Civil Service Trans policy - what can I do?

[DoxxMeTwice]

Following an awful "workplace inclusion" meeting today I was prompted to check out my work policy for Trans (link below).

I work for the Civil Service ( name changed, as I was previously doxed and can't risk it here).

Page 31 is particularly bad, I feel like it implies that any woman who objects to sharing single sex facilities will be disciplined for being discriminatory.

This policy is clearly being put into practice as during my meeting today it was discussed that a Trans Woman was left hurt and embarrassed recently after a woman did an immediate u-turn out of the toilets when she saw them. It was stated as a gentle warning to others to consider trans feelings.

The woman's feelings were not considered at all, though I expect she has probably since been vilified in her local office!

Does anyone have any real life examples of policies like this being successfully challenged by using EHRC/Equalities act??

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/503663/WorkplaceeGuideCSEPPrevisedFinallV1.pdf

That is excellent news Trousering. Should this need crowd funding I have no doubt that there will be countless women (and many men) who will contribute.

Just to hark back to the Falkirk lassie - we breed them both tough and canny in Falkirk - she knew it was a man with long hair AND where to put her knee! A very well brought up child whose parents should be proud.

And then they put the perpetrator in a women's hostel - it's literally 'out of the mouths of babes'.

It was a child who shouted ‘the emperor is naked!!!’

Former civil servant, now local government. Utterly appalled by this and would happily contribute to crowdfunding if Trousering gets an action going. This needs stopping now.

Perhaps the influence goes all the way back to the early days of The Beaumont Society & its members?

There are research reports available on EHRC and gov websites that explicitly include cross-dressers in trans.
There's one commissioned by the Equalities Office, the subject was barriers to public and political life for LGBT people, and the sample included cross-dressers/transvestites (their wording) identifying as men. Who knows how much these reports have influenced policies, but quite why the Equalities Office needs to know about occasional cross-dressers' participation in anything is beyond me.

Also watching with interest, good luck with your meeting today Trousering.
I’d also be keen a support and fund a legal opinion. These so called policies are deeply worrying.

I'm horrified that the Equalities Office forgot to study the barriers to participation in public life for ponyboys while they were at it.

Most clothing and office furniture is not designed to accomodate tail buttplugs, and many ponyboys discover to their extreme pain that coworkers are unwilling to offer lumps of sugar from their palm as a reward for good performance. The stigma and invalidation are appalling.

Which Department does it come under? The Minister/Secretary of State should be compelled to read the transwidows' threads.

They are now stating that men who are dressing and using sex segregated facilities for erotic reasons can do that. And they will permit the use of disciplinary procedures to override consent.

This is a really good point. I feel instinctively this about the women’s toilets at my work which women are required to share with men (NOTE: has not been verbalised to us like that but effectively it is forcing us because no genuinely man-free single sex toilet option is provided to the women staff and these women’s toilets are used by woman-identifying colleagues).

I hadn’t really been able to clarify it like that in my mind before now, thank you. There is a women’s consent aspect. And there is a sexualised element to the presence of men freely accessing women’s toilets while they are being used by women.

This is what self ID enables.

And for everyone saying how can you look into a transwoman’s mind and know if their motive is sexual or not, or nefarious or not, or even if they are a woman or man at that moment or not, for entering the toilets- the answer is obviously that nobody can look into anyone’s mind to know this or not.
(Apart from Layla Moran MP, apparently but I think she must have super powers).

So therefore these people need to keep out of the women’s toilets. Employers need to make this clear, provide for everyone accordingly. Third space is fine if that is needed. Express your gender however you want. But keep at a minimum the current provision of toilets that are single sex- and third space is in addition and should not be taking from women’s provision.

There are research reports available on EHRC and gov websites that explicitly include cross-dressers in trans.

Doesn’t Maria Miller’s enquiry also include cross-dresser in their definition of trans (it uses Stonewalls I believe).

I'm horrified that the Equalities Office forgot to study the barriers to participation in public life for ponyboys while they were at it

Good luck, Trousering!

Women WILL crowdfund to pay for a independent, high quality legal opinion, I am certain.

