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!

We are used to people JAQing off.

Ooh, I've not heard that term, how fitting.

According to the Grauniad, 77,000 transmaidens signed a petition or open letter in support of the "trans community", with a spokesperson (male or female, I wonder?) saying "it is crucial to note that not all women feel trans people should be excluded from gendered spaces". Archived version, to keep your IP address and referrer header data out of the mucky paws of the sysadmins. Observations:

1. This is astroturfing by the Good Laugh Project, who have their logo all over it.
2. There's a distinct lack of concrete demands and commitments. I wonder how many of the 77,000 would sign if the text actually said "we accept bepenised people in women's spaces and services". I think women have signed that letter to "be kind" without necessarily realising that their signature is being misused by this spokesperson to claim support for penises in women's changing rooms.

Returning to the statement in the Guardian:

1. Radical feminists aren't demanding the exclusion of trans people, but of trans-identifying males, from women's spaces.
2. 77,000 transmaidens don't get to override the law, nor do they get to override the refusal of other women and girls. Male access to female spaces isn't determined by a majority vote, but by a blackball vote with a quorum of all the women and girls using the space and an acceptance threshold of zero.

It would be marvellous if nurses all over the country left unions like Unison and RCN and joined the Darlngton Nurses Union.
The unions are one of the biggest problems atm.

OR THE BIGLY WRITING IN ALL CAPS FOR EXTRA MAXIMUM EFFECT

Well exactly. I do not get this. WHY is it crucial that we all know that not all women mind men in the ladies? What does it matter when it can't override the law or the wishes of other women who DO mind? It's completely irrelevant what they think.

And the cross-over with Labour MPs is mind boggling.

‘Got high-up trade union experience? Shafted a tonne of women on your great political journey so that a few men won’t say they feel sad? Become a Labour MP!’

And yes, I have names in mind. I think we all do. It’s a very troubling and deeply anti-socialist dialectic.

Allyship cookies, innit?

Is that what is about?

Not sure if this has been posted.

But if not think it is interesting as it seems to shows a slightly different style of reporting by the BBC on women's rights vs trans rights!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj0ny0r5q1mo

Yes, they were wanging on about it on Reddit as if it means our objections are irrelevant.

It helps them maintain the fantasy that only a tiny minority of bitter, hateful “terfs” don’t want to change in front of them.

Well the BBC reported it and then still went on about trans rights, not mentioning women’s rights once. Fairness, my arse.

The trust said: “We are taking time to review the judgment carefully and will comment further once we have had the opportunity to consider it in full.”
Imagine this response by a guilty party in any other case. "Now I have been found guilty of assault/tax evasion/ murder i shall consider my position on this"
How is this acceptable as a response?

I think it is a ok response. They wouldn’t have argued in court if they didn’t think they were in the right. So reading and considering the judgement before responding would be expected.

Agreed. They should be properly advised on the meaning and implications of the judgement. I don't actually want a public body rushing out to make a more substantive statement for the sake of being prompt, especially as that raises the possibility they dig themselves a bigger hole (helllooooo Fife!). Sometimes it's better to take the weekend.

Wouldn't it be great if the trust came back and said yes, we completely support the ruling. We were given incorrect advice by many organisations, including Stonewall and the BBC, that it was correct and legal to give men access to women's spaces if they claimed to identify as women. They were wrong. We will now rewrite all our policies regarding this.

But they won't......

Yet, perversely, it’s precisely the compulsion element of forcing women and girls to undress in front of them that gives many of them that special tingly feeling. 🤢

Because the higher-ups are open to further claims as they signed off on the policy.

And if staff have been lying to female patients about men on what should be women only wards

Or staff have been bullying patients or not allowed same sex care.

There is a whole can of cash on the table when this ruling is applied across their medical provision.

Yes it would be great but we have the unhinged leading the incompetent by the nose so.... 'but they won't'. 🙄

And that's the elephant galloping around that the public really need to know about. The 'noticing headlines in passing' people are still being fed the line of sweet, innocent, vulnerable, tearful, you'd never know..... no, sexual arousal plays a huge part in all this for men on various levels, not least the requirement that women 'validate' by exposing their bodies. And submit to doing so even when they don't consent. The links with abusive relationships also need to be given way more publicity.

The incompetent being dragged along by their nose piercings by the unhinged - that nails it, it really does - are glazed eyed and drooling 'please sir can I have another' much of the time, they do know but have zero morals and plain don't care. Apparently about anything or anyone much, unless claiming to in the moment has some benefit to their self interest.

Nearly all, if not all NHS trusts have their own legal departments. So there is no way they would do this, it would be conceding that either your legal dept was rubbish or senior leaders ignored or didnt seek their advice.

On that point. I would love to have seen the risk register the legal dept held and what it said about this case.

Dito on why Fifes Board / legal department signed off on a big ole Fuck You to the Information Commissioner in the middle of their ET 😬

Did antibody else see Benedict Spence on Sky News' press preview last night? He was magnificent on this subject. Interestingly, the Sky catch up video of the press preview doesn't include it. How odd.

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

All part of their gaslighting that people welcome the male penis in spaces where girls and women undress. Cases like this are "rare" as transactivists have been threatening, intimidating and coercing others into complying with their demands from the get go. Employers have followed their instructions as evidenced in the Darlington case🙄

It takes a lot of courage to risk your career and wellbeing to take on the trans mob and stand up for the safety of women and girls. That's why the nurses have accomplished so much with this case

Exactly that @MrsOvertonsWindow it takes a very strong woman to stand up for their rights in this way, knowing that they'll be torn apart all over the media and SM, and the subject of so much aggression and animosity. If I'm being totally honest, unless I had a very determined and supportive group of women going through the process and courts with me every step of the way, I'd probably just keep quiet and keep well away from the bloke in question in order to protect myself and my family- and I am so angry with myself for feeling that way. Quite how Sandy Peggie did it on her own I don't know.