Civil Service Trans policy - what can I do?

Resurrecting old threads is prohibited on other sites that I'm used to. I'm not aware of a mumsnet policy on this.

As a practical suggestion to save people falling into the trap of thinking they are reading a current thread, why not start a new thread to signpost and link to this one or put a link in an existing resources thread if there is one?

I know it is an old thread but it was referenced recently so I had a look through it and there seems to be some useful resources and discussions that we can use now, especially in light of recent developments.

Yes, definitely.

I know it is an old thread but it was referenced recently so I had a look through it and there seems to be some useful resources and discussions that we can use now, especially in light of recent developments.

There were some really good moves from people writing to employers etc and it would be interesting to see what results came of that (I see some familiar names - hi all).

Has anyone got a copy of a:gender guide for employers in the civil service (from 2016).

They are revising it and therefore have removed it from the website www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-workplace-and-gender-reassignment/the-workplace-and-gender-reassignment

... Which seems a bit fishy..... Since the law hasn't changed since 2016, why the need to preemptively expunge the old guidance?

Has someone got a copy or do we need to FOI it?

Thanks for that, Miffy - it's really useful. I may need to use it in my work on my university's inclusivity committee, in order to speak up for female employees & students.

Does this letter help/ support?

www.facebook.com/1940772889315338/posts/2173926092666682?sfns=mo

I am a civil servant, and I’ve written EIAs. I responded to a consultation in my department on changing the toilets to be gender neutral. The consultation was not on the intranet or widely publicised (the email said ‘because of the sensitive nature of the issues’) and I only saw it because I am a member of a particular staff network. There was no timeline or process set out.

I (and other members of the network) agreed that it needed an EIA, and responded accordingly. I have no idea whether this will be done, or whether I will come in one day and find the signs changed on the toilet doors.

Just to add that this might be important context material for any impact assessment:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3547287-Fantastic-report-from-Get-The-L-Out-please-share-widely

Shall we have a chat off board then and discuss writing an EQIA on the Civil Service Trans policy? It's entirely possible of course that someone else is already working on one, so our first step may well be contacting the existing grassroots groups. Please send me a message if you are interested.

Absolutely bang on mole and knick.

I know from what Seven Hex says, most 'true' trans people, transsexuals, just want to get on and just be. Her talk at the defend women's rights event at Newcastle recently is worth a watch .

That email has been written from the perspective of self ID being already a part of the law. It is unlawful.

@Knicknackpaddyflak Substitute 'disabled employees' or 'BAME employees' and it sounds ridiculous. Check if your disabled colleague needs anything...this is supposed to be a competent adult colleague, not the office pet.

I think you have hit on something very fundamental that might explain how these policies come to be framed this way and why they are accepted as "inclusive".

I was a trade union activist all my working life and this is exactly how "white men of the left" carried on when trying hard not to be disablist, racist, sexist to the few disabled, black or women activists who managed to make it to committees, conferences, etc. They were clearly uncomfortable and threatened and the only way most of them could demonstrate they were "accepting" or "positive" was to be "coddling", ie. patronising and infantilising.

This is a stage all "equal rights" movements have gone through.

When I first read: "Substitute 'disabled employees' or 'BAME employees' and it sounds ridiculous. Check if your disabled colleague needs anything...this is supposed to be a competent adult colleague, not the office pet." my immediate reaction was that this fits very well with the "sissy" stereotype and that that psychopathology was what was behind it.

On second thoughts, it just seems politically astute. Presenting as the harmless, vulnerable "office pet" is a great way to appeal to the kind hearts and enlightened minds of the "great and the good" (sarcasm alert! Read: "the ruling class") and lure them into a false sense of security.

That any transgender advocacy group, eg. a:gender, could endorse this approach strikes me as entirely cynical and manipulative.

I agree with all the proposals already made above to challenge these policies. If I could add some more in addition, not instead?

Reminder of how well @Knicknackpaddyflak put it:

"Substitute 'disabled employees' or 'BAME employees' and it sounds ridiculous. Check if your disabled colleague needs anything...this is supposed to be a competent adult colleague, not the office pet."

1. This infantilising of trans people is offensive and disrespectful and it is transphobic.

1. In order not to discriminate against trans people, avoid using offensive, infantilising stereotypes. Instead, model policies and language on existing policies promoting inclusion of disabled and BAME employees.

1. For the avoidance of doubt that these policies need to comply with HSE legislation and the Equality Act these facts should be stated in the "Introduction" to policies and the EA "Protected characteristics" should be listed - and stated that none "trumps" others, there is no hierarchy.

1. Every statement about "issues trans people face in the workplace" must be balanced by an "impact" statement when mitigating the "trans issue" would discriminate against others in the workplace.

• male and female employees should be consulted;
• it should be acknowledged that it is not possible to know which transwomen might desire this access because they genuinely identify as women and which men might do so for sexual gratification as part of a transvestic fetish;
• education should be provided for all affected with safeguarding prioritised;
• employees should be encouraged to consider how best to ensure this, with an open mind about how best to achieve this;
• education should always balance the interests of women and transwomen and therefore may require involvement of partisan trainers/materials. To do otherwise would be discriminatory.

1. With rights come responsibilities.

• transwomen are aware of the adverse, traumatising impact their presence can have on women in vulnerable spaces such as toilets and shower rooms
• the organisation is aware that some men abuse rights of access for sexual gratification, that this will not be tolerated and will be subject to disciplinary procedures and/or criminal proceedings.

Could anyone who genuinely suffers the agonies of gender dysphoria possibly object to safeguarding women?

If anyone claiming to suffer gender dysphoria objects to safeguarding women then is it not reasonable to question whether they actually suffer from gender dysphoria? And wonder if their motivation might be something to do with sexual gratification?

