techniques. In addition to religious cults, there are psychotherapy cults, political cults, commercial cults, terrorist organizations, and trafficking rings. There are also personality cults, particularly if one person exerts undue influence overanother (or a small group of people, such as in a family).
There are groups which combine all or some of these elements, especially when the groupis large and has a variety of “fronts” or other entities.
It seems to me that social media, schools, charities e.g. girl guides/Oxfam/NSPCC etc, councils, sports bodies plus political parties, are being used as instruments to apply undue influence, either directly or by proxy, by abuse of the process of policy and legislative change. Thus it leaves refuges in a "horns of a dilemma" type scenario where they either become the last bastions to fight fundamentally unfair laws and hence will be taken to court, or will be forced to comply in the coercion and the bystander bullying by towing the line re compromising safeguards.
Unconscionability in English law is a field of contract law and the law of trusts, which precludes the enforcement of consent-based obligations unfairly exploiting the unequal power of the consenting parties. "Inequality of bargaining power" is another term used to express essentially the same idea for the same area of law, which can in turn be further broken down into cases on duress, undue influence and exploitation of weakness. In these cases, where someone's consent to a bargain was only procured through duress, out of undue influence or under severe external pressure that another person exploited, courts have felt it was unconscionable (i.e., contrary to good conscience) to enforce agreements.
I am curious if unconscionability and undue influence are grounds to challenge these organisations, as most are not transparent, nor seek consent, to opt in to their policy changes regarding redefinitions of sex. One could also argue that many of their users, who are subject to their services, are vulnerable and / or subject to exploitation, by the lack of appropriate application of the EA combined with the withholding of information, such that informed consent is impossible.