"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 9

[ThreeWordHarpy]

Thread 1, 7-Oct to 23-Oct
Thread 2, 23-Oct to 28-Oct
Thread 3, 28-Oct to 29-Oct
Thread 4, 29-Oct to 31-Oct
Thread 5, 31-Oct to 04-Nov
Thread 6, 04-Nov to 05-Nov
Thread 7, 05-Nov to 11-Nov
Thread 8, 11-Nov to 16-Jan (last thread with the schedule and abbreviations)

Five nurses working at Darlington Memorial Hospital filed a legal case against their employer, an NHS trust, for sexual harassment and sex discrimination. The nurses objected to sharing the women’s changing facilities with a male colleague, Rose, who identifies as female. The hearing was held between 20th October and 11th November and was live tweeted by Tribunal Tweets who have comprehensive information regarding this case on their substack, including archives of the twitter threads, lists of people involved and press releases.

At the time this thread was started, the judgment had not yet been published on the Courts website but was widely reported in the media that the NHS was found to have discriminated against the nurses, but the claims against Rose were not upheld.

I don't doubt pp but I'm struggling to get my head round it being impossible to reverse a GRC. Can GRC holders just not go through the whole process again? I can see though that this would mean faking a belief to go along with a process that has already harmed them. Is it gender dysphoria when it's a diagnosis that got you into this mess and having recovered from it you'd have to fake it to get back to where you started. Document wise, physically some things can never be reversed. Were I in that situation having to do that would be extremely distasteful.

I think you are making the Michael Foran argument that without a GRA, the whole matter just becomes a matter for judges, as it was before, and it's a free for all?

Better to have a clear line even if it doesn't make sense.

I do see that, but can't get away for the fact that it still doesn't make sense.

I've long wondered about amending the GRA so that GRCs recognise "gender identity" instead of sex with it being a personal thing rather than it having any impacts in the real world.

The argument would be that "changing of sex" is redundant in view of the legalisation of same-sex marriage, that the GRC in its current form is inadequate to reflect the amazingly diverse world of gender identities that the past couple of decades have blessed us with, and it would be a tidying amendment being responsive to FWS.

This would be one of the "glittery things" I mentioned in my post above. It would stand in place of a full repeal of the GRA for which the political will isn't there and would be to defang GRCs.

Or is not believing in God a sign of a mental health condition? Would you ask a devout Muslim about that? I know it's fine to insult Christians but there's a teacher living in hiding who might advise you to be very very careful about asking that.

I've long wondered about amending the GRA so that GRCs recognise "gender identity" instead of sex with it being a personal thing rather than it having any impacts in the real world.

The amendment/s would have to make it clear that a GRC would have no impacts in the real world.

I can't see that being popular with the genderists.

Or it would have to go into detail about what a GRC would and wouldn't permit. For instance what would constitute harassment e.g all the "microagressions" à la Edinburgh University

I knew the comment about god was cheeky and I apologise.

I am going back to where I started by putting it into an employment perspective.

You are the HR Director of an NHS hospital. you have an employee A who is a trans identifying female. They have a GRC stating their legal sex is male. They are also a victim
of CSA by their sports coach.

Your hospitals communal changing room and toilets policies state these are single sex spaces based on biological sex so FWS SC compliant.

Employee A is not legally nor as per policy allowed to use men’s CR and toilets.

Employee A follows the policy and the law and uses the female CR and toilet.

Employee B is female and a survivor of rape with PTSD. She encounters employee A in the female CR when getting changed. Employer As presentation as male triggered employee Bs PTSD.

Employee C (female) approaches you clearly distressed with a petition from 20 other female employee’s stating employee A may be a biological female but their male presentation is distressing them by using the CR.

Employee A has at the same time lodged a grievance for harassment because the female employees are telling them it isn’t right they are using the women’s CR and have raised a petition.

What does the law/case law currently say you as HR Director do in that situation? What would you say on the stand at an ET to justify your decision?

FWS SC judgement pointed this issue out but didn’t propose a solution. Hopefully the EHRC guidance when (if) it’s published will have the answer.

My view is that over the next 5-10 years there will be a lot more ETs, EATs etc. from different perspectives and at some point there will be a need for legislative change.

My suggestion is changes to legislation that clearly separate sex and gender. It treats gender ??? like other beliefs under the religion and belief pc. How you define gender - bloody difficult and thankfully not my problem.

We can agree to disagree about how to resolve this. I am open to other suggestions but in all honesty I cannot see the GRA and Gender reassignment pc being repealed. Revised but not repealed.

@nauticant it doesn't make sense and never did but we have to work with where we are.

What ever happens TRAs will hate it.

Just watched a 'This Isn't Working' vid where they talk about disruptive people in the workplace and how to approach the issue. I think it relates well to what we see going on in the NHS. Clinical psychologist Jaco van Zyl says that those at the top need to bite the bullet and take the short term hassle and get rid of the trouble makers.

Very interesting indeed.

Apparently not , which I think is appalling.

One of the requirements for a GRC is that you intend to live in your acquired gender for the rest of your life, which rather precludes reversing the process. You can see why that was included - presumably to make sure people were serious about it - but it really wasn’t thought through properly, like everything else associated with this sorry mess we’re in.

FWS SC judgement pointed this issue out but didn’t propose a solution

It did. It just didn't set out specific details, which would differ too much from situation to situation. The SC said if someone is sufficiently transitioned to cause distress to others in a single sex space then they must not use that space, but must not be left without provision. It's up to the service provider to work out how to do that, because they are assumed to have a minimal.level of competence. One person needing rape crisis counselling can have it off site or out of usual hours; 15 FTM employees of a trans charity can have an FTM changing room. Legislation will never go into that level of detail.