If any man prioritises the needs of transwomen to be validated over the needs of women to be safe and feel safe, what does that say about their attitudes to women?

If any woman prioritises the needs of transwomen to be validated over the needs of other women to be safe and feel safe, what does that say? The answer is an essay in itself but to summarise: they are NOT feminists.
----

ps. I still struggle to believe that this weird stuff is actually happening. Every day I wake up and think, "Was that just some dystopian nightmare? Oh shit! No. This is actually happening. In real life."

I worked in psychiatry for a while and it struck me then that a lot of people were locked up not for their own safety but because if they were let loose that they would drive the rest of us mad, forcing us to affirm their delusions or they would go totally apeshit.

To avoid being smashed in the face on a psychiatric ward I have in the past stepped gingerly over invisible pipes that channeled "what I call Princess Anne".

Some of this shit is right on that level - but we are being required by law to go along with it.

I have a great deal of respect for the likes of Fionne Orlander, Jenn Smith, Seven Hex, Rose of Dawn and Mirander Yardley (notice how they all have a sense of humour?) and nothing but contempt for the foul Trans Taliban of #waxmyballs and Oger in Canada.

OMG!!! As i write this - BBC World Service - "Rainbow Range" Gun Club in California - "Socialist Rifle Association" - trans arm up

The USA can deal with that, we have to deal with this offensive, insidious creep of "trans rights" in the UK

I haven't done risk assessments but I write and proof read well and I'd love to support this if I can help...

ChattyLion Do we need actual lawyers on board to do this?

Well, the vast majority of the council staff for instance who do EQIAs as part of the public sector equality duty are not lawyers.

What you need to do is read yourself into the relevant laws, read any available guidance and then analyse these trans policies through that right-based lens. OK, I realise this isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it's similar to what I've done for clients in a lot of fields I didn't know before I started each project and I'm sure there are quite a few of us here who could do this kind of thing.

Then you can always ask a lawyer for feedback but it's not necessary in my view. What you would do after all with such an impact assessment is to use it to publicly point out the failures in policy making and then demand that the organisation in question commission an independent EQIA of their own and then new guidance.

And where is the evidence that allowing a trans employee to use women's facilities is the least discriminatory alternative? It can't be based on who shouts the loudest.

Thanks for linking that letter truth, looks very useful.

You're absolutely right, Charley, EQIA is key in all of this.

It really is.

My first response to that guidance as an employee would be to ask where the facilities now are for the women who have been excluded from using any toilet due to not being able to use mixed sex spaces. Who are also protected under the EA. Do they feel any employee of theirs should be unable to access any toilet in their workplace? And can they explain having created a hierarchy of protected characteristics which places gender identity as of greater importance than all others?

The guidance itself is ridiculously patronising and infantilising, I wonder what Debbie H and Miranda would make of it? Substitute 'disabled employees' or 'BAME employees' and it sounds ridiculous. Check if your disabled colleage needs anything... this is supposed to be a competent adult colleague, not the office pet.

Yes, came here to see if that had been posted. Great to show employers/employers groups.

This thread has a letter from lawyers that might be useful for those challenging these creepy demands:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3546705-letter-from-prominent-lawyers-highlighting-what-women-s-legal-rights-are-under-the-ea2010?watched=1&msgid=85962979#85962979

Well, the civil service belongs to the public sector, obviously. And the public sector equality duty means that prior to the adoption of new policies that change how people are treated at work, there should have been Eqality Impact Assessments (EQIA) done with extensive consultation of all affected groups (in this case especially women, but also disabled, religious or BAME employees).

You're absolutely right, Charley, EQIA is key in all of this.
The Fawcett Society tried to take the government to court over the disproportionate impact of cuts on women in 2010. Permission was denied, but it forced the government to admit that it hadn't carried out impact assessments.

Excellent point the transgender trend pack for work places.

If this kind of stuff is policy at HR level (ie local authorities) it will trickle down to other areas eg schools from HR unchallenged and not put through any critical analysis. Great points Charlie.

Sounds like an excellent plan Charley
Do we need actual lawyers on board to do this?

Well, the civil service belongs to the public sector, obviously. And the public sector equality duty means that prior to the adoption of new policies that change how people are treated at work, there should have been Eqality Impact Assessments (EQIA) done with extensive consultation of all affected groups (in this case especially women, but also disabled, religious or BAME employees).

I don't know why in this one policy area none of the usual rules apply anywhere - not in schools, prison, hospitals or the workplace.

But we don't have to accept it.

After all, the Children's Rights Impact Assessment from Women and Girls in Scotland was done by a grassroots women's rights group, not people paid to do these EQIAs or CRIAs. And it was accepted by the agency tasked with upholding the rights of children - the Children's Commissioner - as a legally accurate assessment of human rights breaches.

So there's nothing stopping other women getting together, online or off, giving themselves a name, like women's rights policy collective or whatever (I know it's not pretty, but you see what I mean) and writing these damned EQIAs ourselves.

There are templates kicking around for these things. And then go through that execrable civil service trans policy and looking at the Equality Act and the protected characteristics of sex, religion, race, disability, pregnancy and maternity, looking at the Human Rights Act, looking at CEDAW and then going to the EHRC, going to the Civil Service, going to the media and publishing the findings on a dedicated website.

Then all the other women affected by this crap can also go to their MPs, to their councillors, to their unions who were so keen on adopting self-id last year and causing some trouble backed up by evidence.

Yes, I think it will.

YY Eresh. The FPFW equality Act guide is a good start but there needs to be something more focused that a confused and cautious HR department can pick up and use in a literal way. Seeing as EHRC guidance is not going to be forthcoming any time soon, I think it’ll need to come from us collectively somehow.