In the actual Guardian! "The law is now clear: you can’t be punished for having gender-critical views. So why does it keep happening?"

https://www.hse.gov.uk/simple-health-safety/workplace-facilities/health-safety.htm

'Employers have to provide facilities suitable for any worker, including those with disabilities, which includes:

• enough toilets and washbasins for those expected to use them – find out how many
• agreed reasonable adjustments for workers with disabilities, for example, a worker with prostate cancer
• separate facilities for men and women, except where each toilet is in a separate room lockable from the inside
• for female workers, somewhere to dispose of sanitary dressings'

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/employee-awarded-15000-over-failure-to-provide-female-toilet-facilities/

'A female security guard has been awarded £15,000 for injury to feelings after her employer failed to provide a lock on a communal toilet.
An employment tribunal in Glasgow found that the claimant, Vaneeza Abbas, had been subject to sex discrimination and sexual harassment.

The current norm, which GC people want to change, is that transgender people use the toilet which matches their own gender.

I would suggest it is possibly the norm in businesses which have paid to be part of the Stonewall Employer Diversity Scheme.

The fact that it is the norm amongst such employers does not mean it is the norm elsewhere. As pp says most of the employers I've worked with are not part of such schemes and have either single sex loos or for very small employers mixed sex loos.

The fact that it is the 'norm' for Stonewall scheme employers doesn't mean it would withstand scrutiny should a female employee make a request to an employer for single sex provisions, particularly if that female employee had specific reasons for not being able to be in mixed sex provisions such as because of religious belief or being a sexual abuse survivor. The larger the employer the more likely that they would discriminate against the female employee for not making single sex provisions, especially given that they are specifically provided for under the EquA.

So please do not assume that because Dadjoke says it's the norm you have to put up with it if your employer fails to provide single sex spaces, or if you are in HR don't assume you have to make all single sex spaces mixed sex. This is completely and utterly untrue.

The LAW as it currently stands allows for single sex provisions if it is legitimate and proportionate, it is hard to see how single sex toilets in the workplace fail to meet this. Obviously if you have a TW employee you should be sensitive to their needs and it would be appropriate to offer an alternative to the male facilities where possible.

I'd be interested to hear if any GC people have managed to work with trans colleagues or clients without using their gendered pronouns or misgendering them. I suspect it's very hard work.

And have you ever managed to work with women without patronising them? I suspect that would be hard work for you.

I love the attempt to suggest that the 'norm' is that men use women's loos if they feel like it and everyone's totally cool with that. 😂

'The aim of the proposed new requirement is to ensure that:
separate single-sex toilets facilities are provided for men and women'

Sex is biological sex. It couldn't be clearer. 'Gender' has fuck all to do with it.

@lechiffre55 Mackereth goes into great detail, citing other case, about how someone who doesn't want to use a trans client's preferred pronouns might be accomodated in this case and others, while suggesting all of these have been reasonably rejected. So it might be possible, he could have continued working their but it seems unlikely.

One suggestion (which was then not tested) was that Mackereth avoid the use of pronouns altogether when interacting with clients.

It does seem certain that people can't be forced to state their pronouns or pop them in their emails. To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a case where an employee deliberately misgenders other employees because of GC beliefs, but I'd love to know if that's not the case.

I'd be interested to hear if any GC people have managed to work with trans colleagues or clients without using their gendered pronouns or misgendering them. I suspect it's very hard work.

That may possibly be the norm in your circles. I can assure you that in the working class area where I live, it is absolutely not the norm. Here, the norm remains as it has been for decades, that men are expected to use the gents, and women are expected to use the ladies.

@ArabellaScott you've still not answered question, just pointed at government proposals which insist on male and female toilets rather than gender neutral ones, which will have no impact on their legal use by transgender people, as they currently use male and female toilets according to their gender identity.

The current norm, which GC people want to change, is that transgender people use the toilet which matches their own gender.

I will leave it there.

This is a great post and absolutely correct.

ArabellaScott Today 15:51

Check EHRC guidance, or check with a qualified solicitor.

Although it may be best to avoid solicitors from Worknest.

