HR tell trans identified person to use work toilets that match biological sex. Person refuses. Colleagues complain about their presence in incorrect toilets to HR. What's the legal position of all parties?

What's not the law?

The Equality Act 2010? The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992?

Yes, these are the law. That there has been (alleged) activism to stop the release a delay the release of the guidelines that helps organisations understand how they can follow it is irrelevant. The only difference is that currently, they have to follow it without being given ideas about how they can do so. They'll have to figure that out for themselves, until that becomes available, and accept the inevitable law suits coming through if they get it wrong. Unlucky, but there we are.

I’m pretty sure we all know Parliament can change the law.

t has gone through a court of law. There is no higher UK court than the SC.

Actually there is.

Parliament.

British constitutional law makes Parliament supreme with no body higher.

If the SC take a view that is contrary to the will of parliament, then parliament can quite easily remedy that in statute.

(Parliament has actually sat as a court - what do people think a "writ of attainder" is ? I'm no lawyer. But I am a history vulture).

What is not the law?

Out of interest, where did you get this idea? The EHRC guidelines set out how to obey the Equality Act which was clarified by the Supreme Court decision.

Ding ding ding! That’s wrong. Thanks for playing.

This is not true. The Supreme Court decision clarified the law as it is. The law is the law irrespective of the EHRC guidelines.

This is the law.

The guidance - not guidelines - is a summary of the legal position with practical examples. There are two sets, which are designed to assist service providers and employers respectively in complying.

Why are all these organisations "reviewing" their guidance, publishing draft and interim guidance, and generally procrastinating and prevaricating? What are they all waiting for? Who are they expecting to declare first? Lazy cowards. This just enables everyone to carry on with the status quo at the expense of women, because they are waiting for the final guidance which never seems to come

April, they started "reviewing". It's now November. It's dickensian

This is not law. Its a set of guidelines that has been brought in. But as yet not law. Not sure how it would hold up in a court of law.

I would be happy with “unisex” - I really just want any reference to “gender” removed from toilet signage.

Hmmm if and when we get an update. Interesting. IANAL.

Even before the SC judgement employers could exclude transgender individuals from single sex facilities. This is where the "proportionate means to a legitimate end" part comes in from previous ECHR guidance, here the dignity of their female employees, "the germs".

I may be wrong but I'm not aware of an court case where the employer ticked all the right process boxes, excluded a trans from a single sex space or service and was successfully sued. So I don't agree there's a legal ambiguity, though IANAL and that assumes HR has ticked all boxes.

As an employee, ignoring a HR request by going in the toilets anyway is clearly an immature and inappropriate way to react. They had a problem they should have raised it. That would likely be looked down on at any employment tribunal.

We don't know what alternative facilities have been offered which is also relevant. It's entirely possible there already is a gender neutral toilet. It's also unclear if the individual has any gender dysphoria causing them actual distress using the men's.

We already have properly designed, fully enclosed unisex toilets. They are underutilised. The men who are happy to use the men's toilets are doing so already - pointing this out is a much better way of demonstrating that unisex toilets are not essential to people with cross sex identities than requiring businesses to spend money or sacrifice space to create new facilities which will also be underutilised.

There might be a court case, but my non-expert opinion is that there is no detriment to a man who wants to use the women's toilets because none of the other men are allowed to, either.

Edited for clarity

Ah, I got the wrong end of the stick. I thought you meant that you preferred to use unisex toilets.

I like clear language. Single Sex and Unisex toilets = consistent sex based language. It’s clear and says exactly what they are.

Unisex means both sexes, so anyone can use unisex toilets. Clothing is unisex, hairstyles are unisex, make-up is unisex etc.

Gender Neutral = a sop to appease people who believe in GI. I use it because I believe we need to move the narrative so the norm is SS and Unisex provision but recognise Unisex is too big a leap for many believers.

Specifically unisex single occupancy though.

Used a few ciblcle-cluster unisex loos on holiday in The Netherlands. Every time, there's a bloke using a cubicle who didn't bother to lock the door and you push the door ooen and see more than you wanted to. Single occpancy opening into public hogh-traffic areas ought to discourage that.

Which they will kick up a stink about, and not use it.

With the Darlington nurses tribunal, the women were shunted off to a crappy old office, while Mr Most Important Man in the Hospital, obviously still used the ladies.
I’m surprised he wasn’t pig headed enough to decamp to the crappy old office.

As a pp said. Unisex is probably the best descriptor.

I sort of agree but to me mixed sex toilet implies men and women sharing a multi cubicle toilet area.

Obviously yes. But if employers provide a gender neutral option that is presented as "for anyone" (not as "for trans people" so it isn't "othering") then the trans people have no legal basis for claiming discrimination/toxic work environment due to being forced into a dysphoric situation whenever they need a wee. Of course we know that for some of them the true point is the thrill of transgressing women's boundaries and forcing women to comply with their fantasy but they don't usually say that bit out loud and realistically it's simply not going to happen that society will flip on its axis and actually start insisting that transwomen use the men's in all circumstances. A universal understanding that sex and gender are different, and that single sex facilities belong only to people of that sex by birth, is achievable and is within reach but that result will not be secured without a clear requirement to also accommodate trans people in unisex facilities. Of course that will be inconvenient and expensive but it's necessary because the majority of ordinary people - who know full well that men can't be women but who don't feel it matters that much because they've never experienced situations where it really did matter (and who will currently e teetering on the brink of acknowledging that ok well maybe there is enough reason to say it natters sometimes) will not go along with a total reversal to a system that forces trans believers to deny they own deeply held beliefs. The fact that trans people don't want 3rd spaces is irrelevant. Ensuring that 3rd spaces are provided wherever possible - and that all facilities are single-occupancy if there isn't room for 3 spaces - is the only thing that will make it certain that their ongoing fight for access to wrong-sex spaces will be seen and understood for what it is.

I know there are crusaders against unisex facilities but they are the lesser evil. If we don't establish a requirement for all employers and organisations to accommodate trans believers in one way or another without allowing access to wrong-sex facilities, there is a serious danger that the alternative that they will succeed in regaining ground for the idea that accessing the wrong-sex option is the only way they can survive.

No organisational policies or HR personnel will ever trump the law. The law has made this issue very clear. Sex equates to biology and women (and men) should have separate toilets based on there sex.

Why do you prefer unisex, out of interest?