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!

Just a reminder that the nurses are apparently still £25k (!) short of the funds they need for their legal costs if anyone can do any gardening. We are all in their debt...

What irritates me most about that stupid NION letter is that, actually:

a) They have no way of knowing how many people have signed it
b) They have no way of knowing how many of those people are actual women

All they know is how many times it has been signed.

For instance, I could have signed it four times, with my four different email accounts. And I could be a man.

Those 77,000 people will have their needs perfectly well met in the mixed space/gender neutral provisions. As will the men involved.

They only need to accept that other women have their beliefs and feelings and needs too, and that not all women's experience and needs matches theirs.

And that however much some activists may really like the idea of non consenting, distressed women forced to submit themselves to prioritising men's needs whatever the cost to themselves, or to be excluded from resources and society in punishment, it isn't healthy thinking anyone should be proud of or supporting. Women are not lesser humans than men.

Incidentally - wtf is a 'gendered space' when it's at home?

This is about single sex spaces under law.

Yes, they don't want single, individual spaces or mixed sex spaces (where all the signatories could go to support them) they want to use unconsenting women. That's the point of trans identifying men wanting to get into single sex spaces. They're not interested in the space itself.

I note that not all trans identified men do this, some don't want to use unconsenting women or in other words aren't abusive males. They use mixed sex / gender neutral or the mens.

So anyone saying they're an 'inclusive ally' is basically saying 'yes, I agree men should be able to use unconsenting working class women' (because let's face it the class dynamic is undeniable) either as part of their fetish or as validation or simply as part of a thrill of abuse and power in forcing someone you see as lesser to do something they don't want to do.

These people don't care how scared, or upset or traumatised or hurt these working class women are. They don't care if the presence of a male excludes these women from the workplace. They're not seen as fully human.

Even after Karen Danson has revealed she was abused as a child and the man Rose's presence in an enclosed space labelled single sex made her retraumatised, these people will sign away her rights.

I suppose we should feel lucky that witch burning is no longer a thing.....

You got in first, Ophelia
It's important to emphasise that single-sex spaces are single SEX spaces, not single gendered spaces, and the Supreme Court has clarified that sex means biological sex.

People can have any flavour of gender ID they like, but they can only have one sex, and that will be male, so use the men's, or female, so use the women's.

edited to add that the configuration of women's, men's and accessible toilets caters for 90-point-something% of the population. The demand to change that configuration, or add fourth spaces to it, comes from a very tiny minority of people.

Absolutely, both of you.

The reason I would have liked Rose to be deemed to have harassed the nurses is for this reason. I believe he did, like I believe Upton harassed Sandie Peggie.

There were many men impotently railing on Reddit this morning that “transphobes” should be made to pay for this.

Well some of us did

ISWYDT 😂

"...most people are inclusive, and cases like this are quite rare"....

They might be "rare" but they were bloody non-existent till a bunch of sexist nitwits decided a man who feels like "a woman", whatever that is, is welcome to get his kit off with female people rather than male!

Going from never to "rare" is not going in the right direction.

Some people may be inclusive in theory, but I bet Rose in his holey pants in a confined space, asking them why they're not getting changed yet, would make them change their views pretty damn quickly.

Would this type of result be more likely to succeed as a criminal or private prosecution? I can imagine that the nurses are too busy to concentrate on this though.

There is outraging public decency as an offence. Section 5 if the public order act. Also a civil case under the Equality act.

Just thinking out loud here. No idea if feasible.

Rose knew he was causing offence at some stage, his 'friends' knew this when they posted the sign on the door.

The standard of proof in criminal proceedings is much higher, has to be beyond reasonable doubt. That would be very difficult.

Aaand these are the same men who want to be able to go into single sex spaces without us having advance warning (by it being labelled mixed sex) with us and our children. Men who want to 'make us pay'.

Places we know where assaults by men on women can and do happen and it's difficult to get away. From the indecent exposure / wanking of the transwoman in one other thread on here to the rape of the female locked up with men in a psychiatric ward on another.

No thanks. This is WHY we have single sex spaces. To keep safe from men who want to 'make us pay'

Yes, how different are these men to the worst MRAs?

Indeed.

Anyway it doesn't matter if some women don't mind. Some women DO mind, and that's all that matters. Although I realise I am getting uncomfortably close to Kemp's reasoning that it only matters if someone complains - but I actually mean that no woman can give up female spaces to male bodied people because other women don't like it, and that's the end of it.

Sadly no. Are you able to give us a quick summary of what he said?

I can't remember whether it was here or on the main thread that it was mentioned, but I also don't understand how/why the tribunal did not conclude that Henderson harassed the nurses simply by being there, even with permission, when he knew he was not wanted, and that the question about getting changed was harassment. Legal Feminist go into this question towards the end of this TwiX thread. I think LF also doesn't think that part of the judgement makes sense, I hope I'm not just misunderstanding the thread.

https://x.com/legalfeminist/status/2012271435100643525

I think they will, as it is not obvious what they could appeal.

The fix is simply changing the TIW policy, as IIUC Rose is already using alternate changing facilities.

The open items are:

• disciplinary proceedings against the nurses, which I assume will be cancelled
• Rose's discrimination claim, which I assume will be settled quietly
• any actions by the remaining 300 users of the changing room who might also claim - I haven't checked time limits

Quite, how can you know what you would and wouldn't mind until you were in that sort of situation? I don't believe any woman who says she's happy to strip off in front of strange men, and especially when in a designated female only space.

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

Reminder from another thread: Toby Young of FSU says they have had in the region of 1600 cases over 5 years where they have defended women who have been discriminated against for their views on sex and gender. He specifically mentions women having to share 'bathrooms' and changing rooms with men who say they are women. That averages out at 6 cases a week

What is Rose’s discrimination claim?