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?

Exactly! Just go to the toilet and stop making such a fucking song and dance. “Distress” my arse.

It's quite a simple problem to resolve. Biological women use the ladies, biological men use the gents and anyone in between, use the disabled toilet. There, sorted.

They can always get him a portaloo and stick it outside the back door!

He won't. I once had a PM exchange with him (if I'm remembering the name correctly). He started off reasonable but when it was clear to him that I wasn't going to "be kind", even after speaking to his excellent self, his demeanour switched and he wasn't able to keep up the reasonable and rational act.

What I don't quite understand is if, as the tra seem to say, it is a non issue as they just want to pee... why can't they pee in their birth sex toilets - after all it apparently doesn't matter?

Hopefully the Reddit thread will be updated with the outcome.

Yes but I'm not sure how reasonable it is to demand a fourth toilet option for most businesses. (The third being disabled use.)

Three days ago that same Reddit poster started a thread about starting an NHS HCA job ‘next week’ so unless one of them is a part time job I’m not sure what’s going on.

Yes, I'm not saying they should be allowed to use the toilet that 'aligns with their gender identity'. Just that being told to use the toilet which aligns with their sex, having been previously told that they can use any toilet they want is causing them distress. I suspect a case will come to court at some point - not to allow men to use the ladies but to force an employer to provide a 'gender neutral ' toilet or to say that an employer who doesn't provide a gender neutral option is failing to support the gender reassignment part of the equality act.

A gender neutral space for people with gender identies different from their biological sex would be open to biological men. Would a man who didn't want to use the men's toilets because there are men in them then refuse the gender neutral space?

It is an interesting one. One side is clear to me, hopefully we’ll get positive confirmation from the recent tribunals. A workplace refusing to provide or failing to enforce single sex toilets is breaching workplace regulations, and subject to being sued for sex discrimination. A male employee entering a female space without permission and after explicitly being told not to is gross misconduct and would be cause for dismissal.

The other side is less clear. To what extent do trans identified men suffer detriment compared to other men by being asked to use mens facilities. I think it probably is arguable that they do suffer some detriment and that there is a reasonable issue with privacy or dignity and/or that it is harmful to their mental health. So I think a sensible employer would ensure they provide a separate gender neutral single cubical option where this is likely to be seen as “reasonable” by an employment tribunal.

Does this just highlight that's it's the being with women that men need to affirm their delusion. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I'd assume a work place toilet would be safer than a public toilet and a man with a gender identity would realistically be safe. If they really just want to pee then what is the issue. Also, you can guarantee that if all the women started to use the men's toilets then a man who was pretending he was a woman would follow them over.

This.

It's similar to other laws that rely on the social contract for people to follow them. Take red traffic lights for example: someone who jumps them knows they are breaking the law and they might feel they have a very good reason for having done so (wife in labour, emergency school pick-up or whatever).... but the law is without emotion here. If it wasn't, there would be all sorts of creative reasons offered up whenever anyone broke it.

Just as we don't have police or cameras on every traffic light, we don't have people policing who uses which toilet. The organisation is not legally obligated to provide an alternative if someone doesn't want to use the facilities for their sex, any more than a council is legally obligated to provide an express lane for anyone who believes they have a good reason to avoid red lights. In both scenarios, each respective organisation might provide an alternative. But they don't have to. Whereas people do have individual responsibility for following the law.

Well they’ve said they aren’t going to resign so they can’t claim constructive dismissal.

As long as there are facilities for the TP to use it’s a reasonable management instruction to tell them to use that

they may try and claim GR discrimination but the defence to a claim of direct discrimination is that they are not being kept out the ladies because they are trans but because they are male

and to a claim of indirect GR discrimination that removing them from the ladies is a PMOAALA in complying with FWS re the SSS.

as long as there is another facility the TP can use I don’t think they have much of a leg to stand on

in any event employer may make a commercial decision that they can piss off the TP and face one legal case or piss off women and face lots

Astounding lack of empathy and ability to recognise that women also have rights, as usual. The only reason his colleagues are complaining is because they are bitter and old, there is no legitimate reason for women to be upset about having a male colleague using their toilets.

