"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.

BBC website this morning (the newspapers).

Can they be bothered to report accurately? Of course, No.

(Complaint duly submitted.)

Victoria Smith has written a good article in the Critic

Does women’s discomfort matter? | Victoria Smith | The Critic Magazine https://share.google/0kdOlvgGH9cB2lQ1x

wow how many times do the trust say 'colleagues'? Very clear they have an issue with the word 'women'.

Seems like they are trying to score some petty point by deliberately avoiding the w word, certainly no change of heart or lesson learnt whatsoever.

I agree.

In addition if, as they should, the gmt and Civil Service apply the FWS SC judgment and make it clear SSS are just that. Then there is an issue to resolve and that is what is the solution for trans people.

Even the SC acknowledged a trans identifying female (transman) should use female SSS but in doing so their appearance may mean it causes distress e.g. rape crisis centres.

The debate to be had is how do we respect sex and SSS whilst treating people with the PC of gender reassignment. Trans and non-binary people need to be involved in discussions, as do women. No debate did not just harm women but also some trans people. I can see a need for this role as part of a much wider piece of work.

I have always believed we need separate and clear legal definitions of sex and gender identity, including non-binary. Both should be PCs but legal clarity on the rights and responsibilities of each would help everyone.

Presumably they will have cleared any statement with their LBGTQ++ people/groups who will have pointed out that the use of the word "woman" is problematic.

It is an excellent article. It highlights how female discomfort is seen as subordinate to male satisfaction - exactly what played out in Darlington. However I do think that the judgement didn't entirely grasp how deep seated the discomfort was. The afternoon where the 2 male counsel and the male judge discussed "normal" behaviour in a female changing room was deeply uncomfortable as it was clear that they had no idea - women in a changing room generally spend as little time as possible in the underwear and pass that as discreetly as possible (facing away from the room etc) both to preserve their own privacy and that of others. Yet the 3 men didn't understand that Rose prancing around in his boxers was not normal behaviour in a female changing room and this was probably the basis for the finding in the judgement that his behaviour was basically normal and just that the women perceived it as abnormal as their senses were heightened to his presence anyway.

But let’s wait and see. Once this person is in place, ze may find “things are worse than zir thought” and a more senior team is installed.

I have always believed we need separate and clear legal definitions of sex and gender identity, including non-binary. Both should be PCs but legal clarity on the rights and responsibilities of each would help everyone.

Neither 'gender identity' nor 'non-binary' are recognised in law.

Apologies for the delayed question.
In all these cases if the HR person is CIPD qualified aren't they supposed to be be following their code of conduct...?
https://www.cipd.org/uk/membership/professional-standards/code-of-conduct/
Including

• Ensure that your professional judgement is not compromised nor could be perceived as being compromised because of bias, or the undue influence of others.
• Take all reasonable steps to resolve disputes and complaints in a fair, timely and professional manner. Never allow a complaint to affect the standard of behaviour or professionalism shown to those who raise concerns, engage authentically and respectfully.
• Take responsibility for your professional actions and decisions. Rectify issues and take all reasonable steps to mitigate loss or harm as soon as possible. Inform those affected of the potential impact

Bold is by me not from website.

The CIPD is already known to be somewhat compromised by bias itself on this issue, but that is an interesting point.

I have always believed we need separate and clear legal definitions of sex and gender identity, including non-binary. Both should be PCs but legal clarity on the rights and responsibilities of each would help everyone.

Always? Or just in the last 5 years since we've been repeatedly told this utter cobblers is a real thing?

It's fine saying we need a legal definition of gender.

Now write one without referencing regressive sexed stereotypes which are at odds with the equality act.

Good luck with that.

And this is why no one has attempted it, because it lays it bare that gender identity is totally sexist and regressive.

Also do that without referencing sex.

Good luck with that too.

A fair point. I started to draft my post in one way and changed my mind and forgot to amend “I have always believed” to “I believe”.

I genuinely think it would be impossible to establish a legal definition of non-binary. Lots of countries claim to have done it, but any competent HR/employment/human rights lawyer could drive a truck through those definitions.

That’s the new grade 7 Civil Service job holders first task.😂

Gods help us all

I'm not at all surprised no one was available for interview on Woman's Hour, given how obnoxious Nuala McGovern was to Bethany when she interviewed her previously
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0025479

A civil servant can't actually change the law. A law still has to pass through parliament.

Good luck.

I actually meant come up with a definition.

However, whilst they don’t change the law they do draft the legislation and make the amendments as it goes through parliament.

Ironically, the most fertile source of legal protection from discrimination on the basis of 'gender' is the protected characteristic of sex. Any attempt by a dutyholder under the Equality Act to require a person to manifest the gender presentation of their sex is discrimination on the basis if sex, and unlawful.

Also, despite the arguably-inappropriate terminology , the 'disability' protected characteristic should cover 'gender reassignment' as it was actually conceived of (and publicly represented) when the GRA and the Equality Act were passed.

Receiving a gender reassignment certificate is tied to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The challenges of living with this diagnosis are the whole reason for allowing latitude in the recording of sex, just as the challenges of living with a disability generate the rights to (e.g.) permission to park where others can't.

Under the Equality Act, 'disability' is interpreted widely. I only learnt this relatively recently. I had thought you have to be 'registered disabled' in some way to qualify for protection, but of course all that is required is having a physical or mental condition that has a "substantial, long-term, and adverse effect on one's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities".

I do understand that the terms 'disability' and 'impairment' (which I think may also be used in the act) are offensive to people who qualify for the GR protection. But there are lots of contexts in which they are equally offensive to people with other sorts of differences, e.g. deafness. To the extent that language generates a sense of stigma or negative judgement, that should be campaigned against in the same way as for other conditions, and perhaps different terms can be evolved (so long as this is organic and not top-down).

If, and to the extent that, gender reassignment does not involve a condition that has "substantial, long-term, and adverse effect on one's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities", what would be the justification for the special provisions that employers, service providers, and public bodies need to make for people with this PC? The only possible answer to this question is that they must do it in order not to discriminate against them on the grounds of their beliefs. And of course, this is already baked in to the protected characteristic of belief.

I think what you say is entirely reasonable and so well explained.

Nuala McGovern’s sanctimonious virtue signalling is the reason that I can barely listen to WH anymore. Permeates beyond the gender issues.