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

@PhrixPhrox any chance you can post a version of that advice as a stand-alone thread? It has "resource" written all over it.

We're well into thought-police territory here aren't we. So women are expected not just to put up with the flouting of the EA by the government but have to act delighted in order that a bloke's feelings are not upset. This is outrageous. Definitely worth checking what's said about sex as a protected characteristic and trying to find out who decided that the PCs of one group outweigh the PCs of another.

Regarding the details of a:gender Millytant posted - how do you identify as intersex? It is a defined biological condition.

Well, I can answer my own question - you appropriate another group's biological reality and manipulate it for your own ends.

And I am horrified by this policy. What hope do we have influencing MPs if the civil service who have their ear are pushing this shit? The power of those behind this is terrifying.

I hope the journalists pick it up, investigate and give it sunlight.

I'm quite shocked at the comments on here. Mums bringing up children to be respectful and accepting of all walks of life?!!! It's one thing to criticise policy but quite another to show such vitriol towards fellow human beings. On the policy, it is wrong that said policy should seek to make individuals uncomfortable or to make individuals fearful of repercussions, but I'm ex-civil service and know this is what happens. So you need to be canny. The document isn't signed off yet, which suggests there is an avenue to provide comments? I'd ask for clarity on what it specifically means in respect of those paragraphs that concern you where female colleagues might feel uncomfortable in sharing intimate spaces. I suspect I know the answer. I would speak to your union rep too. But, as I say, you need to be canny and not come across as phobic.

Which leads me on to my next point. There are some quite nasty comments on here basically saying that transgender people are somehow sexual predators (to put it politely) and that there are sinister motives for them wanting to use gender specific loos. Get real people. I can't imagine the pain and turmoil these individuals go through to realise their true selves. The rejection from friends and family, the snide comments, nudge nudges and wink winks. They are women (and men) and deserve better than the narrow minded nastiness afforded them on this site.

You have a right to feel uncomfortable without fear of disciplinary action but a part of that feeling might just be because you don't know how to deal with it. There needs to be understanding and compassion on all sides - including the Civil Service (but they're too keen to be seen as 'inclusive' they don't really care that a by-product of that is making people feel excluded). Speak to your union rep for advice. If you're not in the union, then join.

This is terrifying. Misogyny encoded into workplace practice.

agree that’s rubbish guidance, but it isn’t civil service guidance is it? It’s by a group called a:gender which seems to be a network which has, off its own back, produced something rather than that coming from civil service resourcing/similar.

I still think it’s bad but it’s not government policy. Aka hopefully there’s still hope.

Where is this vitriol?

No one has said that trans people are predators.

What we are saying is
(a) that when, for instance, we emerge from a shower clad in a towel in the communal changing rooms in our workplace (my workplace has these, widely used by women who cycle to work) and are confronted with a naked penis, we cannot tell whether it is attached to someone who identifies as trans, or someone who is a sexual predator. Because we are not fucking psychic. And it is wrong to put us in that position.

and that

(b) TWAW is a statement of belief, not fact. It is morally wrong to impose the consequences of that belief on someone who does not share it, for instance by insisting that a woman who does not believe TWAW acquiesce for example to being bodily searched by someone she perceives to be male. She is entitled to bodily autonomy and the assertion of her own right to privacy regardless of whether you share her beliefs.

Oh and

(c) putting us in either of these positions is currently illegal, because changing rooms and single sex services are explicitly exempt from the general provisions of the GRA.

This also goes way beyond an employment issue as the Civil Service are obviously going to be used to force this on members of the public as women will have to submit to being searched by genitally intact men who have simply made an effort to look like a woman as:

It would therefore appear that such searches can be conducted if:
 the transsexual person is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person; OR
 the transsexual person has done everything possible to present as member of their ;new‟ gender; OR
 the transsexual person holds a Gender Recognition Certificate (p32)

This is apparently based on case law as

'This is supported by the judgement in the case of A. vs. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, made in the knowledge of the coming into effect of the Gender Recognition Act. The judgements of Lord Bingham and Baroness Hale concluded that the case did not revolve around the Goodwin case so, by inference, a GenderRecognition Certificate is not necessary to conduct such searches.'

So we only have an inference that this is the case and this would probably only be established if an actual test case was brought. But the question remains what standing does this document have as guidance when it is advising members of staff to threaten members of the public with falling foul of discrimination law if they refuse to be searched by someone they have strong reason to believe is a physically intact male? Is this not state-sanctioned assault? Is there no possible legal challenge to this document as it stands when it is pressuring staff to resort to legal threats?

Or at least, most of us are not fucking psychic. Lib Dem MP Layla Moran apparently can see into people's gendered souls by looking into their eyes, but unfortunately this Marvel-esque superpower has passed most of us by.

Yes the law is single sex but how can you fight against this when there are men who say that they are women? And if you argue, you risk harm.

Place marking while hoping that this woman-hating guidance will cause uproar, and will thus mark a serious turning point in the public sector and government seemingly unquestioningly accepting and internalising this horrible misogynistic fuckery.

Wasn;t there a case where a male trans Police officer had two sets of warrant cards and so was treated as either male or female as they presented for a period of time?

And according to that bit I linked, Transwomen are women, and once they've trasitioned they are cis women, and therefore no longer transwomen.

It truly is Trans-substatiation.

They are women (and men)

That's your belief. It isn't mine and no one has the right to force it on me. You're very naive.

@R0wantrees yes and I believe they were incorrectly advising schools regarding loo segregation etc (agenda? Nooooo).

And according to that bit I linked, Transwomen are women, and once they've trasitioned they are cis women, and therefore no longer transwomen.

I've heard 'women with trans experience' and 'women with trans history' but cis women?

Transwomen and surely transwomen. The clue is in the ‘trans’ part. They are not biologically women birth or nature (or nurture either come to that).

I've heard 'women with trans experience' and 'women with trans history' but cis women?

Yes I've heard it too.

Thank you for that, SingingLily,

There are men out there, other than the obvious ones, that will be rubbing their hands with glee. I actually had a proper argument with a piece of shit that said no woman should have the right to refuse to permit a male member of staff to search, examine or even give them a smear test. Because he was fine with a woman examining him, then women should just suck it up. He was so angry at the thought of a woman refusing, it was actually shocking.

Call a spade a spade for goodness sake. However you dress it up fact is fact.

^Many trans people, having transitioned permanently, prefer to be
regarded as ordinary men and women, and therefore, cisgender. In these cases, where it becomes essential to refer to their pre-transition status, the phrase ‘woman (or man) of trans history’ may be used.^

Page 8

Btw, he included women who suffered sexual abuse or violence at the hands of men, in that. Creepy bastard.

He has no right to call it really. Is he a woman? No, so butt out.

I recommend that you use the whistle blowing policy and procedure if there is an anonymous set up available. There usually is.