Doesn’t Maria Miller’s enquiry also include cross-dresser in their definition of trans (it uses Stonewalls I believe).

Isn't it funny how, when women ask questions, the political class blather on about poor souls who have gender dysphoria and suffer terribly if they can't use women's spaces, but when they consult the transgender community, they include input from men who know they are men whilst indulging in a spot of harmless crossdressing.

A few quick notes from the meeting.

Clearly saw the problem and thinks it's quite concerning. Seemed alarmed that cross dressing at work for erotic purposes was included in gender reassignment.
Agreed completely that policies were supporting men to claim harassment in a situation where women were experiencing sexual harassment.
Said that there was a way through it by restricting this to genuine cases of transition.
No quick answer, needs more work.

I didn't have time to discuss the belief issue at any length but did I state that there were considerable concerns being raised about discrimination on the grounds of belief and associated disciplinary action.

Said that there was a way through it by restricting this to genuine cases of transition.

So mixed sex?

There is no 'meaningful transition' in so far as that humans can't change sex.
There shouldn't be requirements for people to have extensive surgery and medication in order that they be granted access to the opposite sex's spaces etc.

If there are issues for some staff in using single sex spaces, this should be explored as to the reasons & whether these can be resolved or if not then a mixed sex space be provided.

I only had time to introduce the issue, I challenged the statement you highlighted Rowantrees, and there are 100s of challenges to that, but had to leave it there for today as we had other business. The good thing is that they all agreed that this was a problem.

My preference is to go back to this outwith my job and engage with him and his solicitor privately.

Trousering Of course, my apologies.
It wasn't a criticism of all you're doing, just an observation of what will be a common response by many organisations when challenged with evidence.

The good thing is that they all agreed that this was a problem.

This is such a significant step forward.

Good to hear there is some agreement. But "genuine transition" seems naive to put it mildly. The GRA does not require any more than a diagnosis and a social transition. Leaving us with the problem that there are post-op transsexuals who have meaningfully transitioned but remain legally male and merely socially transitioned males (outwardly indistinguishable from a crossdresser) who can be legally female.

(AFAIK of the 3000 male GRC-holders, 2100 are post-op. How far the other 900 have transitioned medically we do not know).

Said that there was a way through it by restricting this to genuine cases of transition.

The starting point there then remains the permanent loss of our right to privacy, dignity and safety by allowing us single-sex provisions where we are vulnerable or in a state of undress. Even if it has been badly applied, the law right now explicitly allows for the exclusion of biological males who are legally female under these kinds of circumstances.

There is no reason why the starting point shouldn't be to apply the sex-based exemptions properly and to expect that the Civil Service at least will uphold the rights of females by providing alternate arrangements for these males.

Thank you so much Trousering.

by not allowing us

And this is not a criticism of your efforts there. What you have done by raising this at work was courageous and principled (even though you're probably going to say it's your job to do this). Many in this situation have already capitulated. They will now hopefully look into this further, but I agree that legal advice may be the way forward.

I would not get too hung up on the genuine transition peice. He was shooting from the hip as I had sprung this on him and of course the framing of the current protected characteristic originates from encapsulating that very thing versus the anything goes stonewall gender identity training and policy being adopted wholesale.

He's on a peak trans journey. He will realise what he is saying is impossible. And inadequate. It was a 15 minute chat.

Nice work Trousering and heartened to hear the problems were immediately recognised. Do let us know if you follow this up. And thank you!

I'm out for dinner tonight with another key HR colleague who is completely peaked and I will tell him what I've done. Then the cage is fully rattled and I can ask them both to follow up.

How do we leverage this more widely with the available tools, women's meetings, whistleblowing, etc?

Sounds encouraging, Trousering, thank you so much for doing this.

The single-sex exemption provision either exists or it doesn't. I don't understand why it shouldn't be applied to sex-segregated welfare facilities at work. It's all very well to allow exemptions for rape crisis centres and refuges, but women who need these services include working women, and they should not be expected to share toilets and dressing rooms with males or forced into a situation where they have to explain their objection.