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

Or peeing in the sink (I've seen this) oh god, that happened where I worked too! One shared toilet and a female staff member walked out of the cubicle to find the male cleaner pissing in the sink. They said they hadn’t time to wait. 🤢 Dirty bastard could have used the patient toilets. It was clearly a power play.

We need to be aware of "how our actions might be perceived to others

If this is the case, then how come TW aren't also obliged to be aware of how their actions e.g. using a female loo, are perceived by female women?

Because of the whole man thing.

What provision are they making for female employees with a faith or culture or disability that precludes them being able to share with someone of the opposite sex regardless of how that person chooses to identify? Are they implying that the EA should be interpreted that trans people trump the needs of all other protected groups, because the act itself says no one need can trump others. It isn't a hierarchy. There should be an allocated place for people with a conflict in rights, say the disabled loos.

If half the female staff will therefore be using the disabled loo, they need to provide a whole lot more disabled loos.

Freedom of belief. It is a perfectly reasonable, normal belief that it is impossible to change physical sex. If you hold that belief (and yes, I know, it's reality not a belief but belief IS protected in the Human Rights act) then you will perceive a TW as a male and this being an invasion of your privacy/dignity/right to single sex provision.

Utterly appalled by the 'you may not even choose to leave the area if a TW is there to protect yourself, because the TW may be distressed by this'. Ffs, why is it that only the biologically male person's feelings and needs and distress matter in this situation? How distorted has this thinking become?

Impact assessment? What are they going to do with the female employees who are now afraid to use the toilets? Especially since they cannot just quietly leave and come back later without being disciplined?

@Trousering might have some ideas - IIRC then HR is her area.

How about contacting Rosa and Rosemary at Reading University?

www.feministcurrent.com/2018/09/14/never-mind-reforming-gender-recognition-act-theres-no-need-gender-recognition-certificates/

I see a massive future market for female (and male) sanity products.

Hope they can be exempt from VAT because they will be essential.

I don’t think that guidance has correctly interpreted the law. Which is a little problematic for the civil service on such a controversial issue.

If there was a mass boycott of the female loos by the female employees they couldn't sack everyone could they?

Sadly, I think it will probably have to come to mass protests to make it obvious to the terminally stupid who don't understand biology that maybe they have a teeny weeny problem here and they may just have to leave their cloud cuckoo land and face the reality of sex.

What are the legal requirements for single sex toilets at work btw? Are there any?

Reference to the rights of religious mnorities is apposite. It was the need to accomodate Asian pupils that gave all girls the right to wear trousers to school.

If half the female staff will therefore be using the disabled loo, they need to provide a whole lot more disabled loos.

And what about rape survivors who don't want to share loos with male bodies, do they have to tell their employer or just start using disabled loos so that the "transitioner" can carry on using the women's?

So females can now be compelled to remain in the presence of males to make the males feel validated.
I’m sorry but that’s fucking sick. If I want to leave the presence of a man I’ll do it for any reason I fucking like and I don’t have to explain myself.

Depending on the style of the toilets, the HSE might have the answer.

www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/toilets.htm

What provision are they making for female employees with a faith or culture or disability that precludes them being able to share with someone of the opposite sex regardless of how that person chooses to identify?

My thoughts but knick says it better than I could.

What happens in the case of individuals like Pip/Phillip Bunce who have two distinct identities and will sometimes be a man, othertimes not. But who is not transitioning as they plan on continuing to be a man on Sunday, Monday and Thursday and identify as a woman the rest of the time?

The guidance seems to be written very much from the view that the more is a single permanent transition rather than 5 times a week and thrice at weekends... might be an issue worth raising because obviously if you know them as a man half the time that’s different from someone doing one change.

(Well not really - all equally as bad but could be used to raise the female point of view!!)

Let’s face it - the type of male who demands that women remain when they feel scared/uneasy/violated is a nasty creature on a power trip. If they really did ‘feel like a woman’ they would empathise, apologise and leave. These are exactly the type of people who should not be permitted to enter women only spaces and this is exactly why.

So now it’s not only male bosdies that can be ‘female’ but also male patterned behaviour?

If as this muddled mess of words implies, anyone of any biological sex, with no physical transition of any kind, can use whichever sex's provisions by choice at any time - sex is now just a matter of choice instead of related to any reality - then why bother continuing with male and female provision at all?

Why not just turn all facilities unisex?

The answer being of course that a) men will kick off because they don't want unisex any more than women do - although push for this because men kicking off get listened to and b) the purpose of there being a designated women's space where women are.

Nothing will change until the men are inconvenienced.

C) those males who are determined to use women only facilities will have a monumental strop and start hanging around the Gynae clinics.

I've just looked at the document, DoxxMeTwice, and it goes from bad to worse. Bearing in mind that "civil servants" includes both border agency and prison officers, consider this:

Section) 11 Searching
"Discrimination law no longer contains the previous specific bar to prevent transsexual people without gender recognition from searching individuals of their acquired gender".

(Section) 8 Dealing With/Attitudes of the Public
"Transsexual people are always aware of the possibility of harassment or even violence against them, perpetrated for no more reason than the victim is a transsexual person. Managers should be similarly aware in occupations where this is a risk. If a member of the public objects to being dealt with by a transsexual staff member, this is an unacceptable objection. The incident should be managed in the same way as any other pressure to discriminate. It would usually be unlawful for a manager to comply with the wishes of that member of the public."

In other words, a male prison officer who declares himself female may now carry out a full strip search on a woman prisoner - and that would include those (mercifully rare) occasions when the woman does not consent to being searched but there is lawful justification for carrying out a full search while she is being physically restrained. As someone who worked for many years with women in custody, I know that a disproportionately high number of those women have suffered years and years of abuse, largely at the hands of men. In which parallel universe would this be considered anything other than yet another form of abuse perpetrated on vulnerable and helpless women?

Similarly, and presumably, a woman travelling in or out of the country could potentially be searched by a male border agency worker who self-identified as female and there is nothing, absolutely nothing, the woman could do about it. Her objection would be deemed "unacceptable" and "discriminatory". Really? The Civil Service can override our rights to be treated decently and with dignity?

I'd say words fail me but actually, I can feel letters to my MP and the Home Secretary coming on....

My local council has more or less the same policy in place. In effect, self-ID is allowed and women have to comply with the Borg-mind. Resistance is futile.

Actually, I’d be anonymously sending the entire pile of Woke Bullshit to the press.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant

SingingLily - great idea and we should all be writing to our MPs and Sect Of State. The 8th of March would be an excellent opportunity to link with, but there's also no time like the present.

It's incredibly badly written it makes me wonder whether it's actually been read by the people who signed it off.

My DD is considering the civil service, but won't be impressed by this.