Work DEI response: single-sex toilets

As you say, transwomen would still have access to the men's toilets. I don't think that the employer would have to show that gender identity is backed up by science or is a religion (and it's a protected characteristic anyway, though with exemptions). It would be very interesting to see how it played out. To take an extreme situation, you could have a company which employs one Muslim woman and a hundred transwomen. All the transwomen clamouring to use the women's toilets and claiming that they suffer psychological harm by not being treated fully as women if they have to use the gents'. The employer might argue that it is reasonable to let them use the women's toilets, even if it meant that the Muslim woman had to go out to a public toilet twice a day.

A mirror at the back of the door won't solve the problem nor will full length doors. Many traumatised women cannot queue for toilets with men in the queue or use cubicles if there is potentially a man in the cubicle next to them. Some/ many of them are covered as a protected group by the EA due to disability.

What about agender females? I can't see there's any moral argument to lump me in with trans women when we share neither sex nor gender. I don't have more in common with a trans woman than with other males.

( @nilsmousehammer this isn't meant as a criticisism of your list, more highlighting (another) core disconnnect between what genderists claim to believe about gender vs what they demand in practice).

”The university could defend this argument on the basis that truly single sex toilets exclude transwomen.”

They could self-exclude, but truly single sex toilets don’t exclude men who claim they are women as obviously they can use the correct toilet for their sex.

Presumably they’d have to prove that their belief that they are women is a religious-type belief or at least a belief covered by the EA to demonstrate indirect discrimination?

OP

Well done. And well done for keeping at it.
I cannot but fully agree that you must make sure to continue to have everything in writing. (I would forward all emails to your own personal email as well, and / or print.)
Please keep posting here for support (and help if needed, but currently you're doing very well:)

Autistic females
Gypsy/Roma/Traveller females
Some Orthodox Jewish females
Females with trauma
Females with a history of CSA
Females with a history of DV/DA

There's a lot of females who require single sex provision. And their 'intersectionality' requires that males bloody get over themselves and permit females to have inclusion and equality and the right to bloody pee too without throwing themselves on the floor and screaming about genocide.

Actually I probably should have said indirect religious discrimination. So the argument in this case would be that toilets are available to all (so there is no direct discrimination), but that they are not in practice usable by Muslim women because of their faith. The university could defend this argument on the basis that truly single sex toilets exclude transwomen. With that kind of argument, they should, legally, balance the disadvantage caused to Muslim women by alllowing transwomen in, against the disadvantage caused to transwomen by not allowing them in.

that's just surely a numbers game? How many Muslim women vs how many trans women? I'm guessing it applies to Muslim men and trans men too?

The problem being, of course, that if this isn't thrashed out before unleashing the policy, are Muslim women more likely to complain and try to get the policy changed or are they more likely to just withdraw? And trans women? Are they more or less likely to kick up a fuss than just withdraw?

Having a list of protected characteristics is fine and dandy - but how do you measure them against each other? you can't. That wouldn't be fair on anyone. So in the end you have to consider a) how many people in each group are being affected and b) how you can set up a separate facility for the (hopefully) small number who are being excluded.

Also delurking to add my support OP, please keep going

Actually I probably should have said indirect religious discrimination. So the argument in this case would be that toilets are available to all (so there is no direct discrimination), but that they are not in practice usable by Muslim women because of their faith. The university could defend this argument on the basis that truly single sex toilets exclude transwomen. With that kind of argument, they should, legally, balance the disadvantage caused to Muslim women by alllowing transwomen in, against the disadvantage caused to transwomen by not allowing them in. In a huge organisation like a university you'd think it would be difficult to justify having no single sex toilets, thought you might be able to justify having half and half, for instance. Or at least having some toilet areas with very big individual stalls. But I don't know whether that would be sufficient for Muslim women? It's hard to know how a case would go, as the Tribunal itself might be ideologically captured. But I really think someone needs to bring a claim. See this explanation from the CAB:

"It is also illegal for someone to have a rule, policy or practice which someone of a particular religion or belief is less likely to be able to meet than other people and this places them at a disadvantage. This is called indirect discrimination.
Examples of indirect discrimination might include:

• refusing to allow you into a restaurant if you're wearing a hijab or turban
• requiring all your employees to dress in a particular way if this means they can’t wear an item of clothing they regard as part of their faith.

Make male people 'comfortable' at the loss of comfort, dignity, privacy and access for females.

No. Get stuffed.

Find another solution that doesn't involve wrecking other people's access.

meanwhile blocking the toilet stall for a woman who might be bursting to pee.

It's batshit.

Sex Matters - toilets

https://sex-matters.org/posts/publications/toilets-matter-a-short-guide-to-law-and-good-practice/

Also, Muslim women use the facilities for doing the wuzu before prayer. This has to be done in a single sex space, because it involves removing the hijab/scarf. Failure to provide a sex segregated space for wuzu is seriously discriminatory.

As a Muslim woman I would definitely not use a toilet if there was a reasonable chance of having a man come in too. My female inlaws and nieces would certainly do so too.
I would avoid buildings that allowed it, or would insist on using the disabled toilet to comply with requirements of faith.

Does the HR man know / acknowledge that you have made a Freedom of Information Act request (for the risk assessment (if any) and consultation documents?
Assuming they don't agree to the meeting you've asked for, you could consider writing to HR to spell that out, perhaps adding some questions as part of your Freedom of Information Act request (eg - which categories of people did you consult and how, what were their responses, why didn't you carry out a risk assessment, etc).

I think KB has a sharp mind for this stuff. Go for it.

Can you go to the universities minister? If its not fuckwit keegan? Or higher? Kemi B? Who is the mp locally, are they captured?

@ToriaB just catching up. So he realises they've fucked up and is trying to close you down.

Excellent!

Keep going!

😀

Thanks for updating ToriaB, your approach is sound and feels difficult for them to wriggle out of. I'm also a pesky thorn in my EDI department's side and I consider it a worthwhile pastime

Well done @ToriaB - the utter contempt for women including those of religious faiths that require single sex toilets /changing is something to behold. I guess we've moved past the point of everyone bending over backwards to show they weren't Islamophobic, and now it's fine again?!!

If a woman wearing a hijab has a heavy period and has blood on her hands, how is she supposed to adjust her hijab before she washes her hands? And why should any woman have to deal with menstruation in a space with male bodies in it? This man is showing a total and utter lack of basic knowledge about the biology and needs of half the population, how on earth can he be in charge of HR?

Hopefully word will get out about these exclusionary policies among the student body and women will be able to choose to go elsewhere.

I'd really like to be able to say 'its time to get ACAS and your Trade Union involved' but they're all captured and I'm not sure they'd be any use.

Well done you amazing " bigots " 💪