Disciplinary action for ONS female employees if they object to trans colleagues using their lavatories

Absolutely not!

But definitely a reason for ensuring TW/TM are safe in a contained wing within a prison housing their biological sex.

Raped and beaten - so multiple assaults or rapes but not more than 2000 rapes. This happened in the 1990s. Awful obviously, but no justification to put males in female prisons.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/transgender-woman-raped-2-000-times-male-prison-a6989366.html

If it is the Australian case you are misquoting -

An intact male, who identified as a TW (had been “living as a woman”, commenced hormones, not had surgery) was jailed for 4 years for stealing a car (plus additional charges).

The TW reported to have been raped 2000 times over 4 years - which would horrifically have been multiple assaults every single day of the sentence.

That TW spoke of wanting to be in a female prison - but acknowledged that a separate wing would be appropriate.

I've started "grey-rocking" him - but sometimes it is difficult. He sits there* poking everyone with a stick, until someone snaps back at him.

It’s a leap that an MRA would delight in disingenuously making though.

Some employers and service providers provide trans-inclusive facilities but also offer to find solutions for women who say they need sex-segregated provision. It's a bit of a leap beyond that to say that anyone who makes that request will instead be disciplined.

Sorry meant to quote you @Fimofriend

But if ONS state that transwomen are women doesn't that mean that a large part of the British statistics are skewed?
For instance: Is this why the average expected life range of women has fallen? I mean is it because of COVID or is it because biological males have been included?
How are we supposed to do science on such a skewed basis? How are the politicians supposed to know which areas of society needs intervention if the statistics are no longer trustworthy?

I agree, Professor Alice Sullivan is carrying out a review of this.

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) has announced today, in partnership with the Cabinet Office, that they are launching a review of ‘Data, Statistics and Research on Sex and Gender’. The UK Statistics Authority warmly welcomes the review, which will be led by Professor Alice Sullivan of University College London and is expected to report by 31 August 2024.

The review’s Terms of Referencece_ set out that the aims of the review are to i) identify obstacles to accurate data collection and research on sex and on gender identity in public bodies and in the research system and ii) set out good practice guidance for how to collect data on sex and gender identity. ^

The Review will have UK-wide focus and will be looking at all public bodies (as defined by the Cabinet Office). The Terms of Reference also note that the review will have regard to the ongoing work by the Office for Statistics Regulation on sex and gender, and the statutory independence of the UK Statistics Authority.

uksa.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/news/review-of-data-statistics-and-research-on-sex-and-gender/

@Crankywiddershins I have not said anywhere that employers are legally obliged to discipline employees who “unreasonably” disagree with statutory employment policies even after communication and the grievance process. But what else do you expect them to do?

My employer has single-sex toilets and gender neutral toilets, and yes, everyone is expected to stay out of the opposite sex facilities. I’m not going to name them as the atmosphere is lovely and I wouldn’t want anyone to try to change that.

Edited to add that the same is true (thank goodness) at my children’s school - it’s one of the reasons we chose it

fimofriend, some links which may be of interest.

Office of Statistics Regulation review of ONS approach to the census.

https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/publication/review-of-statistics-on-gender-identity-based-on-data-collected-as-part-of-the-2021-england-and-wales-census-interim-report/

“As this interim report makes clear, there was always good reason to expect a significant degree of uncertainty around estimates of the transgender population derived from the gender identity question in the 2021 Census. A willingness on the part of ONS to provide further context and clarity on the initial estimates would be evidence of the strength of the Census process and not a weakness. ONS providing updates to the interpretation of these estimates should be regarded as a normal part of ongoing statistical production for a new area of data collection. The same would be true of any changes to the initial estimates, as long as they are fully and transparently explained. Such updates should not undermine user confidence in the robustness of the Census results as a whole, in which most questions have been asked many times before.”

Latest Statistics Regulation guidance:

https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/publication/collecting-and-reporting-data-about-sex-and-gender-identity-in-official-statistics-a-guide-for-official-statistics-producers/

“Data about sex and gender identity should be explained and defined for the purpose of a particular set of statistics, and terms, including gender, should not be used interchangeably or as a substitute for each other.”

