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

As long as the organisation has days devoted to all marginalised groups and has documents like this detailing how to be an ally to:
those with life limiting illnesses, caring for elderly parents, caring for young children, enduring chemotherapy, suffering from brain tumours, coping with mental health problems, pregnant and breastfeeding women, marriage breakdown and all the other challenges that humans have to deal with when working. Then this can be filed in the folder marked: being an ally /caring for others.
If I had the time, I'd rewrite this from the perspective of women or any other group ....

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.

Oh my fucking god. Is this guidance quoted from and to government officials? This is how civil servants, who draft up law and regulation for the rest of us, are having to live at work?

This kind of boundary-erasing is how we end up sharing our wonens’ workplace toilets (unadapted) and with no consultation, with men (who don’t identify as men and fetishise femininity, or who at least are happy to say they ‘don’t identify as’ men for long enough to get access to women with their knickers down). Sorry to be blunt but that’s the reality.

How is it possible or legal to write this and not also write the following?

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

Where is inclusion for women in the workplace in all this?
Where is the legally protected characteristic of sex in all this?
Why is workplace culture not respectful of women?
Why should we have the personally challenge this stuff legally and risk career disruption or disadvantage when according to law we already have these rights (to same-sex provisions without men where proportionate?!

Don’t even get me started on the ‘ally’ programme. That is wildly inappropriate for a highly controversial political position being forced on women in the workplace. Because what is the antonym of an ally (noun)?

It’s enemy or opponent.

How dare they recast women as an enemy or opponent just for wanting to be only in the company of other women colleagues, when they need to be exposed and vulnerable?

Wonder whether this organisation went to such lengths when women were a minority?

Indeed.

I was mentally substituting “women” for trans people throughout th email and gosh, it mirrored mine and many others’ experiences in the workplace. And even more so for women I know who are around half a generation older than me - now retired.

I know we are concerned about lobbying groups such as Stonewall influencing policy, but the civil service group a:gender seems to have escaped scrutiny up to now, but is likely to have direct links with every government department.

www.agender.org.uk

Is there any way we can find out who runs it? Who sits on its committees? Who writes its policies?

special policy for staff parents supporting their child through transition.

Fucking hell, as you say, what about parents of children going through early autism diagnosis???

I notice that this exact wording (as in the DWP email pasted above) is also used elsewhere online, like in Totaljobs’ free advice:

www.totaljobs.com/insidejob/5-ways-can-support-trans-colleague-work/

That advice is authored by Jennie Kermode MA (hons) MRes who is Chair of Trans Media Watch, ‘a charity promoting positive media representations of the transgender community.’

So maybe Trans Media Watch are involved in helping government write HR policy? or maybe they just cut and pasted off free ‘advice’ on the internet? I guess only an FOI could confirm where DWP has got its advice from.

or maybe they just cut and pasted off free ‘advice’ on the internet?

I meant that they (DWP) might have done that.

Good spot Chatty. Yes, Helen Belcher of Trans Media Watch has contacts in a:gender. It's in Belcher's blog.

Doctoress I wish there was a TransgenderTrend toolkit equivalent available for employers, but I don’t think there is.

It's what is needed. Was talking to someone about that the other day. It needs to show that the advice of biased organisations like Stonewall and Gendered intelligence is often misleading as to the legal position, and give examples and guidance on how to balance competing rights.

YY Eresh. The FPFW equality Act guide is a good start but there needs to be something more focused that a confused and cautious HR department can pick up and use in a literal way. Seeing as EHRC guidance is not going to be forthcoming any time soon, I think it’ll need to come from us collectively somehow.

Yes, I think it will.

Well, the civil service belongs to the public sector, obviously. And the public sector equality duty means that prior to the adoption of new policies that change how people are treated at work, there should have been Eqality Impact Assessments (EQIA) done with extensive consultation of all affected groups (in this case especially women, but also disabled, religious or BAME employees).

I don't know why in this one policy area none of the usual rules apply anywhere - not in schools, prison, hospitals or the workplace.

But we don't have to accept it.

After all, the Children's Rights Impact Assessment from Women and Girls in Scotland was done by a grassroots women's rights group, not people paid to do these EQIAs or CRIAs. And it was accepted by the agency tasked with upholding the rights of children - the Children's Commissioner - as a legally accurate assessment of human rights breaches.

