Darlington nurses win their employment tribunal

[Lovelyview]

https://christianconcern.com/ccpressreleases/victory-for-darlington-nurses-as-judge-rules-policy-that-allows-men-into-womens-changing-rooms-is-unlawful-harassment-and-discrimination/

Brilliant news!

Hearing that gives me great pleasure - the man's a tool

If i recall Sandie Peggie is suing the nurses union. Let's be honest all unions, but in particular some of the public sector unions have badly let their women members down.

Think someone said she's not been well so didn't participate in the hearing?

So pleased to hear this news today. Well done the Darlington Nurses and their team.

He's an akshual woman, didn't you realise? His bio on Twitter/X:

Broadcaster. Biological Female. Don’t identify - am. Terfs - racists for trans people. BBC News - state propaganda. Woman Of Year 2023. Green

But that doesn’t really matter for the definition of harassment does it? He knows he’s male and if the employer is liable for harassment in allowing him in then surely he is personally liable. He doesn’t have to intend to create a hostile, intimidating etc environment it is enough that that is the purpose or effect

I've now read through the judgment. One of the interesting aspects is that it engages with the human rights argument and explicitly says that there is NO right under Article 8 for a transgender person to access single sex spaces based on their gender identity. This is important.

In Peggie, the tribunal assumed that there was such a right (based on absolutely nothing and ignoring For Women Scotland) and that it needed to be balanced against women's rights to single sex spaces. Darlington tribunal says there is no such right, so no conflict of rights, so no need for such a balancing exercise.

But that is where the "He said, she said" type of evidence comes in. Far harder to prove than an actual policy.

Although I suspect they've been a little gentle on the fragrant Rose.

On Rose's behaviour in the changing rooms: The tribunal essentially said that the nurses were understandably on high alert and fearful knowing that there was a man in the changing room and this led them to interpret what might otherwise be neutral acts (looking at someone in the eyes etc.) as being threatening (or pervy). There wasn't enough clear evidence that Rose's behaviour was threatening to make a finding of fact about this. So while the tribunal seemed to have sympathy and understanding for the nurses' interpretation of his behaviour there just wasn't enough evidence to justify a finding of sexual harassment. They basically found that he just didn't think about the nurses feelings at all.

While this might seem disappointing I think it is a legally sound decision on the facts.

Woman Of Year 2023

Lol

In his dreams.

“it engages with the human rights argument and explicitly says that there is NO right under Article 8 for a transgender person to access single sex spaces based on their gender identity.”

This is important, as you say. Because we keep pointing out that Article 8 is clear about exclusion when it is in the interest of safety. However, groups who declare it is a violation of human rights for these men to abide by a policy or law and use only male provisions keep reinforcing this dishonesty in the minds of those who never bother to check. And those people just keep repeating it unthinkingly.

@KermitTheToad what don't you understand?

We have no problem with transmen using female single sex spaces because they are, as you say, female.

Oh the old 'photoshop test'. You men and MRAs don't seem to understand that it is in MOTION: the GAIT, the voice, not just the male jawbone, the height, the limb length, hand/feet size, adams apple, broad shoulders, etc, etc. Only the most pitiful try the photo(shop) test anymore. You're attempts are absolutely pitiful.

Same, it seems the safest option.

I absolutely would feel comfortable with a transman, what with them being a woman and not having a functional penis and all that.

What point are you trying to make, here?

Pointing out a squirrel? 😂

OMG, I'm off now, I can't be doing with people who clearly don't understand simple English.

Woman of the Year 2023 ???

In what context? (Other than in his own head).

For posters concerned 'Rose' wasnt found by the tribunal to have harassed the female nurses as he'd been given permission to be there, strongly recommend you read pages 36-37 of the other Darlington nurses thread 8.

Because the judgement found rose had done nothing 'wrong' posters on the other thread have explained the judge is recognising just a man's presence there is abusive to women- it makes protections for women stronger not weaker.

it means all men who say they are women should always be excluded from the womens changing room- even if they are 'nice' men , even if they are sad at being excl uded. It makes no difference to the impact on womens privacy and dignity as they are all men.

Hope that helps....

No, you were exposed as an MRA who think women don't know the difference between a person in the flesh and in an altered photo. We've seen you men 40 thousand times before, come on here. All thinking you have a 'gotcha'. Not realising 40 thousand of you tried the same 'gotcha' before. All falling flat on your face in the mud.

PS if you were any kind of actual woman, you'd know that it's hardwired into women as a survival instinct to accurately sex someone in the flesh. Actual studies and papers show women have a 96% success rate at this. Only a MALE doesn't understand this basic concept. All women understand it, even 'c1s' women.

Fever dream

Good point

Hopefully once the SC judgment is respected and followed by organisations we'll return to the ethical position where women's rights to privacy etc from men is respected. Men who insist on invading women's changing rooms will be treated as the flashers and voyeurs that they are and prosecuted.