Civil service union’s turmoil over toilets for transgender staff

Can you find a "one toilet per 25 people" rule in those regulations?

@MyAmpleSheep
Workplace.
Every office, shop, everything
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/regulation/20

I think the 25 people rule is in factory regulations, that only apply a) to factories that were b) built prior to some fairly long ago date.

The 1992 workplace regs say that the toilet facilities have to be "sufficient".

On a careful reading, shared handwashing faclities do appear to comply with the 1992 regulations. But the sanitary conveniences have to be separated by sex, or in individual floor-to-ceiling rooms.

The 1992 Regulations are about sex
they make no mention of gender

they require a female and a male toilet for every 25 (or part thereof) employees
its incredibly simple.

Any work staff toilet that forces men and women to use the same space without full washing facilities
is illegal
and has been since 1992

Its like the ruling never happened

It's better than that! Someone on MN (sorry I forget who!) described the SC judgment as like the Normandy Landings. Yes they were a decisive moment in WWII but the battle still had to be fought hand to hand all the way to Berlin. Or, it's like women were digging a long tunnel with only a bent spoon and the SC gave us our shovel back. Still got to keep digging. Which reminds me to have a look at the crowdfunders for this month....

Haha yes. But don't forget that no-one knows who is a man or a woman. We can't actually tell the difference, supposedly. Do you know what you are? Have you checked your chromosomes?

I do have some sympathy with organisations who will have to step up and tackle (metaphorically) the entitled males who ignore the law and walk into the women's. If these men are employees though, repeated behaviour of this kind would surely be subject to a disciplinary. And if they are customers, I suppose it's a matter of making it clear what is expected, and acting on complaints, as businesses used to, and calling the police for threatening or abusive behaviour. Eventually I hope we will get back to the pre-GI situation, where men just kept out of the women's because that's what men did.

They would be the ones playing chicken wit other peoples money.

If it was their own bank account 👀 house 👀and pension 👀 on the line 99.99999999999% would discover themselves be the furtherest "Far Right" of the "Far Right" that is possible to be on the issue. 🙄

come on

gender neutral toilets are not illegal

are there separate male and female disabled toilets in most work places?

it's good to advocate for single sex spaces, but better not to make stuff up.

DH is RMT. He's had 3 pay rises in a year due to back dated negotiations.... I'm a huge fan.

What is complex and unworkable about the fact that where single-sex spaces, services and sports are concerned, very material biology trumps invisible and unprovable "gender identity" every time? That is the LAW and has been since the Equality Act 2010 was passed 15 years ago.

I do hope that post comes with a sarcasm emoji

Paragraphs 211 to 221 of the Supreme Court Ruling
could not be more clear

and they are the law
all else falls by the wayside

The law is clear.

You must be exceptionally clever, @FortheloveofPetethePlumber. Great minds across the country think it is complex and unworkable, and cannot possibly be applied their organisations.

The law is clear.

And as Naomi Cunningham established in court today through her witness, there are a lot of people, unions included, giving advice that seeks for a way around the law. In hope that the law can be overturned or ignored. And with a weak, useless government, and no political party that cares about women's equality, they're getting away with it.

When NC pointed out to her witness today the need to obey the law, he actually replied, in a court room, in front of a judge, 'that's your opinion'.

Cassandra-like, I would like to point out to the govt the obvious inevitable eventual outcome of permitting law to become an optional and choice based thing in the view of Joe Public, but they haven't listened to any of the many things women correctly forecast in this mare's nest.

Thank God for the court cases slowly, painfully adding up.

@BernardBlacksMolluscs
The 1992 regs specify that ALL staff toilets, washing spaces and toilets are segregated by
SEX
Any and every organisation that has ignored that piece of "law" is toast
it really is that simple

"gender neutral" = men pissing on the women's toilet seats
A) illegal
B ) Immoral

The law is clear. Time for the lying to end.

there will be gender neutral toilets in modern offices for these men to use. all this fuss is because the only thing that's good enough it to have women's spaces, and access to the women within them

<shudder>

It's one branch of PCS in Leith. And the national union's legal department have promptly repudiated what the branch have said.

And time to ask them why they don't care about women's rights.

Time to ask all these unions why they're promoting the sex crimes of voyeurism and indecent exposure against women. You can't insist that men have the right to access undressed / vulnerable women without enabling these sex crimes.

I wish I was able to join the RMT. Not only do they recognise that sex is real, but they're remarkably good at getting pay rises for their members.

Could Sex Realists form their own union within these departments?

You can add the FDA to that list

Should civil servants join the RMT ?

And which Union do you suggest for compliance with the Supreme Court Ruling ?
Not the NEU
Not Unite
Not Unison
Not the GMB
Not the TUC itself
Not RCN
Not the BMA
Not the UCU
Not Equity
Not the FBU

Where SHOULD those who recognise the binding legality of April 16th go ?

Is PCS the old CPSA of yore? I used to be a member. A lot of the members were both small and large C conservative as I recall. This won't end well for the leadership....

The unions as a whole are pretty bad on recognising the reality that women exist, but PCS really is the Muppet Show.

Why would anyone join a union where the union's lawyers are saying "you have to comply with the law" and elected union officials are saying "la la la can't hear you"?