Civil Service Trans policy - what can I do?

This is great, Trousering, thank you.

It's the perspective from which trans policies have been written.

Once the legal conflict is pointed out to people used to taking both sides of a conflict into account then the problems are obvious and the rights have to be balanced. Gender identity is not a protected characteristic, all the policy's being introduced have been put in place on the assumption that it is. The sexual nature of cross dressing has been obscured by the use of the phrase gender identity but its still there, and it is unwanted conduct of a sexual nature. Have a look at the sexual harassment pages on acas. Org. UK.

This is deliberate obfuscation as we know but it is all quite simple really.

Massive thanks Trousering

Well, yes I agree, but what I wanted to point out is how the TW narrative of being 'hurt' without even knowing what the woman was thinking is the only perspective that seems to matter. The TW gets to decide why that woman acted that way, not the woman herself.

I've said it before and I will say it again. The diversity and inclusion teams in HR are a world of their own. They don't engage in the sharp end of managing tribunals and disciplinaries and we ignore them most of the time. This has gone through with no one taking much notice. I'm explaining this legal mess to men in HR who have no idea this is the case. The dots have not been joined up. They will dump a policy that they are told breaks the law and is promoting and endorsing sexual harassment if we shake a big stick at them.

Or maybe she just didn't want to use the loo in the presence of a male. Which is perfectly ok.

Good work Trousering. Excellent stuff.

From the OP I find this particularly chilling:

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 is assuming that the TW reading of the situation is correct. Can the TW mind-read? There are dozens of other reasons a women could do a u-turn out of the toilets, so not only are womens' feelings about sharing toilets with male bodies irrelevant but also they are just automatically taking the TW assumption about what that woman was thinking as truth.

Maybe she went to the loo to change a pad/tampon but remembered that she didn't have any on her. Maybe the toilet smelled bad and she wanted to use another. Maybe she was pregnant and wanted to be sick but didn't want to go into a toilet with anyone else there (or wanted to go into one that didn't smell bad). Maybe she was having a forgetful moment and started walking to the loo whilst thinking of something else automatically and didn't actually want to be there at all and only realised when she went in (this happens to me a lot since kids and my mental load increasing / sleep decreasing). There are lots of OTHER reasons for someone behaving like that and yet she's assumed to be in the wrong and chastised without anyone even asking her.

It's all about the TW all the time, so different to how actual women are treated. It is utterly, utterly terrifying. If this happened somewhere I worked I'd be very tempted to self ID as a man and use the mens. At least that way you're not with those who have clearly stated they don't give a shit about womens' boundaries. And yes, it would force me into the position of not caring about mens' boundaries. But they'd all be bigger and stronger than me, and I'd be happy to expand on why I felt forced into that position.

Yup. Completely agree.

Inadvertently endorsing sexual harassment at work with these policies is a massive risk. It has to be dealt with. Organisations don't act until they are under threat so I made it clear women and men were getting ready to act on this.

I'll also contribute, do let us know.

Trousering can you let us know if / when you incur any costs please as there are lots of us who really want to contribute. Thanks again for what you are doing!

Sounds encouraging, Trousering, thank you so much for doing this.

The single-sex exemption provision either exists or it doesn't. I don't understand why it shouldn't be applied to sex-segregated welfare facilities at work. It's all very well to allow exemptions for rape crisis centres and refuges, but women who need these services include working women, and they should not be expected to share toilets and dressing rooms with males or forced into a situation where they have to explain their objection.

I'm out for dinner tonight with another key HR colleague who is completely peaked and I will tell him what I've done. Then the cage is fully rattled and I can ask them both to follow up.

How do we leverage this more widely with the available tools, women's meetings, whistleblowing, etc?

Nice work Trousering and heartened to hear the problems were immediately recognised. Do let us know if you follow this up. And thank you!

I would not get too hung up on the genuine transition peice. He was shooting from the hip as I had sprung this on him and of course the framing of the current protected characteristic originates from encapsulating that very thing versus the anything goes stonewall gender identity training and policy being adopted wholesale.

He's on a peak trans journey. He will realise what he is saying is impossible. And inadequate. It was a 15 minute chat.

by not allowing us

And this is not a criticism of your efforts there. What you have done by raising this at work was courageous and principled (even though you're probably going to say it's your job to do this). Many in this situation have already capitulated. They will now hopefully look into this further, but I agree that legal advice may be the way forward.

Thank you so much Trousering.

Good to hear there is some agreement. But "genuine transition" seems naive to put it mildly. The GRA does not require any more than a diagnosis and a social transition. Leaving us with the problem that there are post-op transsexuals who have meaningfully transitioned but remain legally male and merely socially transitioned males (outwardly indistinguishable from a crossdresser) who can be legally female.

(AFAIK of the 3000 male GRC-holders, 2100 are post-op. How far the other 900 have transitioned medically we do not know).

Said that there was a way through it by restricting this to genuine cases of transition.

The starting point there then remains the permanent loss of our right to privacy, dignity and safety by allowing us single-sex provisions where we are vulnerable or in a state of undress. Even if it has been badly applied, the law right now explicitly allows for the exclusion of biological males who are legally female under these kinds of circumstances.

There is no reason why the starting point shouldn't be to apply the sex-based exemptions properly and to expect that the Civil Service at least will uphold the rights of females by providing alternate arrangements for these males.

The good thing is that they all agreed that this was a problem.

This is such a significant step forward.

Trousering Of course, my apologies.
It wasn't a criticism of all you're doing, just an observation of what will be a common response by many organisations when challenged with evidence.

I only had time to introduce the issue, I challenged the statement you highlighted Rowantrees, and there are 100s of challenges to that, but had to leave it there for today as we had other business. The good thing is that they all agreed that this was a problem.

My preference is to go back to this outwith my job and engage with him and his solicitor privately.

Said that there was a way through it by restricting this to genuine cases of transition.

So mixed sex?

There is no 'meaningful transition' in so far as that humans can't change sex.
There shouldn't be requirements for people to have extensive surgery and medication in order that they be granted access to the opposite sex's spaces etc.

If there are issues for some staff in using single sex spaces, this should be explored as to the reasons & whether these can be resolved or if not then a mixed sex space be provided.

I didn't have time to discuss the belief issue at any length but did I state that there were considerable concerns being raised about discrimination on the grounds of belief and associated disciplinary action.

A few quick notes from the meeting.

Clearly saw the problem and thinks it's quite concerning. Seemed alarmed that cross dressing at work for erotic purposes was included in gender reassignment.
Agreed completely that policies were supporting men to claim harassment in a situation where women were experiencing sexual harassment.
Said that there was a way through it by restricting this to genuine cases of transition.
No quick answer, needs more work.

Doesn’t Maria Miller’s enquiry also include cross-dresser in their definition of trans (it uses Stonewalls I believe).

Isn't it funny how, when women ask questions, the political class blather on about poor souls who have gender dysphoria and suffer terribly if they can't use women's spaces, but when they consult the transgender community, they include input from men who know they are men whilst indulging in a spot of harmless crossdressing.

I'm horrified that the Equalities Office forgot to study the barriers to participation in public life for ponyboys while they were at it

Good luck, Trousering!

Women WILL crowdfund to pay for a independent, high quality legal opinion, I am certain.