@DadJoke
But they don't exclude trans women, they exclude males. They don't care how the males identify. A male who identifies as an attack helecopter would be excluded not because they discriminate againt attack helecopters, but because they discriminate against males.
Gender critical people do not believe in, or subscribe to gender.
A rape crisis centre for females. It's that simple.

I think this is the nearest they will get to saying "we exclude trans women because it's legitimate and proportionate."

-transwomen
+men

Yes.

Excluding trans women and not trans men is also permitted under the EqA, though a provider could use the "legitimate and proportionate" exception to exclude trans men if they wanted. Likewise the ERCC permits trans men. In the incredibly unlikely event Beira's Place was sued by a trans women, I think that the LAP defence is what they would use (not "we are GC.")

Beiras Place say "The service is offered in accordance with the Equality Act 2010, which permits the provision of single sex services and a single sex staffing policy in various situations where there’s a good reason for them."

I think this is the nearest they will get to saying "we exclude trans women because it's legitimate and proportionate."

👏👏👏👏👏

Sorry for the Pink News link.

Here's the gov page:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-building-requirements-for-separate-male-and-female-toilets

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/08/13/gender-neutral-toilets-policy-kemi-badenoch/

'A policy announced on Sunday (13 August) as part of the government’s Levelling Up scheme revealed requirements for all new builds to separate male and female toilets, which it argues is to “protect single-sex spaces”.'

I don't have a list of which employers follow Stonewall laws and which of them properly understand the provisions of the Equality Act.

Providing single sex toilets for the safety and dignity of female employees is clearly a legitimate and proportionate thing to do and is provided for by the Equality Act, the fact that some employers have been made to believe it is not by Stonewall is irrelevant to the actual law and the fact that this has not been the norm for decades at all, which is what you said in your pp.

You can't have a women-only book group

This is reminding me of the woman who set up a women-only group that met in her own home, and in the end had to call the police because a transwoman objected to not being allowed into this woman's house and was standing outside causing chaos. I forget the details, unfortunately.

Women are allowed to say no to men.

@lifeturnsonadime you avoided the question.

"Having single sex toilets in the workplace is and has been the norm to protect the dignity and safety of female and by that I mean biological women."

Please give an example of a major provider which exludes trans women from women's toilets. If it's the norm, you shouldn't have any difficulty.

No, having women-only spaces which exclude trans women does not nullify the protection of the act, but it can only be justified if it's legitimate and proportionate. You can't have a women-only book group, exclude trans women, if you pop the trans women next door.

By all means provide case law to the contrary.

"

I was an Employment Solicitor until I had to leave work due to my children's disabilities in 2014. I was a solicitor working in employment law for the introduction of the Equality Act and the advice most certainly was that third spaces should be provided not that trans women should be included in single sex spaces.

Talk of single sex exemptions did not include tw/ with or without a GRC.

I accept that since I left work to look after my kids things have changed (mostly due to the Stonewall effect) . But you are misrepresenting the EquA to your own agenda/ Stonewall agenda.

Your claim that TW have been using Women's single sex spaces in the workplace for decades is a lie.

To the extent that they are now in women's single sex spaces is a result of an overreach / misunderstanding of the provisions of the EquA .

@DadJoke
I think there's a bit of a disconnect between the gender critical and the gender identity sides. Beyond very strong disagreement, there's some misconceptions.
example:

It is possible that a legitimate and proportionate reason could apply to all transgender people, for example a trans-excusionary rape crisis centre.

From a gender critical point of view this hypothetical rape crisis centre wouldn't be trans exclusionary, it would be male exclusionary. Females whatever gender they identified as, this includes trans men would be welcome. All males would be excluded, irrespective of their gender identity.
In GC land it is not a trans exclusionary rape crisis centre, it is a male exclusionary rape crisis centre.
The basis for discrimination would not be trans or trans identifying, it would be biological sex. Females welcome, males not.

This is simply wrong. The current norm is to include transgender people and has
been for decades.

Can you name a single major provider which makes transgender people use toilets based on sex by birth?

@DadJoke is once again using sleight of hand to suggest that allowing women-only spaces to exclude transwomen in some way nullifies the protection of the Act vis-a-vis gender reassignment.

Not so. The Act still requires non-discrimination against transwomen, and this need can be met by providing third spaces (for example). The legitimate and proportionate test does not need to be invoked at all.