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

Christ on a fucking bike! Why are we giving any headspace to this complete knobber?

When I first discovered this board I actually found it really helpful when the detail attempts were made. I read all the links and went off and did my own research so was able to see the derailment for what it was. You then see the same tactics employed on all kinds of social media platforms and in real life. Now I've learnt to skim over and will occasionally challenge or ask questions. I think it's important it is challenged as comprehensively as it is done here with all the information linked and thought provoking questions made on flimsy arguments because there will be lurkers seeing this and learning. And how we do it without being agressive or nasty is notable. Terfs are shown to hold well thought through positions that come from concern not hate. When someone does get nasty I've seen it called out by other terfs on here. To remain respectful and calm in the fact of repeating idiocy from people who just have no interest in seeing the other side and are just trying to derail/convert lurkers to their ideology has my respect. There are some awesome women here

Thing is, he’s never successful in his attempts to control or demean

That isn't the point. In responding it only inflates his ego.

It confirms he is worth listening to.

Do not allow time wasters to use up women's energy on what is a negative cul de sac.

And makes threads tedious and many who were contributing just drift away as the thread no longer has purpose.

As long as there is at least one poster who acts like Pavlov's dog it will never stop.

I remember Cleg - a very wise woman. Thing is, he’s never successful in his attempts to control or demean - he’s regularly annihilated by women who are far more knowledgeable, insightful and articulate. We have all come across men like him many times in RL.

LangCleg, late of the MN Parish (through banishment) used to write regularly of the Duluth Wheel and the harms of tolerating displays of coercive control not only in private but on SM platforms because, in some contexts, it's normalising the control and abuse of women. (I'm paraphrasing, a little.)

Thing is, it doesn't matter how often it is explained the exact same thing is repeatedly posted. It is an abusive style because of the approach that has been adopted and MN allows it.

The thing is every time someone replies it is encouragement.

Just dont.

The intention is to hijack and derail threads so what could be positive input and move issues forward just become Ground Hog Day.

Join the resistance - just skim over the genuine posts.

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.

Thing is, it doesn't matter how often it is explained the exact same thing is repeatedly posted. It is an abusive style because of the approach that has been adopted and MN allows it.

There is also this:

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

'The government has announced today it is acting to bring forward changes to regulations that will mean all new non-domestic public and private buildings will be required to provide separate single-sex toilets for women and men and/or a self-contained, private toilet as a minimum.
The change comes amid dignity and privacy concerns from women and elderly people who feel they are being unfairly disadvantaged as publicly accessible toilets are increasingly being converted into gender neutral facilities.'

Again “hypothetical gender critical employee who continues to object to transgender people using the bathroom after they have been told their employer is following the law might be disciplined” is not remotely a story.

Well, it wouldn't be a story, given that the ONS won't have bathrooms.

Any governmental office will certainly have toilets. It may have changing rooms. But why would it have any baths? I've never even been on a hospital ward that had a bathroom, and people are expected to live there until they're well enough to go home! (Every ward I've visited or been on only had showers.)

Thread after thread, I point out the meaning of 'bathroom' - an incredibly simple, everyday term - and he refuses to absorb it. Then he expects us to take him seriously on legal vocabulary and statutory interpretation. Buster, if you can't handle the concept that a 'bathroom' is a room with a 'bath' in it, you have no business pronouncing on matters more complex.

The Gender Recognition Act should be repealed. It did not take into account women and the consequences. Repeal the GRA. Make men men again!!!

It‘s the pattern of his posts. He asserts something, throws in his (inaccurate)interpretation, adds a few links that have no legal basis, repeats assertions, ignores the posters who explain where he’s factually incorrect, repeats assertions, ignores again, disappears from thread.

Yep. He's behaviour used to puzzle me but now I believe he has skin in the game and it's not us or the lurkers he's trying to convince, it's himself.

and you’ve confused the provision of single-sex bathrooms with trans-exclusionary bathrooms.

Single-sex female-only intimate hygiene facilities would not exclude females who claim a transgender identity. Single-sex female-only spaces are not trans-exclusionary, they exclude males.

You have purposefully mis-described male-exclusionary as trans-exclusionary. You do so in an attempt to claim the moral high ground for your male sexual entitlement campaigning.

