Nightmare proposed trans policy at work

I would suspect a few more ppl would be "coming out"
Do they propose the same deal for those suffering cancer/chronic illnesses?

I wish I could remember where it was where something like this happened. TW was allowed to use the ladies WC and the female staff were told to be kind - so they were. However the female staff started going elsewhere and the TW complained about it. It was obvious that they wanted a female space with females in it.

What a great result. Would mean that the idiots making these policy decisions would wake up and take notice that women who have had access to women only loos for decades actually, er, still want them.

“Offered to use different facilities” sounds like a bit if an own goal.
Employee “ I am requesting access to a female only toilet and changing room as is my right in law”
Employer “As you know we allow TW to use the Ladies so if you object you’ll have to use this wholly self contained single person toilet and changing room”
Cue all other women on staff making the same request. TW ends up with the sole use of the Ladies.

It wouldn't be hard for the type of employer that would avoid hiring a female of asaumed childbearing age to also avoid hiring anyone they suspect of being gender non-conforming, in case they run up huge absences?

It could really be an own goal. Obviously employers must not discriminate but we've all seen that they do. They could be in murky waters if they introduce this then don't employ any trans people?

Honestly I would adopt a trans identity and go on special leave for good.

The obvious, easy answer is to provide gender neutral spaces, respecting TQ+ wishes to not use a sex based space, AND retain some sex specific spaces for those not comfortable or able to use a mixed sex space. This meets all needs equally.

This. However it’s interesting how this has been interpreted in a workplace like mine, where there are only two loos. One is labelled ‘Men’ and the other ‘Women & Gender Neutral’. It’d be funny if it wasn’t so piss-boilingly misguided, and is a golden example of how organisations falling over themselves to be kind and inclusive totally misunderstand their obligation to fairly accommodate the needs of everyone, not just the trans community..

Part of me wants them to go ahead and implement unlimited leave for people with indefinable conditions.

I know of cases where people have been off for years now. Because they come back for a week and then a new batch of special leave kicks in and they are off again. And the organisation is fearful of trying to find a solution. So the team is a member short and cannot recruit even a temporary replacement.

They do say that dissenters will be found an alternative toilet. I would suggest that all females who do not want to share with a male complain and use the alternative.

It will send the message home very quickly. Although, by the sounds of it, some re-education will be done. You could all sign up at once and make it a bit of a party.

Part of me wants them to go ahead and implement unlimited leave for people with indefinable conditions.

They might be pleasantly surprised to see how many people feel supported enough to come out as non-binary, agender, gender-free, bigender etc in such a welcoming workplace!

Of course, they'll then need to specifically employ "cis" people in order to actually do the work while everyone else is on leave. Which could cause issues....

The obvious, easy answer is to provide gender neutral spaces, respecting TQ+ wishes to not use a sex based space, AND retain some sex specific spaces for those not comfortable or able to use a mixed sex space. This meets all needs equally.

It will however very likely involve having to be firm that male employees must respect the inclusion needs of female employees and not enter a female only space. They must respect other people's needs in the same way that their needs have been respected. If there was this kind of mutual tolerance and reciprocation instead of a flat demand for supremacy there would be no problem.

@boddidoil isn't that what some tw or other said they were going to do? Imagine we could wind up with a situation where nobody is using the loos. Everyone is urinating and defecating on the floors outside beautiful, pristine and completely empty toilets.

'educated' is a bit 'Re-education through labour' isn't it.
I'd contact Sex Matters and ask for help giving the most robust response you can. I'd also consult a lawyer.

Can I ask the thread: Seeing as the Equality Act allows for an exemption for reasons of privacy and dignity, what is the point of it allowing trans-identifying individuals to use the facilities for the opposite sex in the first place?

Sorry I don't have any academic advice but from a practical perspective I wonder if women are missing the obvious? Peaceful resistance can be achieved simply yet powerfully. Just refuse to use the toilets and piss on the floor instead. If we all started taking this sort of action then maybe progress could be made against this Alice in Wonderland nonsense we are having to endure?

As an aside, what JLR did quietly in response to that case was to refurb all the toilets to be unisex individual cubicles with lockable floor to ceiling doors with each cubicle containing a separate sink, mirror and hand towels etc, so in effect individual bathrooms. Really helped as trans colleagues couldn't complain as they could use any toilet, but feels super safe as a woman (there are big airy "entrances" to the toilet areas). So unless your workplace is prepared to provide something similar, they should really rethink!!

They also want a category of special leave without limits for trans people.

Isn’t this also discriminatory against none trans people?

OP. What is the special leave conditions? Is there a limit of time? For what? Because these special conditions surely need to be available to all other groups, such as people with disabilities that need such provisions, carers etc

And what right do they have to assume that women either want or need to be educated about this? furious at the implication we're all ignorant little girlies who need to be taught how to think right.

DrDinosaur's explanation is very good. And it is really worth remembering that the Jaguar Landrover case did not set a precedent.

The beauty of Judge Tayler, the employment judge in the Forstater case, making such a stupid judgement was that it then went to the High Court, and their ruling does set a precedent.

a category of special leave without limits for trans people

Going against the grain here, but this sounds fucking brilliant. We're all non-binary, which is trans, so everyone can therefore go home forever on full pay. Hooray!

Sex Matters has a bit of info about this case:

sex-matters.org/posts/case-law/taylor-v-jaguar-land-rover/

The Equality Act is complex because of two things. One is that it's not at all clear what "gender reassignment" means, and whether it covers, for example, a man who likes cross-dressing. The other is that it's not clear whether the protected characteristic of sex refers only to biological women or to biological women plus biological men who hold a gender recognition certificate.

Even allowing for all that, your workplace needs to have a better understanding of the clash of rights. Religion is one of the protected characteristics, so if the new, shiny pro-trans policy adversely affects Muslim or Jewish women, they could be breaking the law.

So work aren't actually consulting, are they? Someone has made their mind up about what's going to happen and is pushing it through. Definitely contact Sex Matters. If this is a big company, it may well be that other employees have been in touch with SM already. sex-matters.org/contact/

How exactly do they intend to educate women out of being autistic, traumatised, having PTSD, or coming from a faith or culture that precludes using a facility where a male is? How the male identifies does not stop them being male.

And how do they intend to educate all female people into this belief that their privacy, dignity, comfort, feelings, individual needs, beliefs and accessibility must come second to the wishes of any male person? Isn't that just plain sexist discrimination that penis people are more important?

What "different facilities" are offered to those who object?
Why can't these facilities be offered to those who want to use female facilities inappropriately?

What on earth is the thinking behind the special leave aspect?