Lloyds Bank bans trans women from using female lavatories (STAFF)

Exactly this. It's very interesting when a previously trans-positive (for want of a better description) company takes this kind of step.

@mrshoho "It goes against all sound business sense doesn't it! I will never understand it. Same with the likes of John Lewis, M&S etc pandering to one tiny section of their customers at the expense of their majority customer base."

The thing is, it's all about optics. You, I and they know that trans customers are a miniscule percentage. But it isn't about trans customers. It's about the up-coming generation that potentially represent their future clientele - a large percentage of which are utterly captured by this issue. Plus all the slebs who'll be only too happy to bad mouth their brand for wrong thinking.

No doubt they’d trump up some Bananarama reason why it was harassment.

Perhaps we need to crowdfund a case against an employer like the terfs do ?

How can a case be brought against an employer who is following the law? Surely it wouldn't even make it to court?

I saw this on my news feed last night. Next item down was the M&S article about ejecting a woman who asked for the female changing room 😬

Haven't they tried the crowd funding thing before a few times and it's been a dismal failure?
Seems TRAs aren't as keen to put their money where their mouth is as we TERFS are

Crossed there!

Or hopefully they will. It might concentrate some minds if people at the top are targeted.

Part of me almost hopes they do. The more people see who these men really are, the better.

Thank you for letting us know that Lloyds have seen some sense, @SingleSexSpacesInSchools.

Among the usual exhortations to carry on breaking the rules, it looks like there are some messages getting through all round. This from the Reddit link, between posters A and B. (Thanks again to Jolyon and the GLP.)

A
You’re right that the Eq Act + guidance doesn’t cover workplaces but that’s irrelevant because the high court has now ruled that ‘sex means sex’ in the Workplace Regs as well. It happened when Good Law Project lost their case against the EHRC in the high court, I think it was in March this year. The judge basically extended the Supreme Court definition to workplaces as well and the judgement from a high court is binding. GLP effectively caused this by bringing a case and loosing. Honestly I don’t know why we still give GLP money, they mean well but they f* everything they touch. So Lloyds is legally right so best approach would be to carry on as before but be careful if you get a formal warning as that could lead to disciplinary.

B
Yeah, I've wondered similar about GLP but not really legally minded enough to know whether I'm right or not. Before the high court case there was a few employment tribunals that went our way and it looked as though they were going to force the guidance to be more inclusive but any progress that was made appeared to be lost following the GLP defeat. They also like spinning losses and minor wins as huge successes to keep your money rolling in. Unfortunately, we don't really have anyone else though.

A
I half sympathise with GLP because the law is defo against us so they’re always arguing from a weak base. However if you read their submission to that high court thing it’s a straight up dog’s breakfast, bits of it are incoherent or self contradictory. Even the Judge said so. And then although they lost they claimed it was a victory. I half admire them, they’re like a sinking ship that’s still firing. What grips me tho is they keep calling for money and they never tell the truth afterwards. Perhaps we need to crowdfund a case against an employer like the terfs do ?

Finally they’ve decided to follow the law. Reluctantly by the sound of it but it’s good news.

Hopefully the disgruntled male staff who like using women’s toilets won’t advertise their maleness by staging a piss protest outside Lloyd’s Head Office.

Bank follows law. Great. 😊

Well yes it is exactly this kind of thing - if someone's record says Mrs but they have a deep voice, as long as they pass data protection you don't accuse them of not being the person. And of course not addressing someone as sir or madam (whichever is wrong) or the wrong title which you might sometimes do based on voice by habit. And being aware of situations where sex on ID might not match or some relevant documents might be in a previous name, how to process a deed poll, how to update a record and all the admin that comes with that. And just generally not being disrespectful, I had a girl who started work at the same time as me we were both on probation together, she came off the phone with a client and announced loudly that she'd just been speaking to a tranny - needless to say she didn't pass probation. Obviously that's an extreme example but some people do actually need a reminder that it's a normal thing and not to be rude or insensitive or make jokes or giggle, even behind the customer's back. Sometimes it is literally just a case of having awareness or understanding so if you find yourself speaking to someone different you don't get thrown off.

It also wasn't just trans people, we had training on a lot of different characteristics, some because they did need their accounts handling in a slightly different way, and some just for knowledge/ awareness. I remember the first time I found myself speaking to a deaf customer through a translator, I was really thrown and kept addressing the translator directly which they kept telling me not to do - I actually flagged this to my supervisor and they organised some deaf awareness training. Again, sometimes it is literally just about awareness and knowing what to expect.

You are talking about speaking - how would you talk to a trans person in a different way ? Surely you are polite to everyone ? What special needs do they have over the phone or from a call centre? I see you are referring to voice. Don't many places just routinely say " is it ok for me to address you as Lizzie?"
Actually this reminds me of when I had to chat to someone eg BT and the account was in my husband's name and they would only speak to him. I said ok , cane back on the phone and deepened my voice - I could hear the hesitation in the person but of course they could not say " I don't believe you are Mr Lizzie" 😂

Transgender apparently make up 0.5-1% of the population, about one in a hundred people, large banks get thousands and thousands of people contact them on the daily basis so I don't think it is going to be that unusual for staff to be speaking to trans customers. It is not a much smaller percentage than people who use a wheelchair for example. I used to work at a large contact centre, I spoke to a trans customer certainly at least once a month or so, at least ones that were obvious from the voice etc, maybe more I didn't recognise.

@AuntieFar and @LittleBearPad give it a rest ffs 🙄

Thank you OP. Let’s hope more follow their lead.

Good.

Lloyds was prominent on pushing the trans agenda so it is great to know that they are now following the law. And that is what the point is!

And I moved a savings account to them in response to it, from the Co-op who were dragging their heels.

Ironically, the same account I moved to the Co-op from Barclays years ago over the issue of ethical investments.

It goes against all sound business sense doesn't it! I will never understand it. Same with the likes of John Lewis, M&S etc pandering to one tiny section of their customers at the expense of their majority customer base. Probably started off as wanting to be progressive with fingers on the pulse and then doubled down and stuck fingers in ears when customers objected. It's the Stonewall effect that thankfully is now in tatters.

Excellent news. Finally, spines sprouting up all over the place

Barclays did it a year ago.

At long last one of the major banking organisations is following the law to protect the privacy, safety and dignity of their staff.

Reddit having a normal one. 😂 Many of them still haven’t grasped that the EHRC guidance is not for workplaces I see.