"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 2

[ThreeWordHarpy]

Link to Thread 1, 7-Oct to 23-Oct; pre-hearing discussion, evidence from KD (Day 1) and BH (Day 2).

Five nurses working at Darlington Memorial Hospital have filed a legal case suing their employer, an NHS trust, for sexual harassment and sex discrimination. The nurses object to sharing the women’s changing facilities with a male colleague, Rose, who identifies as female. The NHS trust’s HR department dismissed the nurses’ concerns, stating they should “broaden their mindset” and “be educated”. More details can be found at Sex Matters and at Christian Concern who are supporting the nurses via the CLC.

The hearing started on October 20th, with evidence starting on October 22nd and is scheduled to last 3 weeks. To view the hearing online, requests for access had to be made by October 17th. The hearing is being live tweeted by Tribunal Tweets who have background to this case on their substack. An alternative to X is to use Nitter: nitter.net/tribunaltweets or nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets

The Judge made clear at the start of the public hearing on Day 1 that only TT or press have permission to tweet. If online observers see/hear something in the court that isn’t reported by TT, we don’t mention it until the next time there’s a break. This is a very cautious approach to avoid any accusations of “live reporting” on MN. Commentary on the content of TT tweets is fine as soon as they’re posted on X.

Key people:
C/Ns - Claimants, the Darlington nurses
R/T/Trust - Respondent, County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust
J/EJ – Judge/Employment Judge
NF - Niazi Fetto KC, barrister for claimants
SC - Simon Cheetham, KC, barrister for respondents
RH - Rose Henderson, trans identifying nurse
CG – Clare Gregory, ward manager
KD – Karen Danson, first claimant to give evidence.
BH – Bethany Hutchison, second claimant to give evidence
AH – Alistair Hutchison, husband of Bethany

Other abbreviations:
WFTCHTJ – Waiting For The Conference Host To Join
ET - Employment Tribunal
DMH/H – Hospital, Darlington Memorial Hospital
CR/CF - changing room or facilities
IX - internal investigation
XX – cross examination

Those who are using this app, I couldn't find it in the AppStore. Has it been renamed? There are a couple of Apps it might be when I tried to login I couldn't ge anywhere with it at all. It kept asking me to set up an account. Can anyone link?

It just says "trans staff" not men, people are probably confused.

It's called the Pexip Infinity Connect app.

It looks like this in my App Store

Poll is also not clear. I said no but I have absolutely no issue with a women who says she’s a man using my changing room (unless the modifications she has made are extreme and she cannot be identified as a female).

so trans people is not correct because it’s not right to discriminate against them. They need to have a changing room.

What gave you the impression that the witness lost the judge? (I'm just following on here, not on X)

That's what I think too. It's not clear what they mean.

Which is why language is so important.

Sun poll is now 46.5% (no men in CR) to 52% (not an issue)

It's not available under that name in the App Store as far as I can see. There's only one called "pexip" or another called "pexip (my meeting video)"

I imagine a lot of voters are men like the beauty who made his views clear to KJK. There do seem to be a lot of men who relish the opportunity to shout at women and generally be unpleasant towards them.

Thank you!

I'd love to see that run again with a picture of Rose.

Getting irritated with the focus on 'risk' and 'degree of transition' - that opens the door for much wangling, from a starting point of the man should be there and the women's boundaries must be questioned and tested. No, it's not about a case by case dismissal of each man, it's that they're men in the first place and women have the right to change without being used by men wanting the experience of being permitted men in a no-men space. By law. Whether for validation or happy penis reasons is irrelevant.

And if it's one lovely transitioned man with no penis, it's also Karen White and Barbie Kardashian, you cannot say yes to one and no to another. Rather like the issue being skirted around here, that it began with not wanting any men in the changing room, and extended to that man using his access to allegedly behave like a dick.

Which in a way goes on with the whole 'risk' thing and the massive power imbalance involved; women should not have to put up with men behaving like dicks in their spaces and enjoying their power, and to have to evidence this properly and sufficiently naicely over years of process with everyone agreeing that the dickishness has been peer reviewed as having gone too far now, before they're allowed to escape his abuse of them.

And who enjoy a man exerting his power to make the uppity bitches submit.

And don’t forget ‘stuck up bitches’.

Another one of their misogynistic epithets.

Getting irritated with the focus on 'risk' and 'degree of transition' - that opens the door for much wangling, from a starting point of the man should be there and the women's boundaries must be questioned and tested.

Agree. It's also a completely impractical proposition.

If the sign on the door says 'inclusive', it's really not clear who can be excluded.

Who is supposed to have the job of saying no?

As a man can get a GRC without actually doing much towards transitioning, allowing men who have 'fully transitioned' (which i'm taking to mean hormones and vaginoplasty, no 'penis preserving' shenaniganery either) then there will be three classes of tw. They be the ones without a GRC, the one's with (neither of which will be necessarily allowed in the women's changing rooms) and the fully transitioned who might be, who may not have a GRC. This is taking us towards the genital inspections the tras seem so keen on.

Also the EA as clarified by the SC will have to be rewritten and they'll be the utter confusion over who is permitted to be where that the SC essentially warned against.

Darlington trans complaint nurse claims 'atmosphere of fear' - BBC News

If I understand Michael Foran correctly,

1. the introduction of the GRC makes it unnecessary to consider the extent of transition
2. it is not lawful to make a GRC dependent on medical treatment that could lead to sterilisation.
3. the SC has ruled that a GRC does entitle anyone to use opposite sex spaces.

So the only relevance of Rose's lack of transition is that it exposes the facial nature of the whole thing.

49.2% no vs 50.1% yes.
Wims are catching up fast

I mean whether he has a (functioning) penis is very relevant in a harassment claim. Many reasons:

• Was already sexually harassing women and there's a risk of rape.

• Many women will be more intimidated by an intact transwoman. That doesn't mean they can't rightly be intimidated by one without one.

• One problem is he was sitting there in tight boxers where you could make it out which is getting rather perverted.

I think as well there has been a previous tribunal ruling that an employer doesn't automatically have to allow trans at an transition stage into the women's. Evidently before the SC.

Can someone remind me of Mr BlinkAndYou'llMissHim Hutchinson's role?

I’ve just seen the photo of Rose.

Why is it never a good looking man? I mean, I know it’s irrelevant, but… there are not many Alex whatshisfaces, are there?!

Or what happens to the women who don't consent and cannot get undressed with a man in the room. The first job of a women's facility is to be inclusive of all women.

The bewigged, lipstick wearing men up and down the country will be getting RSA from multiple voting I imagine.

Exactly. The SCJ goes into this, and makes clear it is completely impractical and impossible to make it some men but not other men. Not to mention the impact on women.