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

So a woman asserting her autonomy to protect herself from a perceived threat is now punishable offence because "the poor menz feelz".

I'd have found it hard to bite my tongue in that meeting - all credit to you for holding it together.

Just read this for the first time ... What happened to trousering?

She's fine. She's just not posting on MN any more.

It was revised in 2016, and now requires further revision to bring it up to date and broaden the scope. Therefore, it has been removed from this page.

In Civil Service-speak, this usually means "OMG, we've got it wrong but can't admit it so we'll say we are 'revising' it instead".

I only got an auto-reply from my MP when I brought it to her attention and I'm still waiting for even that from the Home Secretary. To be fair, the B-word seems to be taking up pretty much most of their time at the moment so I was expecting a bit of a wait. Still, the fact that it's been removed while it awaits "revision" could be hopeful....as long as the replacement document is not put together or nodded through by the numpties who approved the original one.

Will wait and watch.

In Civil Service-speak, this usually means "OMG, we've got it wrong but can't admit it so we'll say we are 'revising' it instead".
Yep, the policy document which has now vanished stated "March 2016 interim revised edition subject to Civil Service Employee Policy Review".
It sat there for three years - quite a coincidence that someone decided to review it now.

The gov.uk page signposting the Equality and Human Rights Commission was quietly amended last week following a number of complaints by MNers and there was, of course, Penny Mordaunt's webchat (which must have been an eye-opener for her even though she ducked and dived). I'd like to think this has all the makings of a perfect storm and someone somewhere in Whitehall is finally waking up but as so many others have pointed out on so many other threads, vigilance and persistence are key.

Are there any statistics for a) the number of women whose faith/belief prohibits them from sharing toilet facilities with natal males and b) how many women are the victims of sexual abuse/physical assault/coercive control by natal males?

I would be questioning what provision is going to be made for that percentage (and I'm assuming it will be substantial) who therefore cannot be expected to share toilets with natal males. Do they all have to be regarded as disabled for toileting and how is that going to impact on the availability of accessible toilets for people already using them?

I would be questioning what provision is going to be made for that percentage (and I'm assuming it will be substantial) who therefore cannot be expected to share toilets with natal males.

Exactly, and what is the reasoning that allows the feelings of males to trump those of women who, for whatever reason, are uncomfortable sharing toilets with males. For instance, do employers who adopt these policies expect women with sexual violence history to explain their reasons, or should they just quietly switch to using accessible toilets?

Excellent posts about women who can't share toilets, showers and changing rooms with men.
In the last 20 years or so local and national government have gone to significant lengths to identify marginalised groups and ensure that they were welcomed and integrated to society. Muslim women in particular were targeted by sports bodies, community groups, education etc.
It just shows how integrated into the civil service pornified / creepy men are so that they (without any hesitation) prioritise the rights of similar men and in a heartbeat, these marginalised groups of women (and others) are immediately excluded from so many aspects of society.

For instance, do employers who adopt these policies expect women with sexual violence history to explain their reasons, or should they just quietly switch to using accessible toilets?

Absolutely unacceptable to expect women to demonstrate or prove this and 'out' themselves, so women would need to self identify. And whatever they call those toilets, those toilets will need increasing in number as they will be very busy.

In the last 20 years or so local and national government have gone to significant lengths to identify marginalised groups and ensure that they were welcomed and integrated to society.

Yup. See loads of highly expensive white papers and actions regarding ghettoization, women restricted to their homes, lack of access to learning English and education, anti terrorism strategies, a ton of stuff. All hurled aside in one go.

I'm left wondering: either there's some deeply sinister, dark global plan the govt are signed up to which outweighs every other interest, or it's simply that the govt's left hand doesn't know what the fuck it's right's hand's doing. Or even that the right hand exists.

The level of incompetence is gobsmacking.

Question for anyone whose workplace has such a policy - do you know if the mens toilets have sanitary waste bins?

A truly trans-friendly workplace presumably should?

However I imagine if they did, there would be quite a lot of comment from men?

Question for anyone whose workplace has such a policy - do you know if the mens toilets have sanitary waste bins? A truly trans-friendly workplace presumably should?

We’re moving in that direction. Shall I do a recce tomorrow? I’ll do a part-time Pippa for the occasion, naturally

I wonder what architecture guidelines are on that for new builds?

From memory sexual assault has affected around 20% of women

Maybe the 20% could wear a badge, you know just to let people know their shame?

