Gender again. Sorry!

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/i/status/2006882751254036948

 

[CXRAndy]

Going going


View: https://x.com/i/status/2008250149886452142

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/i/status/2008262083390185666

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/i/status/2008284343068721286

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/i/status/2008476654818017525

 

[AuroraSaab]

Someone will be along in a bit to tell us it doesn't matter because they aren't breaking any rules.

 

[CXRAndy]

Mermaids floundering too


View: https://x.com/i/status/2008289703649275961

 

[AuroraSaab]

Nice to see. I hope Gendered Intelligence go next. They continue to rake it in whilst giving out misleading information and training.

 

[mickle]

Darlington nurses win!

https://christianconcern.com/ccpres...ms-is-unlawful-harassment-and-discrimination/

 

[AuroraSaab]

Good. I'll have to read it in full later.
Not providing women and girls with single sex facilities when it's appropriate is indirect discrimination. Same applies to men and boys.

"By requiring the Claimants to share a changing room with a biological male trans woman… the Respondent engaged in unwanted conduct related to sex and gender reassignment which had the effect of violating the dignity of the Claimants and creating for the Claimants a hostile, humiliating and degrading environment".


It's not on the BBC website yet. They'll get round to it eventually.

https://www.gbnews.com/news/darlington-nhs-trust-victory-nurses

 

[monkers]

Good. I'll have to read it in full later.
Not providing women and girls with single sex facilities when it's appropriate is indirect discrimination. Same applies to men and boys.

"By requiring the Claimants to share a changing room with a biological male trans woman… the Respondent engaged in unwanted conduct related to sex and gender reassignment which had the effect of violating the dignity of the Claimants and creating for the Claimants a hostile, humiliating and degrading environment".


It's not on the BBC website yet. They'll get round to it eventually.

https://www.gbnews.com/news/darlington-nhs-trust-victory-nurses

When you do read it later ...

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content...Trust-2501192-24-Others-Reserved-judgment.pdf

... you'll find that Rose Henderson was cleared of any wrongdoing.

You'll also read that the Trust's policy allowing Rose Henderson to use the changing room was lawful.

The judgment is critical of the Trust for not providing suitable alternative accommodation for nurses who wished to have a changing room that would not be used by Rose Henderson.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

“The trust subjected the claimants to harassment related to sex and gender reassignment by permitting the claimants’ biological male, trans woman colleague to use the female changing room and requiring the claimants to share that changing room without providing suitable alternative facilities.”

 

[monkers]

“The trust subjected the claimants to harassment related to sex and gender reassignment by permitting the claimants’ biological male, trans woman colleague to use the female changing room and requiring the claimants to share that changing room without providing suitable alternative facilities.”

Yes. To make that sentence that little bit clearer ...

“The trust subjected the claimants to harassment related to sex and gender reassignment by permitting the claimants’ biological male, trans woman colleague to use the female changing room and requiring the claimants to share that changing room without providing suitable alternative facilities (for the claimants).''

Also note from the same judgment ...

As already observed, not all nurses were comfortable with changing in the open, even in front of other women and some resorted to changing in the ladies’ toilet. They did so in order to preserve their own propriety or modesty.

 

[Ianonabike]

From the perspective of the Claimants the conduct of the Trust in permitting Rose, a biological male, to use the female changing room, which in the absence of suitable alternative facilities, meant in substance that they were required to share the changing room with a biological male was unwelcome and unwanted. The Trust had, we found prioritised the perceived rights of transgender staff over the rights of others such as the Claimants. The Trust had drafted and implemented a policy that effectively said to any woman who objected to sharing the changing room with a trans woman, that they would have to use alternative facilities knowing that there were no alternative facilities. Therefore, in practice, the policy gave female workers (and male workers for that matter) no real or effective choice in the matter of where they get changed.

My bold:

In the circumstances of this case, the Trust was in breach of domestic law, under regulation 24 of the 1992 Regulations. There was no pressing social need for Rose to be accommodated in the female changing room. Given the respective numbers of transgender staff and biological female staff, Rose could reasonably and feasibly have been provided with alternative facilities, unlike the Claimants and others who had expressed their discomfort.

Note the sense of entitlement of the man named Rose:

Mr Cheetham’s submission amounts, in substance, to an argument that Rose had and has a right to use the female changing room if Rose so wishes and that if the Trust had instead provided Rose with separate, dignified alternatives and limited access to the female changing room to biological females, that this would have infringed Rose’s right to private life. We reject this. It is no more than saying because Rose is transgender Rose has a right to use whichever changing room Rose chooses.

This also bears highlighting. Paragraph breaks mine, as it's a big block of text:

We accept – as does the Respondent – that women are more likely to have experienced sex-based harassment and sex-based violence than men. It will come as no surprise to anyone that this is so. The risk posed to women generally by this state of affairs causes a reaction in many women and leads them to adjust their own behaviour according to the circumstances. Women do not have to experience sex-based harassment or violence personally. The experiences of some women can and does have an impact on others.

Depending on the circumstances, a woman might experience fear and distrust in the presence of a man even though, objectively, as a matter of fact, the man is an entirely innocent actor. We take an example that we can all recognise, of a woman walking alone on a street at night, whereupon she notices an approaching male. She crosses the road to avoid the man, holding her keys in her hands in the event she needs to defend herself or she phones someone or pretends to do so. The approaching male is a perfectly decent and innocent person with no intention to harm anyone and is oblivious to the woman on the street. He would feel offended at the thought that someone might regard him as potentially harmful. But it is not the individual’s character that dictates the reaction in the woman. It is not the man himself but the fact that he is a man. The difficulty for the woman in this example is that she is unable to police the character or the intent or motivations of the approaching male. She is fearful of the risk presented in the knowledge of women’s experiences in life generally. Her reaction does not depend on personal experience, although of course it may be explained by this.

The Tribunal is able to draw on its own experiences of life in recognising these fearful, defensive, precautionary traits in women in certain circumstances. They are not irrational reactions. On the contrary, they are entirely rational, based on the lived experiences of other women generally. Many women will feel anxious and may take extra precautions in what men might regard as normal situations.

 

[monkers]

My bold:

Note the sense of entitlement of the man named Rose:

This also bears highlighting. Paragraph breaks mine, as it's a big block of text

Worth noting ...

The Judgment of the Tribunal is:

3. The complaints of harassment in so far as they relate to the use of the female changing room by and the conduct of Rose Henderson whilst so using the changing room as pleaded in paragraph 23(b) of the Amended Particulars of Claim, are not well founded and are dismissed.

4. The complaints of harassment in so far as they relate to the conduct of Rose Henderson outside the changing room as pleaded in paragraph 23(e) of the Amended Particulars of Claim are not well founded and are dismissed.

5. The complaints of harassment in so far as they relate to the conduct of the Respondent pleaded in paragraph 23(d), (f), (h, (i), (j) and (k) are not well founded and are dismissed.

6. The complaints of victimisation are not well founded and are dismissed.