You’ve demonstrated many times your energetic commitment to arguing, lobbying and campaigning for males who want access to women and girls in a state of undress to be given access to women and girls in a state of undress.

You’ve also made clear that, in your world view, males who do not claim a transgender identity are not expected to share their intimate hygiene facilities with males who do claim a transgender identity. No scolding of those males for being trans-exclusionary. Funny that.

I wonder what possible explanation there could be for your energetic and single-minded devotion to denying women and girls the right to the dignity and privacy of single-sex female-only spaces when in a state of undress? It’s a complete mystery to us all, I’m sure.

It‘s the pattern of his posts. He asserts something, throws in his (inaccurate)interpretation, adds a few links that have no legal basis, repeats assertions, ignores the posters who explain where he’s factually incorrect, repeats assertions, ignores again, disappears from thread.

And yet no link to the statutory guidance which, supposedly, requires employers to discipline female employees who object to male employees watching them get undressed in the female changing rooms, thus making the ONS’s threat of disciplinary action against staff uncomfortable disrobing in front of members of the opposite sex the “non-story” DadJoke asserts it to be.

The only thing offensive round here is the man who has a habit of telling women they are wrong and he knows better.

Even when the women can provide case law and legal exemptions.

Even when women have a shit load of robust medical evidence which is often a much higher quality than the 'look I googled and here's 300 studies for you to look which prove my point at but hell I can't be arsed to actually read them and see if they do actually prove my point'

Some might go so far as to say this bloke was sexist and in the habit of mansplaining, but I'm sure I'll be told something along the lines that the man in question has godlike ability and should be a Marvel superhero.

Shrug.

Yep. We get It.

In these situations, the purpose of single sex facilities stop being for the safety and dignity for women and becomes a space for men with or without gender to use it as validation, for a chance for voyeurism, or to intimate women colleagues.

I cannot believe men would support their inclusion in womens spaces when it's clear to everyone else why they are doing it.

This. Only a certain type of man supports this. Most women have a lifetime of dealing with them in all areas of life. We see them.

Hopefully that clarifies things for you @DadJoke . You often seem quite confused although you are very confident in your ignorance. It’s a trait of some males that women are familiar with.

Well said.

As stated many times, the EA 2010 allows service providers to provide single sex facilities.

And workplaces are subject to HSE regulations that require single sex facilities.

That’s a fact that you, @Dadjoke, find it convenient to ignore.

And as for single sex facilities being ‘trans exclusionary’, employers can provide a separate room with facilities for anyone that does not want to use the facilities for their birth sex.

iirc, several members of the HoL anticipated many comparable scenarios in some memorable debates. Memorialised in Hansard but quoting it was enough to get Vulvamort suspended from (then) Twitter back in the day.

HoL debate and questions in 2004, some extracts.

Thread app: archive.is/6Oj7G

The PC of GR incluludes people proposing to undergo gender reassignment.

Its difficult to prove if someone is or isnt going to undergo gender reassignment in the future. Therefore if an employer allows those with PC of GR into the opposite sex facilities, they basically have to allow anyone into the opposite sex facilities.

In these situations, the purpose of single sex facilities stop being for the safety and dignity for women and becomes a space for men with or without gender to use it as validation, for a chance for voyeurism, or to intimate women colleagues.

I cannot believe men would support their inclusion in womens spaces when its clear to everyone else why they are doing it.

You can get as abusive as you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that the EHRC statutory guidance says transgender people should use the bathrooms associated with their gender identity

No it doesn't.

The latest EHRC guidance (Separate and single-sex service providers: a guide on the Equality Act sex and gender reassignment provisions 2022) expressly provides an example of lawful treatment, whereby a provider "decides to introduce an additional gender-neutral toilet. It puts up signs telling all users that they may use either the toilet for their biological sex or to use the gender neutral toilet if they feel more comfortable doing so."

Gender is a bag of dicks and I don't want any part of it.

“Associated with … gender identity”? How does that work? It must be via gender stereotypes, which are a fluid concept. Gender stereotypes have changed significantly in my lifetime, but sex hasn’t. Law and regulations work much better when they are based on stable, defined terms. Until the trans activists confused society, we all knew where we stood - or sat.