Following this with interest. I work for a local authority and the policy is as follows:

Facilities:
An employee who is undergoing or has completed gender reassignment should have access to ‘men-only’ and ‘women-only’ areas, such as changing rooms and toilets, according to the gender in which they present.
In some situations, it may be helpful to explain the situation to work colleagues who use the facilities; however, this should only be done following full consultation with the employee and with their agreement. It is not acceptable to restrict the employee to using disabled toilets or other unisex facilities.

Sounds fairly reasonable except the definition of 'gender reassignment' at the start of the document is:

We recognise that gender reassignment is a personal process (that is, moving away from a person’s birth sex to their affirmed/’new’ gender), rather than a medical process.

Gender reassignment covers a range of scenarios:

- the re-assignment of a person's sex may be proposed but never gone through
- the person may be in the process of reassigning their sex; or the process may have happened previously
- the employee may be undergoing the medical gender reassignment treatments
- the employee may present in a different gender identity, but not undergo medical treatment. This is known as a change of social identity

So presumably someone can propose to have sex reassignment and never do it and they still come under the 'gender reassignment' category and therefore have access to the facilities of their choice.

Sadly I can't lift my head above the parapet on this really and it's unlikely someone will use it in this way I guess. It frustrates me though that these policies don't consider the potential implications.

See loads of highly expensive white papers and actions regarding ghettoization, women restricted to their homes, lack of access to learning English and education, anti terrorism strategies, a ton of stuff. All hurled aside in one go.

I'm left wondering: either there's some deeply sinister, dark global plan the govt are signed up to which outweighs every other interest, or it's simply that the govt's left hand doesn't know what the fuck it's right's hand's doing. Or even that the right hand exists.

It's absolutely staggering.
The more I think about it, the more I believe it's actually a calculated strategy to dismantle equality laws and undermine minorities.
Why is Labour on board with this?

The more I think about it, the more I believe it's actually a calculated strategy to dismantle equality laws and undermine minorities.

As a frequent lurker and occasional poster on the long running Trump threads, I was very struck by a profile of Steve Bannon where the journalist commented on SB’s detailed understanding of feminist theory. It’s not a huge leap to see that a ‘right on’ push to redefine sex-based provisions as gender-based provisions would serve the likes of Bannon and other right wing disruptors perfectly. In the US, the equality act is being driven by the democrats, so the conservative/right wing parties don’t even have to do the heavy lifting & can blame any fall out on the other side. Grim. 😕

An employee who is undergoing or has completed gender reassignment should have access to ‘men-only’ and ‘women-only’ areas, such as changing rooms and toilets, according to the gender in which they present.

With absolutely no thought or regard for the impact on the men and women using those facilities. Disability needs, privacy, dignity, respect for religious faith, basically all the rest of the protected characteristics flung aside without comment. Again, gobsmacking. In inclusion for disability, where the person being included may have a significant impact on other users of the situation and their experience, there is a required balance of 'reasonable adjustments'. Other users/people present are not expected to be put under the bus for the benefit of the one person with a protected characteristic, and compromise is often the answer. But there is a pathway by which providers can demonstrate that they are not able to include that person or meet their needs due to the limits of the situation/their budget and the needs of others.

With trans stuff it's bang. No one else matters. Nothing else matters. To me this suggests the guidance has probably been written by or copied wholesale from the TRA lobby rather than by anyone with any knowledge of actual inclusion and equality practice. For a start, if you force people to include someone at serious cost to themselves it does not make that person included, it causes resentment, anger, rejection and exposes the person to the unpleasantness of others being forced to complain about a situation they find untenable. That's badly done inclusion.

I'm not normally given to conspiracy theories but I'm inclined to believe there are dark forces at play here. I agree with Boatyard and ThePurportedDoctoress. At the very least.

In my CS role, I was informed today that a local Women's Centre (that is a secure entry environment that offers access to counselling,support, advocacy, activities etc) were needing a volunteer receptionist. Some admin experience required alongside a welcoming nature as it's sometimes a big struggle to get women across the threshold etc. The post is only for "women" or an "identifying trans woman"

Hi, the op had an email yesterday which I'm going to paste below, identifying parts removed. She hasn't taken any action yet but now thinks she does need to have a discussion as there are clear issues regarding the view of accessing women's spaces.

When I read it I must say I felt that if I were in the shoes of an employee receiving that email, I'd feel intimidated as the nature of the email is very much put up and shut up.

*From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: xx March 2019 xxxxx
Subject: Information International Transgender Day of Visibility (TDoV) 31 March 2019

DWP Finance Group

Message From: xxxxxxxxxx Director Of xxxxxxxxx
Message To: All Finance Group Colleagues

Date: xx March 2019

Information: International Transgender Day of Visibility (TDoV) 31 March 2019

International Transgender Day of Visibility (TDoV) is commemorated on March 31 each year and is a time to celebrate transgender people around the globe and the courage it takes to live openly and authentically, while also raising awareness of the discrimination trans people still face.

