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?

I think this is an accepted fact for many TW. However, NB and Trans rights supporters are now seeing GN toilets as the answer.

However, the point of this thread is the legal basis on which an employer can take disciplinary action if a TP persistently uses SS toilets for their gender not biological sex. Having GN toilets alongside SS undermines any claims of fear using SS toilets for biological sex.

@CanaryChaffinch I personally prefer unisex toilets so Male, Female, Unisex and disabled.

@SerendipityJane I disagree there are far more disabled people 24% of population or 16 + million compared to TP 1% or c200,000 to 500,000. Most disabilities are not visible.

Those saying a 'gender neutral' toilet is the answer - the whole point is that trans identifying men want to use the WOMEN'S toilets. That's where the thrill lies.

https://www.acas.org.uk/gender-reassignment-discrimination/preventing-discrimination

'Toilets and changing facilities

At some point during their transition, an employee will probably want to change the facilities they use.
If an employee tells you they want to use different facilities, you should talk to them about:

• when the change could happen
• what, if anything, to tell other employees

• having one or more self-contained toilets that anyone can use
• making sure changing rooms have lockable cubicles'

Whatever I think the term gender neutral needs to go and be replaced by ‘mixed sex’. The less that ‘gender’ is used when sex is meant, the better.

Using disabled toilets as a GN toilet for TP/NB is a pragmatic temporary solution. The aim being to provide a GN toilet longer term so the disabled toilets revert to their original purpose.

I suspect there will be fewer disabled employees than trans employees.

I've worked in 3 locations where there was only one disabled toilet on the "outside" by reception for visitors that any disabled staff would have to use.

Luckily there were never any staff that needed to use them, so I don't know any more.

I do think there is a potential issue for employers and Service providers who do not have the ability to offer both SS and GN toilets/facilities.

If an employer has SS and GN toilets (ideally not disabled) then TP have no claim of discrimination. Giving a TP the option of either using SS toilets based on biological sex or the GN toilets is a reasonable solution.

Using disabled toilets as a GN toilet for TP/NB is a pragmatic temporary solution. The aim being to provide a GN toilet longer term so the disabled toilets revert to their original purpose.

This will get tested via ETs and if an employer has both SS and GN toilets and follows a best practice disciplinary process for employees who continually breach policy (and the law). TP who continue to use SS toilets relating to their chosen gender I.e. not their biological sex, when a GN option is available are being unreasonable.

Quite.

I'm no lawyer, but I am sure English law doesn't recognise a situation where you can break a law to comply with a law.

The top of the tree will always be an act of parliament, because parliament is supreme. After that it will be a ruling from SOCTUK. Then a ruling in the CoA. Then a ruling in the High Court.

'To be sexual harassment, the unwanted behaviour must have either:

• violated someone's dignity
• created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for someone

• has one of these effects even if it was not intended
• intended to have one of these effects even if it did not have that effect'

And re harassment, the trans identifying employee could really be putting their employer in a risky position:

'Employers must take steps to prevent sexual harassment happening in the first place.
Employers can be held responsible for the actions of employees. This is called vicarious liability.
Employers also have a responsibility – a 'duty of care' – to look after the wellbeing of their employees.'

ACAS are reviewing their advice post SC judgement:

'Important: We are reviewing our advice following the court decision on 16 April 2025. The Supreme Court ruled that 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex.'

https://www.acas.org.uk/acas-response-on-uk-supreme-court-decision-on-sex

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?

The HR dept were correct and following SC judgement.
The trans identifying person seems guilty of insubordination, and possibly misconduct.
The colleagues could raise a grievance, a possible discrimination/harassment case.

Would be my view, although IANAL. It would require a formal investigation, possible suspension given the issues involved, while that was conducted.

The employer failing to protect the sex that complained could be open to harassment to that group if they force them to share.

Court cases in progress are interesting for this reason.

SerendipityJane

Yes, true.

I understand what your point is, and it is a fair one, but in relation to toilets, the "lifestyle choice" makes no difference to the practical function of the toilet. It would be like providing special smoking shelters for Aquarians, or Taylor Swift fans.

The point you missed was employers supporting a lifestyle choice.

I haven't heard of smoking shelters for years now. Along with employees getting to smoke during company time.

It's ridiculous.

I have to use the opposite sex toilets otherwise you are denying my trans identity which everyone needs to acknowledge.

And also:

If I use the same sex toilets, everyone will know I am trans and that would be a disaster.

The purpose of smoking shelters was to provide protection from the elements for people who wanted to smoke. Their purpose was not to force non-smokers to share indoor space with active smokers, or to enable people who didn't actually smoke to pose for selfies with unlit cigarettes or pretend they were at greater risk of lung cancer, etc. They were shelters where people could go and smoke. That was their function.

Rights were balanced. The activity of smoking impinges on non-smokers in enclosed spaces, therefore smokers were required to go outside if they wanted to smoke. Smoking was not forbidden. Shelters were constructed because there was a sufficient number of smokers among the staff to make it worthwhile. Starkly different from what we are being asked to countenance with toilet provision.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cddrjq9764yo.amp

This is on the BBC.

Well employers used to provide smoking shelters ....

Exactly. It’s a lifestyle choice as many if not most don’t actually suffer from gender dysphoria. Why should an employer be spending money to accommodate a lifestyle choice?

I mean, how does gender identity affect how you use a loo? Or whether you use a loo or a urinal, how often you go, etc? GI is not relevant to sex-segregated facilities or spaces of any kind. There's no evidence that GI is a real thing. And even if it is, there's no reason why it needs to be accommodated or acknowledged by society. Let's please not forget this.

Toilets are just toilets, they're not affirmation tools or somewhere to celebrate your womanhood. Public toilets need to be adequate in number, safe and hygienic. That's it.

It would be interesting to see how they claim a ‘reasonable adjustment’ to not use the toilets provided for their sex without admitting it’s a mental health condition.

Health and safety regulations in the uk have an overarching requirement on the employer towards employees.

But, Employees also have general duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. They must take reasonable care of themselves and others who may be affected by their actions and comply with their employer’s arrangements for managing health and safety.

Therefore, single sex provision is required. But an employee refusing to use, particularly in the light of the SC ruling, surely makes the employee in breach of this?

Exactly.

Not to mention that unisex fully enclosed toilets indirectly discriminate against women, are less safe for everybody (especially women & girls, vulnerable or sick people) and are much less hygienic than blocks of toilets with door gaps. Unisex toilets are spectacularly unpopular with both men and women. They are an option if there is space, not a first resort.

We don't need to reinvent the wheel. Communal single sex blocks are safer, more hygienic and allow quicker throughput.

Edited to correct typo