"Supporting trans colleagues through this difficult time."

That's not really true is it.

I remember Ally McBeal having 'the Unisex' and it was considered weird at the time.

Unisex facilities (cubicles with shared sinks) are extremely unusual - they're advertised as single sex generally - in fact I can't think of anywhere I go that doesn't have single sex (fake single sex when the law was being mis-applied)

Shared facilities has been around for decades but interestingly, the 'discomfort' is only new that's hardly a broad grass roots concern rather a fringe one.

It’s a pain in the arse working with people who insist on bringing their whole self to work rather than their professional self.

Shared facilities has been around for decades but interestingly, the 'discomfort' is only new that's hardly a broad grass roots concern rather a fringe one.

Men used to (& some still do) make the same senseless argument about women 'imposing' themselves upon 'their' work place 'inevitably' suffering the consequences of sexual harassment. But civilised society begged to differ.

So I've NC for this, I'm a fairly regular poster on this board, but I've been pushed to start this thread as I am just in despair at the hyperbolic statements certain people at my place of work are spouting. Ugh!!!!

Anyway, so, I work in the public sector, there was a big gathering of opinions on the workplace, all invited to chat, round tables, discussions etc. Key questions being: what can we do to improve? How do we do things well? What do you think about our organisation? Etc. It's a yearly thing that's gone on for at least 20 years.

One of the colleagues on another table (everyone asked to write down then summarise discussions) said the company could "do more to help support trans colleagues during this extremely difficult time." Silence round the room and then when asked to clarify, they said "due to the supreme court decision."

I had to physically stop myself from sighing out loud as I was right in the eye line of the person who said this. A young, fairly grumpy they/them (actual female though) from a different team. It's just such utter UTTER bullshit. No one challenged this view, a few people NODDED!!! ARGH, it's just so frustrating.

What difficult time? Nothing is difficult??? The court decision just clarified equality law, why the need for this hyperbole? Nobody is banned from anything, this over-dramatic language about a law being clarified to ensure that single sex spaces are respected in certain circumstances is just...nuts.

Anyway I'm venting, but it worries me it's so prevalent at my work, when we should be neutral to activist causes (as a public sector organisation) and it clearly isn't the case. I wish I'd been braver in challenging this arrogant, grumpy young person but I didn't. And I slightly hate myself for it, but I have kids, mortgage and bills to pay. I just can't rock the boat. HR and the internal equality team are very much on board with it all unfortunately.

"intended for their sex"

Most households don't have or need urinals to get the job done.

Neutrality doesn't mean not being supportive of work colleagues who may feel they are being discriminated against or social pariahs or any other perceived difficult time they are going through. While you may not agree with the premise behind a grievance that doesn't mean its being untrue to yourself or being politically bias for not 'correcting them'.The necessity of neutrality being maintained in the public sector is more related to the provision of services to the public than how supportive work colleagues are of each other.

Unless you are compelled to act in any way that contravenes your personal beliefs I really don't see how a work colleague who feels for good reason that others may feel threatened as being 'othered' is such a hanging offence.

I tend to question further to bring a bit of sunlight into the room and also to not to appear to blindly agree, something along the lines of, 'oh, I've seen something about the case, I thought it was about securing safe space for women who may have previously experienced violence against them to ensure they aren't intimidated out of spaces, I know VAWG is, at last, a hot topic, was that the case?'
Not overly subtle but raises an example of women's exclusion while not being something that can be taken as openly hostile nor easily dismissed either!

its a pain in the arse to have to navigate working relationships with people who are pretending to be the opposite sex

I tend to question further to bring a bit of sunlight into the room and also to not to appear to blindly agree, something along the lines of, 'oh, I've seen something about the case, I thought it was about securing safe space for women who may have previously experienced violence against them to ensure they aren't intimidated out of spaces, I know VAWG is, at last, a hot topic, was that the case?'
Not overly subtle but raises an example of women's exclusion while not being something that can be taken as openly hostile nor easily dismissed either!

Shared facilities has been around for decades but interestingly, the 'discomfort' is only new that's hardly a broad grass roots concern rather a fringe one.

Neutrality doesn't mean not being supportive of work colleagues who may feel they are being discriminated against or social pariahs or any other perceived difficult time they are going through. While you may not agree with the premise behind a grievance that doesn't mean its being untrue to yourself or being politically bias for not 'correcting them'.The necessity of neutrality being maintained in the public sector is more related to the provision of services to the public than how supportive work colleagues are of each other.

Unless you are compelled to act in any way that contravenes your personal beliefs I really don't see how a work colleague who feels for good reason that others may feel threatened as being 'othered' is such a hanging offence.

Perhaps if you were excluded from being able to use the necessary public facilities of your choice as everyone else has you might appreciate the discriminatory nature of the outcome. Just because it's been deemed by the courts as a more practical outcome doesn't mean there isn't any collateral damage, compromise of rights or hurt involved.

Being sympathetic to other people's hardship however justified the trade offs were that created that hardship is just basic human decency. The idea that work colleagues should be at their leisure to 'educate' their fellow work mates on their 'interpretation' of complex legal decisions where the parliamentary approval of logistics are yet to be decided let alone any cases being tested in court against it doesn't seem appropriate or conducive of a cohesive working relationship.

Ultimately its management's responsibility to do the 'educating' once they are fully aware of what that actually entails which they don't yet & work colleagues being limited to offering their support or not.

Perhaps if you were excluded from being able to use the necessary public facilities of your choice as everyone else has you might appreciate the discriminatory nature of the outcome. Just because it's been deemed by the courts as a more practical outcome doesn't mean there isn't any collateral damage, compromise of rights or hurt involved.

Being sympathetic to other people's hardship however justified the trade offs were that created that hardship is just basic human decency. The idea that work colleagues should be at their leisure to 'educate' their fellow work mates on their 'interpretation' of complex legal decisions where the parliamentary approval of logistics are yet to be decided let alone any cases being tested in court against it doesn't seem appropriate or conducive of a cohesive working relationship.

Ultimately its management's responsibility to do the 'educating' once they are fully aware of what that actually entails which they don't yet & work colleagues being limited to offering their support or not.