So there's nothing stopping other women getting together, online or off, giving themselves a name, like women's rights policy collective or whatever (I know it's not pretty, but you see what I mean) and writing these damned EQIAs ourselves.

There are templates kicking around for these things. And then go through that execrable civil service trans policy and looking at the Equality Act and the protected characteristics of sex, religion, race, disability, pregnancy and maternity, looking at the Human Rights Act, looking at CEDAW and then going to the EHRC, going to the Civil Service, going to the media and publishing the findings on a dedicated website.

Then all the other women affected by this crap can also go to their MPs, to their councillors, to their unions who were so keen on adopting self-id last year and causing some trouble backed up by evidence.

Sounds like an excellent plan Charley
Do we need actual lawyers on board to do this?

Excellent point the transgender trend pack for work places.

If this kind of stuff is policy at HR level (ie local authorities) it will trickle down to other areas eg schools from HR unchallenged and not put through any critical analysis. Great points Charlie.

Well, the civil service belongs to the public sector, obviously. And the public sector equality duty means that prior to the adoption of new policies that change how people are treated at work, there should have been Eqality Impact Assessments (EQIA) done with extensive consultation of all affected groups (in this case especially women, but also disabled, religious or BAME employees).

You're absolutely right, Charley, EQIA is key in all of this.
The Fawcett Society tried to take the government to court over the disproportionate impact of cuts on women in 2010. Permission was denied, but it forced the government to admit that it hadn't carried out impact assessments.

This thread has a letter from lawyers that might be useful for those challenging these creepy demands:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3546705-letter-from-prominent-lawyers-highlighting-what-women-s-legal-rights-are-under-the-ea2010?watched=1&msgid=85962979#85962979

Yes, came here to see if that had been posted. Great to show employers/employers groups.

You're absolutely right, Charley, EQIA is key in all of this.

It really is.

My first response to that guidance as an employee would be to ask where the facilities now are for the women who have been excluded from using any toilet due to not being able to use mixed sex spaces. Who are also protected under the EA. Do they feel any employee of theirs should be unable to access any toilet in their workplace? And can they explain having created a hierarchy of protected characteristics which places gender identity as of greater importance than all others?

The guidance itself is ridiculously patronising and infantilising, I wonder what Debbie H and Miranda would make of it? Substitute 'disabled employees' or 'BAME employees' and it sounds ridiculous. Check if your disabled colleage needs anything... this is supposed to be a competent adult colleague, not the office pet.

And where is the evidence that allowing a trans employee to use women's facilities is the least discriminatory alternative? It can't be based on who shouts the loudest.

Thanks for linking that letter truth, looks very useful.

ChattyLion Do we need actual lawyers on board to do this?

Well, the vast majority of the council staff for instance who do EQIAs as part of the public sector equality duty are not lawyers.

What you need to do is read yourself into the relevant laws, read any available guidance and then analyse these trans policies through that right-based lens. OK, I realise this isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it's similar to what I've done for clients in a lot of fields I didn't know before I started each project and I'm sure there are quite a few of us here who could do this kind of thing.

Then you can always ask a lawyer for feedback but it's not necessary in my view. What you would do after all with such an impact assessment is to use it to publicly point out the failures in policy making and then demand that the organisation in question commission an independent EQIA of their own and then new guidance.

I haven't done risk assessments but I write and proof read well and I'd love to support this if I can help...

@Knicknackpaddyflak Substitute 'disabled employees' or 'BAME employees' and it sounds ridiculous. Check if your disabled colleague needs anything...this is supposed to be a competent adult colleague, not the office pet.

I think you have hit on something very fundamental that might explain how these policies come to be framed this way and why they are accepted as "inclusive".

I was a trade union activist all my working life and this is exactly how "white men of the left" carried on when trying hard not to be disablist, racist, sexist to the few disabled, black or women activists who managed to make it to committees, conferences, etc. They were clearly uncomfortable and threatened and the only way most of them could demonstrate they were "accepting" or "positive" was to be "coddling", ie. patronising and infantilising.

This is a stage all "equal rights" movements have gone through.

When I first read: "Substitute 'disabled employees' or 'BAME employees' and it sounds ridiculous. Check if your disabled colleague needs anything...this is supposed to be a competent adult colleague, not the office pet." my immediate reaction was that this fits very well with the "sissy" stereotype and that that psychopathology was what was behind it.

On second thoughts, it just seems politically astute. Presenting as the harmless, vulnerable "office pet" is a great way to appeal to the kind hearts and enlightened minds of the "great and the good" (sarcasm alert! Read: "the ruling class") and lure them into a false sense of security.