I'm struggling to get my head round it being impossible to reverse a GRC. Can GRC holders just not go through the whole process again?

No, it was written as a one-way process. It's not a matter of 'faking belief - a detransitioner's belief that their gender matches their sex is patently true. It's that the wording of the legislation doesn't permit doing it twice to reverse the result. For example, the words 'different' or 'gender does not match sex' gone through twice are still 'different' and 'does not match'; they don't reverse to 'same' and 'does match'.

All this just shows the problem at the heart of it - we don’t have a clear definition of “gender”.

Well, this should be easy to solve. It doesn’t need much debate or rumination - the definition is “stereotypes”.

present however the fuck you want. Don’t confirm to stereotyping (inc expected appearances, expected role in society etc) based on sex - great, I’d recognise this as a good thing. Good for you.

But respect fucking biology! You can choose to conform with stereotyping or not but you cannot change your fucking sex. Your biological, real sex.

asorry I am in a v grumpy and inarticulate mood this morning.

Afternoon, even. Sorry

And it doesn't cover all the nobheads who have zero intention of acquiring a GRC (which includes a number of high profile media rent-a-gobs) NOR zero intention of medically transitioning.

The Equality Act Definition:

(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.

If you have merely changed your name / pronouns and/or your clothes this arguably isn't physiological or an attribution of sex, its just forcing people to change their language. There's nothing stopping a bloke from wearing a dress and remaining a bloke. Don't gaslight me by saying you intend to live as a woman, and then have a full fucking beard and get stroppy when I percieve you as the bloke you are. Changing your name does bugger all too. I've been doing some family history this week and come across a man named Evelyn. His name of Evelyn doesn't make him female. Equally James has started to become used for baby girls.

The key part is - engaging in a process - that has to mean consulting with doctors explicitly for the purposes of obtaining a GRC AT THE BAREST OF MINIMUMS, so there is an official record of intent. If you then are 'going through the process' for 5 years rather than the 2 you need to obtain a certificate that should start to raise alarm bells that you aren't serious or you are bullshitting.

Instead we seem to be going along with the idea of self ID by the back door which has absoluetely no legal basis - and yet this is the nonsense that women are supposed to put up with. Just cos a bloke says so even if this puts women at risk or completely neglects their dignity.

No. The answer is no.

You can't get a definition of gender without reference to sex.

And you can't do it without sexist stereotypes which, if you use, are technically at odds with the law as being, well unlawful sexism.

Exactly - yes, sorry I should have said “sexist stereotypes”. This is why we need to push and push for a clear definition as it simply doesn’t stand up at all. In all the years I have been trying to pin down TRAs on their definition of the word, no one has ever answered.

If this was solved (not thr right word but I can’t think of it atm, I mean laid bare etc) the whole edifice just crumbles so for me it’s the foundation we need to be kicking, if that makes sense. All these debates about gender - pointless without exposing it for what it actually is.

All these debates about gender - pointless without exposing it for what it actually is:

It's 'progressive misogyny' for a new generation. It's a men's rights movement. The women claiming to be trans are trying to opt out of being the victims of misogyny but in doing so beat women who point out what the whole thing actually is.

You can't actually get away from this point and this is the ultimate problem I have with all the 'nice transwomen' in my life. They are ultimately still just old fashioned sexists pricks. I have some old fashioned sexist pricks in my life who I care about a lot but I still challenge them when they are sexist pricks. Trans is just a cover to try and stop me challenging the outright sexism and punching down on women as lesser humans.

Sorry, lots of spag errors I think as well as being sweary! Combo of new zombie meds and grumpiness plus a very big worry. Ironically involving hospitals so probably should step away from threads atm!

How about if you make sure there are single loos with locking doors and sinks in them, with alarm cords. Then ANYONE who needs them for whatever reason can use them. You then remind all staff that they need to respect each other and handle anyone whose behaviour is making someone else uncomfortable in line with the usual HR processes. (eg telling dirty jokes is unacceptable and so is wandering around in boxer shorts with holes in them.)

Hope the day improves for you. If not, can you try chocolate, wine and a hot bath this evening?

Keep Toilets Safe can tell us why this won't work, but basically single cubicles aren't safe. If someone collapses they can't be seen under full length doors. Full length doors are unhygienic as they can't be properly cleaned under and they don't allow air circulation. Single cubicles are also handy for those who wish to misuse them, whether to attack someone, take drugs or have sex.

Thank you @Easytoconfuse
Sadly not allowed wine or baths but have a whole tin of danish biscuits!

Yes we definitely need TSS as she is fabulous at explaining it properly. From a personal medical POV, single cubicles are dangerous as I don’t always get time to pull alarm cord etc and no one would know I was unconscious or convulsing as they wouldn’t hear/see me as they definitely would in a “normal” cubicle with under floor gaps. Plus they aren’t as easy to access eg drag me out as you would through the gap in normal toilet. It hugely heightens the risk of brain damage and/or death (status epilepticus kicks in after just five minutes) Lots of other similar conditions like diabetes put people at risk or even unexpected heart attacks.

It maybe trying to define gender for legislation does bring a resolution. However, you need to have the discussions first.

Gender for 99.9% of people actually now means ‘sex’.

All this idea of masculine and feminine stereotypes and ways of presenting in society constituting ‘gender’ while ‘sex’ is biological, means little if some people think it means one thing and most people think it means another.

What is your definition of gender? (Preferably in one/two succinct sentence)