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!

They also said that the Trust did investigate discrimination but only discrimination against transgender people. They did not even consider discrimination against women which is why they have lost their case on the basis of sex discrimination.

Beautiful!

So in Sandy Peggie’s case judge ruled it was ok for men to use women’s changing rooms but judge in Darlington case ruled it wasn’t? Is that correct?

If so how are changing room providers meant to decide whether they exclude Tim’s or not? Hopefully TIM isn’t still an offensive term to mumsnet rules . I haven’t posted on this subject for a while so dunno what is and isn’t allowable these days. I know the Supreme Court ruling should provide clarity but presumably it didn’t make a difference in the case of Peggie, or did that ruling come out after that tribunal? I didn’t think it did though.

Just a shame we still haven’t had any findings of harassment against individual creepy men.

Whilst it would be good if these men could be held personally responsible for their behaviour (though as an employment tribunal this would not be the case from this court), it could muddy the waters. It is not about the behaviour of men in these spaces, it is their presence. Making it about their behaviour could lead to TRAs saying ‘it is ok as long as you don’t harass women whilst there’.

Having said that, these creepy men should be charged with harassment by the police.

Creepy man named "Cadence" calling LBC now. Shelagh telling him what's what!

Predictably, Cadence thinks the nurses are bigots. Someone else now criticising the nurse for referring to Rose as a man and not "respecting her pronouns"

So what will happen now? Will the nurses seek compensation or anything?

There is likely to be another hearing for that. It is part of the outcome of this case

Public tarring and feathering would be my vote!

Agreed to a point, but it would also be nice if there were some personal consequences for these creeps. I can’t imagine finding that they had harassed colleagues will go down well with their regulators

Yep, @KermitTheToad was aiming for a gotcha. He must really not know they TRAs don't even try to hide their stance. We can smell them a mile away. Definitely sour grapes that men aren't allowed to expose their penis to women and girls in NHS changing rooms anymore. How sad for the flashers and flasher-enablers.

" KermitTheToad · 12/06/2025 20:18
I am sure that a lot of the transphobes on here identity as wonderful human beings. Some people will disagree with this. Just because I insist that you are not wonderful ( due to your lack of understanding) does not change how you feel about yourself."

and

"KermitTheToad · 12/06/2025 18:42
Yes, HE is now your brother in law. But nobody else in MN will agree with me."

Both from the same thread.

Yeah and with 7/8 claimants even if they only get relatively modest sums it will be costly

This is an issues across government in terms of public sector equality duties and equality impact assessments. They are nearly always one sided, and fail to consider the impact of a policy on everyone.

So let transwomen into women's single sex spaces, they consider the impact on transwomen but not women. Change the accessible toilet to gender neutral they consider the impact on trans people but not the impact on people with disabilities.

How nice it is to read this judgment after the mess that was the Sandie Peggie judgement. Absolutely clear that the women's changing room is only for women and that Rose should have been given a separate changing space.

Yes funny how they seem to think they are onto a winner saying how terrible it is that men can’t expose their genitalia to women because now women can. As if we would say ‘you’re right, it is much better to be a victim of male sexual exposure’!

While one claim was stayed, due to illness I think, given the trust was found to be at fault doesn't she automatically also win?

In fairness, even Kemp couldn't wangle it entirely, and tried to say that it was ok for men to use women's single sex spaces until a woman objected. And after that it wasn't ok. This idea is nowhere in the Equality Act or SCJ or actual law though.

So he supported that non consenting women could not be "required" to share facilities with men with gender identities.

I wonder on reflection if we should be crowd funding for the BBC to restock their scare quotes. They seem to have spent their entire year's supply on today's articles.

This is great news 🥳

They just embarrass themselves by showing they haven't read the SC ruling. Obviously, they've already embarrassed themselves by claiming women can have penises, but it's so funny watching them jump up and down going BUT WOT ABOUT when it's something that's been comprehensively addressed. The pretence not to know what a woman is is obviously feigned ignorance (or just plain lying, if you're fed up of being polite about it) but the Transman Gotcha exposes the basic stuff they truly don't know.

Great news!
Congratulations to the Darlington Nurses 💐

In furure, once the resistance has fizzled out, and everyone knows what is what I'm pretty certain that a transgressor could well be found guilty of harassment.

💪congratulations!!

I think in some ways this is actually a good thing.

The problem is the presence of a biological male. It may have been dismissed as an issue with a bad faith trans woman otherwise.

Has ‘Rose’ ever explained why they asked the nurse if she was getting changed yet?

For one thing, in the future there won’t be an entire institution standing behind the man committing indecent exposure in women’s single sex spaces, insisting he really is trying very hard to be feminine so he’s done nothing wrong.

With no back-up, they’re just garden variety exhibitionists. And there’s no one else to point the finger at if the institution has given them a secure space to use but they’re still insisting on getting into the Ladies’.

But the man who goes into the women's area knows he should not be there. Why is this not direct and deliberate harassment?