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

57 pages of cognitive dissonance.

My thoughts were also regarding the pre/ post transition thing.

DoxxMetwice - I know that this is probably a stupid question given the state of the unions at the moment, but what is the stance of the civil service unions on this issue and are they worth approaching? The only other thing that I can suggest is, following on from a thread I was reading the other day, there are women on here with HR expertise. It may be possible to put together a standard response to give to employers who are introducing this kind of 'guidance' highlighting legitimate objections and any elements of employment and equal opportunities law that this guidance may be actually contravening or, at the very least, is incompatible with in spirit. Then, if any cases do arise, the employer cannot argue that they have not been warned and individual women may have some concrete support if they are disciplined.

I find this paragraph particularly troubling

Any continued objection or inappropriate comments by work colleagues to the use of the facilities appropriate to the gender of transition should be seen as unreasonable (discriminatory) and should be met with communication, discussion and education before the situation gets out of hand. In this sometimes contentious area, transsexual employees are entitled to expect support from management.

So the woman complainant would not only not be entitled to management support but subjected to Maoist re-education. The civil service is a very important place for this battle as it is right at the heart of our institutions. Women employees should at least have an easy guide to the areas of law and custom and practice that they could at least potentially rely on should it come to it. I'm afraid I have no knowledge of employment rights if any remain.

the 2010 [Equality] act stipulates a person is no longer requires to be under medical supervision - so a person who decides to live permanently in the opposite gender, and whether completes or forgoes any medical procedure, is still protected by the act.

Is this true? Does anyone know?

Therefore post transition, it would be humiliating,
inappropriate and undermining to expect a person in their acquired gender to use toilet facilities of their birth sex or indeed be restricted to the use of the accessible toilet.

No. This is their interpretation and it is wrong to assume it's a logical conclusion of the above statement.

The ‘exemption clause’ in the Equality Act 2010 says that single sex exemptions CAN exclude transpeople of the opposite sex, on condition the "targeted provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim"

The examples given in the notes to the Equality Act include:

• Cervical screening services (as only women need the service)
• Women-only domestic violence support units (where women may not feel safe in the prescence of males)
• Separate male and female hospital wards
• Separate male and female changing rooms in department stores
• A women-only massage service provided by a woman in the clients’ own homes
• Group counselling sessions for female victims of sexual assault (who may not attend if a male transsexual was present)
• Women-only Associations (where the purpose is to gather together people sharing a particular protected characteristic)

If it's not "undermining" to expect transwomen to use different changing rooms. I don't see how it's "undermining" to expect them to use different toilets.

This government department has incorrectly interpreted the Equality Act in my opinion and that they are punishing women for protecting themselves from a male in a female space, or even expressing negative views on this, is abhorrent.

But how do they KNOW that the U-turn was due to them?

Only smiling, happy faces are permitted in the vicinity of trans people.

You are not allowed to have your own motivations or desires but exist solely as a backdrop to the Brave and Stunning.

The people who wrote the policy played Lynne Featherstone like a fiddle when she was minister.

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/ministers-reflect/person/lynne-featherstone/

And my civil servants, you know, they had already read up all about me. They were very clever. It is not as if I was some kind of foreign body coming in. I found I had a submission for a transgender action plan, which I would have done, but they had thought ahead from everything I had said on the Equality Bill. I thought how very clever. I mean, that wasn’t on anyone’s list but they had obviously decided that would be one of my priorities.

@clitherow

I suspect the unions will probably be on the woke side but I'll do some subtle investigations. I'd love to know who u-turn woman is so that I could find out if she was disciplined and if she contact the union.

@howmanybiscuits

So it seems that none of the EA exemptions given relate to toilets. Makes it difficult to argue.

Is this document official policy? It is written by a:gender. The Permanent Secretary of DCMS says that it should be "required reading" but not that it is official policy.

The cover states that it is "subject to Civil Service Employee Policy Review".

I know that Unison is Woke (my union) although the reps I know are secretly uncomfortable at best with the policy that they are required to promote. At worst, they are horrified.