That any transgender advocacy group, eg. a:gender, could endorse this approach strikes me as entirely cynical and manipulative.

I agree with all the proposals already made above to challenge these policies. If I could add some more in addition, not instead?

Reminder of how well @Knicknackpaddyflak put it:

"Substitute 'disabled employees' or 'BAME employees' and it sounds ridiculous. Check if your disabled colleague needs anything...this is supposed to be a competent adult colleague, not the office pet."

1. This infantilising of trans people is offensive and disrespectful and it is transphobic.

It absolutely really is transphobic: "phobia" as in "fear". I am sure there is a better metaphor but "defanging the snake" is what springs to mind.

1. In order not to discriminate against trans people, avoid using offensive, infantilising stereotypes. Instead, model policies and language on existing policies promoting inclusion of disabled and BAME employees.

1. For the avoidance of doubt that these policies need to comply with HSE legislation and the Equality Act these facts should be stated in the "Introduction" to policies and the EA "Protected characteristics" should be listed - and stated that none "trumps" others, there is no hierarchy.

1. Every statement about "issues trans people face in the workplace" must be balanced by an "impact" statement when mitigating the "trans issue" would discriminate against others in the workplace.

In reality, this relates primarily to transwomen and women so examples should reflect this, eg. if transwomen wish to be given access to women's toilets to reduce possible embarrassment due to the attitudes of men when using men's toilets, then:

• male and female employees should be consulted;
• it should be acknowledged that it is not possible to know which transwomen might desire this access because they genuinely identify as women and which men might do so for sexual gratification as part of a transvestic fetish;
• education should be provided for all affected with safeguarding prioritised;
• employees should be encouraged to consider how best to ensure this, with an open mind about how best to achieve this;
• education should always balance the interests of women and transwomen and therefore may require involvement of partisan trainers/materials. To do otherwise would be discriminatory.

1. With rights come responsibilities.

Again, this relates primarily to transwomen as rights to access women's spaces can impact adversely on the actual or perceived safety of women employees. Training and education should be provided in the first instance for transwomen, not women, to ensure that:

• transwomen are aware of the adverse, traumatising impact their presence can have on women in vulnerable spaces such as toilets and shower rooms
• the organisation is aware that some men abuse rights of access for sexual gratification, that this will not be tolerated and will be subject to disciplinary procedures and/or criminal proceedings.

------

Could anyone who genuinely suffers the agonies of gender dysphoria possibly object to safeguarding women?

If anyone claiming to suffer gender dysphoria objects to safeguarding women then is it not reasonable to question whether they actually suffer from gender dysphoria? And wonder if their motivation might be something to do with sexual gratification?

If any man prioritises the needs of transwomen to be validated over the needs of women to be safe and feel safe, what does that say about their attitudes to women?

If any woman prioritises the needs of transwomen to be validated over the needs of other women to be safe and feel safe, what does that say? The answer is an essay in itself but to summarise: they are NOT feminists.
----

ps. I still struggle to believe that this weird stuff is actually happening. Every day I wake up and think, "Was that just some dystopian nightmare? Oh shit! No. This is actually happening. In real life."

I worked in psychiatry for a while and it struck me then that a lot of people were locked up not for their own safety but because if they were let loose that they would drive the rest of us mad, forcing us to affirm their delusions or they would go totally apeshit.

To avoid being smashed in the face on a psychiatric ward I have in the past stepped gingerly over invisible pipes that channeled "what I call Princess Anne".

Some of this shit is right on that level - but we are being required by law to go along with it.

I have a great deal of respect for the likes of Fionne Orlander, Jenn Smith, Seven Hex, Rose of Dawn and Mirander Yardley (notice how they all have a sense of humour?) and nothing but contempt for the foul Trans Taliban of #waxmyballs and Oger in Canada.

OMG!!! As i write this - BBC World Service - "Rainbow Range" Gun Club in California - "Socialist Rifle Association" - trans arm up

The USA can deal with that, we have to deal with this offensive, insidious creep of "trans rights" in the UK

Absolutely bang on mole and knick.

I know from what Seven Hex says, most 'true' trans people, transsexuals, just want to get on and just be. Her talk at the defend women's rights event at Newcastle recently is worth a watch .

That email has been written from the perspective of self ID being already a part of the law. It is unlawful.