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

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

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."

SingingLily I just can't believe this!! I am beyond horrified.

Could this not be challenged by using legislation such as the Health and Safety at Work Act? Under the General duties of employers to their employees, it states

It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.

(2)Without prejudice to the generality of an employer’s duty under the preceding subsection, the matters to which that duty extends include in particular—

(e)the provision and maintenance of a working environment for his employees that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe, without risks to health, and adequate as regards facilities and arrangements for their welfare at work.

Could a woman argue that sharing a toilet with a male bodied person could pose a risk to her health and welfare at work, particularly if she had previously been a victim of sexual violence?

If a member of the public objects to being dealt with by a transsexual staff member, this is an unacceptable objection.

FUCKING HELL.

Every time people have raised this, we've been told and told, this will never happen.

There it is.

A woman may not refuse to be physically searched by a biological male who does not identify as male. Refusing to validate this identity and co operate by permitting their body to be invaded, however they feel about it, is unreasonable .

So smear tests. It will be unreasonable to refuse.

Intimate care in hospitals. Unreasonable to refuse.

I can't express my rage at this. Where was the consultation? Who voted for this? Which manifesto was it in? Where's the impact assessment? Who advised on this? What were their qualifications?

This needs to go to the national papers, right now. Daily Mail, Telegraph, The Times, please. Please. For fucks sake tell the general public Gilead is here.

Regarding the woman who left the toilets - I would have thought she would have a very strong case for a charge of harassment or similar if any manager or another member of staff approached her to ask about her reason for leaving those toilets?

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

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."

How do we attract Janice Turner's attention to this? This needs to splashed all over the press.

I will fight like a fucking beast if any male tries to put their hands on me or my youngest, who has SN. I swear they will end up arresting me, because I will punch, headbut and do as much damage as possible to them. I will cause so much fuss that they can take me to court. I will let every paper know about it. Those bastards will not put their hands on me. I’m fucking furious that it has actually been put in writing that a woman has no right to refuse to let a man touch her! I don’t care how they identify.

I would do pretty much the same thing, IDoNotCare, and in fact, having had many years of attending courts, would offer just one piece of advice - if they were ever daft enough to charge me, I'd insist on exercising my right to be tried in the Crown Court and not the Magistrates Court. It would have to be a pretty unusual jury that would convict me.

In the meantime, I've just now emailed my MP and also Sajid Javid. Let's see them pick the bones out of this one.

I am beyond furious.

@SingingLily

Thanks . I hope others do too.

I didn't expect this to get so many posts! I'm going keep a low profile for a bit

Maybe we need to consign those stick figures to recycling and redefine toilets by the urinatory process they facilitate and accomodate.

Penis toliets and Urethra toilets.

What frank says.

Images of uteruses are literal violence.

(Images of penises are fine apparently, as usually all over toilets)

But how are we supposed to know if a TW has a GRC, as we are not allowed to enquire in any way, let alone ask for evidence of the certificate?

This is just self-ID without the label and women just have to know our place.

Can you leak it to Fair Play for Women or somewhere organisation for some public naming and shaming via twitter? Also via Permanent Undersecretary?

That policy totally contravenes the EqA with regard to sex, which. Is still a protected characteristic. Sex based rights, valid under the EqA are being treated in am inferior manner to gender nonsense.

Not the home office is it? There is a deeply damaged trans individual making a lot of fuss there at the moment.

womansplaceuk.org/gender-neutral-toilets-dont-work-for-women-2/?fbclid=IwAR3F939wM3GpaTpwrAVZhUq2CFpzRWMa651-bjq0cSQmcDQ1HLF-myHj8NQ

Oooooorrrrrrt

Everyone just flush your sanitary towels down the loo until management get the point

We just have to assume. Better 1000 women get assaulted, photographed, oggled by a sneaky man, pee their pants rather than share a space, than one transvestite have their feelings hurt be made to feel ‘unladylike’.

Or even better, leak it to one of the Times journalists? Andrew whatsisface? This is surely a whistleblowing concern given they are destroying women's rights.

On another thread Trousering who works in HR said that you can use the protected category of religion if you register a complaint. Basically a male body being female is a belief and if it's against your belief they have to respect that and cannot bring any sanctions against you.

You could message them for more precise info. They said they are willing to help people in this situation.

It doesn't need to be leaked as such. The document is out there. You just need to Google it. Im going to try emailing James Kirkup now.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/what-equality-law-means-for-your-business-2018.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3F939wM3GpaTpwrAVZhUq2CFpzRWMa651-bjq0cSQmcDQ1HLF-myHj8NQ
fairplayforwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/EA2010_womensrights_-factsheet.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1syYjQzI-RFQyjYq-uA2TjDdREMLzkwHSFWbb-MpbSxZV5ZsfnUTpUraY

I've skimmed through parts of the document and am horrified by the paragraphs I've read. It reads as if self ID is already with us in practice and the references to the EA do not inspire confidence. In every instance it seems that trans rights trump women's rights.

I'm alarmed and pissed off that employees are being advised to think about how their actions maybe perceived by others. It would be wonderful if I had the power to control how others perceived me but I don't and I am not responsible for managing the emotions of colleagues when I'm just going about my business.

It looks like the equalities act needs to be updated if the interpretation of it, in this document, is an accurate reflection of lawful application.

This is a complete mess and I wonder where employers and managers will stand if staff are harmed as a result of this guidance, I note it isn't titled as a policy document.

Where there are changing facilities, showers etc., consideration needs to be given to ensure appropriate privacy for all staff, including transsexual staff members. If one is required to change into work clothes or uniform then an employer is obliged to ensure attention to the issues of privacy of all staff, for instance by the installation of individual changing and showering cubicles.

This could prove rather expensive for the nhs. In my last workplace we had a short narrow corridor, door with lock one end, loo other end, lockers one side and cost hooks the other. Mostly female ward staff changing into uniforms. Assorted male staff including consultants and cleaners wandering in to go to the loo (the only staff loo). A few of them got a full frontal from me but hey, nothing they hadn't seen before.

My new location has a large changing room for female staff. Two loo cubicles and one shower. Haven't had the pleasure but I believe some of the male Dr's wander in to use the shower after cycling to work.

Similar provision around the hospital.

Have emailed James Kirkup now. I've also received auto-replies from my MP and Sajid Javid. Sadly, Mr Javid's makes it clear that under parliamentary rules, he is only able to respond to emails from his own constituents and I don't live in Bromsgrove. Even so, he (or more probably a member of his staff) will still see my email.

I realise the document is not a policy document. However, my own experience of the Civil Service (and I'm happy to be corrected on this) is that it will still be treated as gospel. How long, then, before it slides through the grey area and actually becomes policy? Only national embarrassment will stop it.

It would also be worth emailing the Times.