@crsacre

So you MUST pee or change your sanity wear in the female toilets, if a male is present? You are not permitted to change your mind or feel uncomfortable about it because the male bodied person’s feelings come first! What a selfish shower of bastards you work for, OP. I think some females need to go off sick with stress if they come across a male bodied person in the female toilets. I would be telling OH that having to share intimate spaces with male bodied people brings up the trauma of past sexual abuse. I couldn’t do it. I’d love to know how they would deal with me, a traumatised female and an ‘upset’ male bodied person. I’m still entitled to protection under sex discrimination laws.

OP - it may be the case that the woman who walked out of the loos (how very dare she wish to preserve her dignity and privacy) may not exist at all other than in the fantasy mind of the Woke Few.

the 2010 [Equality] act stipulates a person is no longer requires to be under medical supervision - so a person who decides to live permanently in the opposite gender, and whether completes or forgoes any medical procedure, is still protected by the act.

Is this true? Does anyone know?

Section 7 states a person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing the physiological or other attributes of sex.

Only necessary to state that you intend to undergo some unspecified procedure at some future unspecified date and Bob's your auntie.

"So you MUST pee or change your sanity wear in the female toilets, if a male is present?"

Spelling mistoke, or Freudian Slip?

Thanks DoxxMeTwice, but I still note that it's described as "general advice" rather than official policy.

So it might be worth asking HR to define precisely the status of this document.

In my workplace, the transgender guidance (written by transactivists of course) contradicts our formal policies. We have one case where the conflict became overt, and the formal policy prevailed. What this sort of guidance does is encourage extravagant expectations among the trans-identified.

The Equality Act is not fit for purpose. "Proposing to undergo" an undefined process (what's "other attributes of sex" - trousers/skirt?) gives men access to female toilets.

This is the thought police in action. There are multiple reasons why a woman might change her mind about using the bathroom (oops, better pop back to my desk to get my tampons) but you now have to justify and explain yourself and if you don't make a good enough case you will be disciplined.
Ridiculous.

Mass useage of men’s toilets by women would sort it fast. However, that’s a career limiting move, so I see your problem.

The ‘turning around’ lady should brazen it out and go full ‘how very dare you, I’d forgotten my TAMPONS FOR MY EXTREMELY HEAVY PERIODS how dare you accuse me’ - she absolutely cannot be disciplined for turning around and leaving a toilet and if they try she should be shouting it from the rooftops. They may try to discipline quietly but if she makes a noise in the right way (and there is a right way) they will drop it,

As for the rest, god I just don’t know OP it sounds horrendous. My office has single user non sex specific loos but there are fewer than 20 of us so we all know each other well and it’s too small an office to get away with such fuckery. And of course no validation to be had.

@crsacre

I was searching for an official policy when I found a link to this. There was nothing else I could find. I'm a little scared to ask
HR, but I'll keep looking.

We could do with the addresses of all institutions implementing such policies and a massive letter-writing campaign by women pointing out that women do have the right to single sex spaces.

We need to kick up a fuss about this it is not good enough.

Spelling mistoke, or Freudian Slip?

I had to reread what I wrote, about three times, before I noticed that! The spelling mistake might be more appropriate!

@MenstruatorExtraordinaire

We could do with the addresses of all institutions implementing such policies and a massive letter-writing campaign by women pointing out that women do have the right to single sex spaces.

We need to kick up a fuss about this it is not good enough.

I agree but I'm not clear on what actual rights we have in this case! If someone more knowledgeable her can compose something I'd happily sent it anonymously!

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.

This woman didn't say anything offensive to the transwoman - or, presumably, say anything at all. She didn't ask the transwoman to leave, or go and report that a man was using the women's facilities. All she did was walk away because she was uncomfortable.

I honestly don't have the words to describe how disturbing I find it that this is somehow seen as so unacceptable that it was brought up in a meeting. Women aren't allowed to have any boundaries at all, are we?

I’m sure that it would be proven to be sexual discrimination if a woman was asked why she decided not to use a toilet, because the male bodied person was upset. If she had to explain that she was having her period and forgot her sanitary products or said she was having a hot flush but it had finished by the time she got there. The right females could have their work over the coals for this.