Employer-Initiated Coercive Control (EICC)

[BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth]

As a tangent to another thread:

Page 11 | Biggus Titus of Oxford University | Mumsnet

And following on from posts made by @fromorbit and @MrsOvertonsWindow , I thought that the concept of Employer-Initiated Coercive Control (EICC) was worth exploring in its own thread (first mention on the thread p. 11 was a post on X)

I guess something just clicked when I read that, because I had never pinpointed it as part of this whole ideology. Is this part of Denton's playbook? Or an unintended, yet desirable, consequence of the whole trans/queer movement?

Reading about the lecturer at Oxford, it occurred to me that most employers, including in HE, have Dignity in the Workplace policies, or their equivalent, which are supposed to protect their employees and give them recourse. Wouldn't that apply here? (I'm talking of course about this man's colleagues, both men and women, because Matt Rattley seems to have all his "dignity" already catered for).

Employer-Initiated Coercive Control (EICC) seems to me to be exactly what all these recent court cases have been about (Sandie Peggie, Darlington nurses, various professionals who have been hounded out of their jobs because of "wrongthink").

Wondering what everyone's thoughts are, especially if there are any legal people (particularly HR bods in HE) who have ever come across this concept. And whether you think this could ever be applied to future legal cases, because it hasn't been mentioned (that I have noticed) in any of the recent tribunals.

If there's already a thread specifically on this concept, would be helpful if you could signpost to it, thanks.

It absolutely is text book coercive control. Which is a crime AFAIK.

I think it could be a pinned post for so many threads on FWR.

🎯

Yes, it has been recognised for some time by many people that trans ideology is coercive at core - I've seen people noting that for the past 5 years at least. Requiring others to play along even if it doesn't accord with their lived experience or perceptions.

I think having a specific name for that when perpetrated by an employer is useful.

All the NHS policies analysed by Knotty's audit were coercive.

There should also be a 'Service Provider' Coercive control - e.g. the NHS saying if you don't accept a transwoman as a woman you might be denied medical care (which pretty much all the policies say I think - paging Knotty to check that's right)

Not all of them were that specific - some were though - but many of them heavily implied that to some degree.

Thanks TwoLoons. I think it would be a brave woman who'd insist on single sex care or accommodation in the current NHS environment

I'm absolutely certain it could be applied.

The hurdle initially, is getting people to understand that a man who says he's a woman is exactly the same as any other man.

Which I think has already been accepted in at least one court, in terms of it being fully understood that a man, no matter how he identifies, in a woman's space, can be humiliating and distressing for the women.

But yes, the entire concept needs its profile raising. Employer Initiated Coercive Control.

EICC. Definitely. I'm going to sprinkle it everywhere.

It was an excellent point raised on that thread, and definitely deserves a thread of its own too!

EICC. Perfect.

I agree it's good to have a term that covers employers imposing a certain view on their employees. I also agree it could be used to describe all of the cases where people have been sacked or forced to go to a tribunal.
Currently many companies and organisations can get a way with forcing their employees to compile with blah blah blah company values claptrap, so it will be good to have a go to response for their bullying.

I suppose it will still require women to take their employers to court to start getting this recognition. I don't understand how employers and the government are allowed to get away with ignoring the law, and requiring women to go through this time and again!

Still hoping someone legal has any thoughts about whether this concept holds any water in law?

Surely the NHS policies which imply (at least) that women could be denied medical care if they don't accept men can become women should be something that could be challenged in court? That's surely a human rights abuse?

You would hope so!

Sure, but only if you have personally been affected by this - and it would require you to invest money and time and energy, probably at a time when you are fighting for the medical care that has either been denied to you or been threatened to be denied to you. The process is the punishment, you know?

Naomi Cunningham pointed out: an employer can dismiss you for any - including an illegal - reason; a service provider can refuse service for any - including an illegal - reason. Of course if either of those happen you will have a very clear cut case to take to court - but many people do not have the money, time, energy, external support systems (especially with unions so captured) etc to take these people to court. So the institutions remain unchallenged.

Great thread - thank you. I was reminded of a thread from back in 2019 where a woman civil servant described how women were being coerced, intimidated and lectured about their behaviour when finding a man in the women's toilets.
It went as far as instructing them on their facial expressions and how they were to walk into the room (and not walk out) if I recall correctly.

Yet nobody in the Civil Service was able to challenge such overwhelming arrogance and dangerous undermining of women's rights to safety and privacy.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3520371-civil-service-trans-policy-what-can-i-do

And now it's escalated to nurses being forced to undress in front of random male colleagues, girls having to undress in front of teenage boys. That's how powerful this allegedly vulnerable minority group are.

Ah yes. It makes a mockery of the law and of the EA2010 really. Because a truly vulnerable minority group would never have the capacity to bring it to court.

I hope there is some kind of way of holding institutions breaking the law to account because that's clearly what is needed now.

Sometimes I think the EA2010 was in fact just a way for a particular cohort of lawyers to get rich.

I'm a bit cynical now.

I remember that thread! The sheer entitlement of authority to not only tell women how they must behave, but also how they must think and feel. That they were required to remain in a place where they didn't feel safe in order to validate someone else's (male) feelings!

I think that was the closest I've known of an employer actually saying "we are using women's bodies to make this man feel better, and there's nothing you can do about it."

Imagine an employer saying that now. Imagine them trying to justify that in court, because in 2026, that's where they would end up.

In tribunals now, we hear a lot of "well, we were trying to be inclusive, trying to be kind, we weren't aware, we weren't told, not my job, not my department, etc."

We do not hear any "we told them they must use their bodies as validation for deluded men." Because even employers know that saying that would just tip the whole thing over.

I must remind myself that, although we still have a long way to go, we have at least come this far.

How about this public service ad from Australia that made the woman who didn’t want to be alone in a lift with a trans-identifying man into the bad guy:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Al5wW8I8In0

Hmmm. There's a Brighton secondary school who will presumably be using those defences are they're apparently openly coercing girls to undress in front of teenage boys. Here:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5507367-mixed-sex-changing-rooms-in-a-brighton-secondary-school-part-3-were-really-cooking-now?page=1

Interesting isn’t it? Although probably not surprising to any of us. At my work, since the legal duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment, came in we have to do annual mandatory training. And yet here we are. The dots just never join up for some people.

Although that thread is truly appalling, the CS 2019 policy on showering and changing is actually better than most NHS trusts seem to provide, even now in 2026, post-Peggie, post-Darlington:

"Where there are changing facilities, showers etc., consideration needs to be given to ensure appropriate privacy for all staff, including transsexual staff members. If one is required to change into work clothes or uniform then an employer is obliged to ensure attention to the issues of privacy of all staff, for instance by the installation of individual changing and showering cubicles."

Yes, I've been following that one as well. I would like them to say in court "we required the girls to get undressed in front of this teenage boy because to let them change somewhere else or require the boy to change somewhere else wouldn't have validated the boy's gender choice."

Just once, I would like someone in charge to say "yeah, we knew what we were doing, and, you know what, we really don't think girls are worth the same as boys, and, besides, it was fun having all the power."

In court.

That's pretty much what several people did say in the Peggie tribunal, IMO! Although not in so many words, despite Naomi's best efforts.

Your posts on this thread are great, wholly in agreement! It is coercive control in order to provide the victims (always women) needed for the abusive enjoyment of the perpetrator (always a man) without them being able to refuse consent without major consequences of all kinds. And it is Grim.

I wonder if this could go into a tweet tagging off the top of my head, Naomi, Ben, Aku Reindorft, FWS, JKR...... the word needs to go out and some broadsheet articles need to be written.