I hope that employment tribunals continue to confirm that employers do have a duty towards their female employees here.

I haven't read the original post, but what basis do they have to require accomodations for their distress? Genuine question.

Because a lot of effort went into decoupling trans and mental health. Many trans people don't have gender dysphoria and claim trans is an inherent quality akin to sexuality. There are no toilet accomodations for different sexualities, so why for trans?

If they have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria then surely they would be requesting an accomodation on mental health grounds, i.e disability, not trans? In which case it is not a trans issue and the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is not applicable. And accessible toilets are available for mental health issues that reach the level of disability

This feels like a classic case of the law not keeping up with society
In a work situation nobody wants a man in the women’s toilets. Male colleagues knowing the details of what is going on in there with female colleagues, is so beyond inappropriate. I really don’t care what those men like to wear to work. That’s up to them and irrelevant to female colleagues’ work dignity. Male colleagues can budge up in their own toilets. This is entirely on them to resolve.

This has happened to me and we felt scared to raise it and the (also male) management and HR knew it was happening and they didn’t deal with it. Women I worked with went to the toilet elsewhere wherever they could to avoid sharing the space, but doing that ate into our work time and lots of other women and visitors would not have had that option and will have had an unwelcome experience.

Maybe this entitled male behaviour at work could be enforced to come under contractual obligations somehow in the meantime until law is updated.

Here's the guidance needed in full.

'Use the facilities related to your biological sex. If another member of your biological sex takes any action against you whilst in there, report it to us and we will investigate. For any other instances of bullying in the workplace, use the workplace bullying policy linked below'

<insert link to bullying policy>

If using the male toilets causes distress as part of their condition, then they can ask for a reasonable adjustment.

Reasonable adjustments only apply to disabilities.

So unless the trans person can argue that they are disabled for employment law purposes this would not apply.

If the employer has space to offer an individual cubicle this would have to be considered as an alternative to dismissal for the dismissal to be 'reasonable in all of the circumstances'.

I would say that most buildings large enough to have separate male and female toilets, also already have an accessible toilet as a third option. Certainly most places that I visit are either small businesses with a single toilet, or have the three options above. So while I realise that there will be some organisations that will need to consider their toilet provision carefully, notably those who have built non-compliant cubicles, for most this is a non-issue.

It’s not a repeat of the disability legislation requiring changes to most premises and it’s not the gotcha the GLP think. As regards the scenario in the OP HR need to stay strong and dismiss the knob.

Excellent points above.

Regarding potential claims of discrimination, let's all remember that this person probably transitioned at work, and/or is easily identifiable as the sex they are. They were almost certainly using toilets for their sex most of their adult life until fairly recently.
Outing is unlikely to come into it, and even if it does, tough - there is no right not to be treated as the sex you are outside of the narrow application of the GRA.
Both men's and women's toilets have at least one cubicle.
There's no reason other than preference why this person can't use the correct facilities.
They are not being treated differently to other employees of the same sex.

The GLP barrister yesterday claimed there was a detriment unique to trans people if they could not use a toilet that aligned with their lived gender. Apart from wtf is their lived gender anyway, this cannot be an absolute right which overrides those of the opposite sex users who the provision is for.

And further, toilets are for performing bodily functions. Not for affirmation.

Not that TRAs want unisex toilets anyway, but it would be outrageous to make a small company (as this seems to be) go to the expense of creating a special loo for this one person - and even if it is technically open to all, it will in practice be an additional toilet for men.

This is why no one in their right mind would knowingly hire someone who was any flavour of trans. They would not put that as the reason, but I'm sure they could cook something up. Being asked your pronouns at interview might be to screen out the genderists!