Dept for Science, Innovation and Technology has commissioned an independent review of the public sector approach to data and research on sex and gender.

https://uksa.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/news/review-of-data-statistics-and-research-on-sex-and-gender/

The review will cover all public bodies.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-data-statistics-and-research-on-sex-and-gender/review-of-data-statistics-and-research-on-sex-and-gender-terms-of-reference

But if ONS state that transwomen are women doesn't that mean that a large part of the British statistics are skewed?
For instance: Is this why the average expected life range of women has fallen? I mean is it because of COVID or is it because biological males have been included?
How are we supposed to do science on such a skewed basis? How are the politicians supposed to know which areas of society needs intervention if the statistics are no longer trustworthy?

Don’t wrestle with a pig.

Best get yourself a chair and something to read because I hate to break it to you but women aren't here to serve you! Why don't you do the work and educate yourself?

Still no link to the statutory guidance which, allegedly, requires employers to take disciplinary action against employees who express discomfort at being required to undress in front of a member of the opposite sex, I see.

Still no recognition that it’s the threat of disciplinary action against employees who express discomfort at being required to undress in front of a member of the opposite sex that’s the “story” in this article.

@ArabellaScott yes, this is true, and it has literally nothing to do with the ability of transgender people to use toilets which match their gender identity. Of course, I could be wrong, in which case you will have no problem whatsoever pointing out to me those providers who interpret “single-sex provision” for toilets which do not follow this rule.

@NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision just so we are on the same page, I was using bathroom in the American “bathroom bill” sense. So, no baths are involved. I mean toilets, as other posters seem to have grasped.

@LoobiJee not a single thing you have said addresses my point. Pretty much every employer allows transgender people to use the toilets which match their gender identity. You could write this same article about any employer and their hypothetical gender critical employee. That’s why it isn’t a story.

I am waiting for a single example of a major employer which bans trans women from women’s toilets. It can’t be that hard. The sense of outrage which the ONS article is generating surely means they are doing something unprecedented. Either this is just confected nonsense, or you will have no problem naming the mainstream employers who do this.

It's like the standard template for detective dramas where the detective at the heart of it has phenomenal results despite never acting by the book, having an over-use disorder, and/or negligible personal skills. Who wants to watch a drama about someone thriving or succeeding by following SOPs or validated guidance?

Despite the logical preference for evidence based research, it's certainly tempting to default to our anecdotes and personal experience rather than accepting research guidance. It's easier to deplore it in others rather than ourselves, of course. And it might switch by context. People might be tempted to disregard guidance on SM yet still be strong supporters of evidence-based medicine or value-based workplace HR.

Delightful.

I've seen suggestions that FWR is subject to expts. involving Turing Test bots and I'm not finding that as humorous or far-fetched a suggestion as I used to (although it was tongue in cheek, iirc).

There was a thread a year or two ago where this was definitely happening and I think there was some kind of script on GitHub. There was also a man scraping all our data into a database.

Hm. I'm not sure any posters using bots in that way are getting one over on FWR if/when we don't realise they're bots! Isn't any failure to realise they're bots just further evidence of the low quality of debate posters have come to expect from those arguing against women's rights?

Robotic repetition - par for the course
Bland expression - fairly standard
Generalised responses to nuanced argument - yup
Reductive mantras - soooo many
Lacking a sense of humour - check!

This is an excellent point.

Hm. I'm not sure any posters using bots in that way are getting one over on FWR if/when we don't realise they're bots! Wouldn't that just be further evidence of the low quality of debate posters have come to expect from those arguing against women's rights?

Robotic repetition - par for the course
Bland expression - fairly standard
Generalised responses to nuanced argument - yup
Reductive mantras - soooo many
Lacking a sense of humour - check!

I don’t mind MN allowing it - it allows his poorly constructed reasoning to be dismantled publicly and his inaccurate assertions replaced with the full facts.

This is the balance. It's not always easy, and there are sometimes things which absolutely need to be challenged. Most of us get drawn into these conversations at some time or another. The fact is, that the position is so indefensible that only a certain type of person will try to argue it. Moderates aren't going to attempt it.

Terfs are shown to hold well thought through positions that come from concern not hate.

Only by people who read, not those who end up avoiding these threads/sub-forums altogether. What do you think the wider public perception is or even the perception on other MN boards?

Anecdotes to the contrary are useful but go completely against the arc of the published evidence that exists on community disruptors. NB: I haven't updated my knowledge since the narrative summary of relevant research in the early Bunbury/PSA threads. I've no idea how community/cultural disruption research has moved on from individual bad actors to the influence of larger scale bad actors.

As mentioned across several discussions, the secondary gain for disruption is on display and richly rewarded.