The word “transgender” or trans is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity is different from the sex that was determined for them at birth (based on the appearance of their sex organs). The word “transgender” and our modern definition of it only came into use in the late 20th century, but people who would fit under this definition have existed in every culture throughout recorded history.

The transgender community is incredibly diverse. Some transgender people identify as male or female, and some identify as genderqueer, non-binary, agender, or somewhere else on or outside of the spectrum of what we understand gender to be.

Some trans people take hormones and have surgery as part of their transition, and some don’t. Some openly identify as transgender, while others simply identify as men or women.

In many ways, transgender people are just like cisgender (non-transgender) people; but because of the social stigma surrounding transgender identity, the community faces a unique set of challenges.

The reality of living as a transgender person means experiencing prejudice, discrimination, material harm, and even violence and rates of mental illness in transgender people are very high. The privileged lifestyle of transgender celebrities like Caitlyn Jenner is a million miles away from what most will experience.

What can we do to support our transgender colleagues?

Listen - every individual’s transition will be different so you can’t second guess how they want to be treated or addressed. Pay attention to the pronouns and descriptions they use themselves and if in doubt, ask. It’s important to use he, she and they correctly; misgendering is highly distressing for many trans individuals and has the capacity to “out” them to others who are unaware of their trans history.

Avoid Intrusion - they may just want to get on with their job but let them know you are there to support if they need anything. You may be interested in hearing about their transition but avoid intrusive questions, even asking what their previous name was may be upsetting for them to be reminded of.

Be Brave - challenge inappropriate behaviour by other colleagues. Trans colleagues have to be brave every single day and by calling out unacceptable language and attitude, you may actually make all the difference to your trans colleague’s experience at work.

Avoid Assumption - If somebody has chosen to come out to you at work, that doesn’t mean they’re ready to come out to everybody. Even if the whole workplace knows about it, that doesn’t mean it’s okay to share the information outside the workplace without permission. It’s possible that they don’t identify as trans any more if they have completed their transition and may want to put that part of their lives behind them and blend in with everybody else.

Support Inclusion - nobody should have to worry about whether or not they’re allowed to use the toilets at work, so make sure your trans colleague feels safe in these and other same sex spaces.

Welcome trans colleagues at appropriate same sex events and be proactive about it so that they don’t have to ask whether or not they can come along, for example a girls’ or boys’ night out. Even if your colleague is not interested in socialising, this will help to make the workplace more welcoming.

Most trans people just want to fit in and don’t want to make a political point out of everything so don’t do it on their behalf. As long as they know that you mean well, they will understand if you make the occasional mistake. You can make a quick apology and then focus on making sure it doesn’t happen again. What they are likely to want most is just the same friendly, respectful treatment that exists between other colleagues in a healthy workplace.

You can find more information on the Intranet Transgender page including the Transgender knowledge hub which provides various resources. There is also a cross-government staff network that provides support and guidance for Trans and Intersex colleagues which you can find here a:gender network.

We have also recently launched the LGBT+ Ally Programme. If you are interested in becoming an Ally or want more information, please visit the LGBT+ Ally Programme page.

Xxxxxxxx Director of xxxxxxx*

Most trans people just want to fit in and don’t want to make a political point out of everything so don’t do it on their behalf.

So why all the fuss?!

Wonder whether this organisation went to such lengths when women were a minority? Or make similar entreaties for understanding of those dealing with caring for a parent with dementia or a child with disabilities? Those people might similarly feel unwelcome in a culture where bonds are forged and strengthened on girls' or boys' nights out.

And won't somebody think of the eggshells?! There are many situations that are distressing for people going through a particular set of circumstances. Eg infertility, miscarriage. The assumption is colleagues will be sensitive and tactful, but it doesn't always happen and there aren't threats of disciplinary action or intranet pages for them.

And T around in all cultures throughout history? Of the TWAW variety? Evidence please.

A colleague in our diversity team mentioned my employer was drawing up a special policy for staff parents supporting their child through transition. I asked whether there was also going to be a special policy for parents of children with anorexia, another body dysphoric condition, or for children with serious mental health conditions or disabilities, pointing out that there are many conditions that make huge demands on parents. We already have sufficiently broadly drawn policies in place for staff with caring commitments/dependents. 🙄 I have no doubt well and truly blotted my copy book, but the sheer level additional fuss really drives me nuts. LOTS of families have to contend with their loved ones’ complex issues and support needs and they are ALL deserving of compassion and support.