Civil Service Trans policy - what can I do?

What are the legal requirements for single sex toilets at work btw? Are there any?

If there was a mass boycott of the female loos by the female employees they couldn't sack everyone could they?

Sadly, I think it will probably have to come to mass protests to make it obvious to the terminally stupid who don't understand biology that maybe they have a teeny weeny problem here and they may just have to leave their cloud cuckoo land and face the reality of sex.

I don’t think that guidance has correctly interpreted the law. Which is a little problematic for the civil service on such a controversial issue.

I see a massive future market for female (and male) sanity products.

Hope they can be exempt from VAT because they will be essential.

@Trousering might have some ideas - IIRC then HR is her area.

How about contacting Rosa and Rosemary at Reading University?

www.feministcurrent.com/2018/09/14/never-mind-reforming-gender-recognition-act-theres-no-need-gender-recognition-certificates/

What provision are they making for female employees with a faith or culture or disability that precludes them being able to share with someone of the opposite sex regardless of how that person chooses to identify? Are they implying that the EA should be interpreted that trans people trump the needs of all other protected groups, because the act itself says no one need can trump others. It isn't a hierarchy. There should be an allocated place for people with a conflict in rights, say the disabled loos.

If half the female staff will therefore be using the disabled loo, they need to provide a whole lot more disabled loos.

Freedom of belief. It is a perfectly reasonable, normal belief that it is impossible to change physical sex. If you hold that belief (and yes, I know, it's reality not a belief but belief IS protected in the Human Rights act) then you will perceive a TW as a male and this being an invasion of your privacy/dignity/right to single sex provision.

Utterly appalled by the 'you may not even choose to leave the area if a TW is there to protect yourself, because the TW may be distressed by this'. Ffs, why is it that only the biologically male person's feelings and needs and distress matter in this situation? How distorted has this thinking become?

Impact assessment? What are they going to do with the female employees who are now afraid to use the toilets? Especially since they cannot just quietly leave and come back later without being disciplined?

Because of the whole man thing.

We need to be aware of "how our actions might be perceived to others

If this is the case, then how come TW aren't also obliged to be aware of how their actions e.g. using a female loo, are perceived by female women?

Or peeing in the sink (I've seen this) oh god, that happened where I worked too! One shared toilet and a female staff member walked out of the cubicle to find the male cleaner pissing in the sink. They said they hadn’t time to wait. 🤢 Dirty bastard could have used the patient toilets. It was clearly a power play.

I’m sure that it would be proven to be sexual discrimination if a woman was asked why she decided not to use a toilet, because the male bodied person was upset. If she had to explain that she was having her period and forgot her sanitary products or said she was having a hot flush but it had finished by the time she got there. The right females could have their work over the coals for this.

This policy is clearly being put into practice as during my meeting today it was discussed that a Trans Woman was left hurt and embarrassed recently after a woman did an immediate u-turn out of the toilets when she saw them. It was stated as a gentle warning to others to consider trans feelings.

This woman didn't say anything offensive to the transwoman - or, presumably, say anything at all. She didn't ask the transwoman to leave, or go and report that a man was using the women's facilities. All she did was walk away because she was uncomfortable.

I honestly don't have the words to describe how disturbing I find it that this is somehow seen as so unacceptable that it was brought up in a meeting. Women aren't allowed to have any boundaries at all, are we?

Spelling mistoke, or Freudian Slip?

I had to reread what I wrote, about three times, before I noticed that! The spelling mistake might be more appropriate!

We could do with the addresses of all institutions implementing such policies and a massive letter-writing campaign by women pointing out that women do have the right to single sex spaces.

We need to kick up a fuss about this it is not good enough.

Mass useage of men’s toilets by women would sort it fast. However, that’s a career limiting move, so I see your problem.

The ‘turning around’ lady should brazen it out and go full ‘how very dare you, I’d forgotten my TAMPONS FOR MY EXTREMELY HEAVY PERIODS how dare you accuse me’ - she absolutely cannot be disciplined for turning around and leaving a toilet and if they try she should be shouting it from the rooftops. They may try to discipline quietly but if she makes a noise in the right way (and there is a right way) they will drop it,

As for the rest, god I just don’t know OP it sounds horrendous. My office has single user non sex specific loos but there are fewer than 20 of us so we all know each other well and it’s too small an office to get away with such fuckery. And of course no validation to be had.

This is the thought police in action. There are multiple reasons why a woman might change her mind about using the bathroom (oops, better pop back to my desk to get my tampons) but you now have to justify and explain yourself and if you don't make a good enough case you will be disciplined.
Ridiculous.

The Equality Act is not fit for purpose. "Proposing to undergo" an undefined process (what's "other attributes of sex" - trousers/skirt?) gives men access to female toilets.

Thanks DoxxMeTwice, but I still note that it's described as "general advice" rather than official policy.

So it might be worth asking HR to define precisely the status of this document.

In my workplace, the transgender guidance (written by transactivists of course) contradicts our formal policies. We have one case where the conflict became overt, and the formal policy prevailed. What this sort of guidance does is encourage extravagant expectations among the trans-identified.

"So you MUST pee or change your sanity wear in the female toilets, if a male is present?"

Spelling mistoke, or Freudian Slip?

the 2010 [Equality] act stipulates a person is no longer requires to be under medical supervision - so a person who decides to live permanently in the opposite gender, and whether completes or forgoes any medical procedure, is still protected by the act.

Is this true? Does anyone know?

Section 7 states 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 the physiological or other attributes of sex.

Only necessary to state that you intend to undergo some unspecified procedure at some future unspecified date and Bob's your auntie.

OP - it may be the case that the woman who walked out of the loos (how very dare she wish to preserve her dignity and privacy) may not exist at all other than in the fantasy mind of the Woke Few.

So you MUST pee or change your sanity wear in the female toilets, if a male is present? You are not permitted to change your mind or feel uncomfortable about it because the male bodied person’s feelings come first! What a selfish shower of bastards you work for, OP. I think some females need to go off sick with stress if they come across a male bodied person in the female toilets. I would be telling OH that having to share intimate spaces with male bodied people brings up the trauma of past sexual abuse. I couldn’t do it. I’d love to know how they would deal with me, a traumatised female and an ‘upset’ male bodied person. I’m still entitled to protection under sex discrimination laws.