I need help with an issue at work re transgender training and mixed sex loo proposal

[catgirl1976]

So it’s happened.

A well meaning colleague has been giving some training today on how to support transgender colleagues. All good.

I wasn’t able to attend (and knew that I would probably explode if they started misquoting the law etc) but a close colleague (who is gay, not that that is hugely relevant) did and reported back.

The training wasn’t full mermaids batshit but was pretty bad (and colleague felt very patronised by some of the lgb stuff - they might use “queer” instead of lgbt which he finds offensive- that was discussed and concerned by some of the trans stuff)

However they are proposing making all of the loos mixed sex. They also were proposing making everyone have their preferred pro nouns on their id badge but thankfully that got dropped. They also said that if someone wanted to use the bathroom of the gender they identified as that was fine and that people could change gender on a whim.

I’m all for supporting transgender colleagues but I need to speak out about the misinformation and most importantly the proposal about the toilets.

I am in a position where I have to protect the organisation legally so I am well placed to object but I want to do it right

I so far am planning on raising that this would break health and safety laws and ask about how this works for people of faith who cannot use mixed sex facilities and how women’s safety and privacy would be protected. We are not a school but do provide education to young people under 18 so I am wondering if it is worth quoting the legislation for schools.

I want to prepare a calm, factual and accurate rebuttal of the proposal and would really appreciate it if you could help me. If anyone could quote any useful legislation, studies, case law or relevant concerns it would be a massive help.

Thank you mumsnet

I do have quite a lot of information already as my work involves law quite heavily but I really want to include everything relevant and I know a lot of posters on MNFWR can put things a lot more eloquently than me!

What are the toilets like? AFAIK, you can only have unisex toilets in a workplace if the cubicles are floor-to-ceiling, not if they have gaps underneath.

Also take into account that the Equalities Act specifies gender reassignment and sex as protected characteristics. Gender identity is not mentioned.

They are cubicles (and cubicles and urinals in the new) so making them unisex would breach HSE workplace legislation which I’ll be raising.

In the men’s not the new

And they are not floor to ceiling. My understanding of the HSE regs are it has to be a separate room with a sink etc all self contained if it’s unisex These are not.

Here you are OP - here's the schools guidance from WPUK:

womansplaceuk.org/mixed-sex-toilets-ins-chools/

And here's their excellent analysis of why women want single sex provision:
womansplaceuk.org/gender-neutral-toilets-dont-work-for-women-2/

Can you suggest you have men's, women's and mixed sex?

And they are not floor to ceiling. My understanding of the HSE regs are it has to be a separate room with a sink etc all self contained if it’s unisex These are not.

That's interesting; I don't remember the new gallery / cafe at the Yorkshire sculpture park's mixed sex toilets having sinks within the cubicles. It's a room of floor to ceiling toilets with iirc the merged m/f squiggle and then one for just female, sinks all in a row along a wall.

I also think it's just won some RIBA awards...

Anyway, Jackyholyoake has posted the legal bits frequently on this board so sending up the batsignal 🦇!

I'd also enquire how they will be facilitating the use of mooncups as obviously they're more eco and woke and inline with the way the organisation wish to go.

Fab - thank you all

I just want to put it all together in a really clear and conscise way that doesn’t come across as transphobic (which I am not I am pro women and women’s rights)

The men's loos often smell - ask if they will be cleaned more frequently if they become mixed sex.

Oh good point. And will they put sanitary bins in all the loos?

You really do just need to broach it from the perspective of women’s dignity and women’s expectations of having single sex spaces. The starting point should be a decision on whether it is in the best interests of women to take away women’s single sex loos. If the answer is no (for all the reasons of dignity, vulnerability, practicality and indeed preference that have been set out time and again on these threads), then the solution for accommodating transgender people needs not to involve removing this accommodation.

By “removing this accommodation” I mean removing single sex provision in this context.

Recently I passed through Gatwick Airport (T1) which was fairly newly renovated. They had separate men and women's loos but, and this is a first for me, the women's loos were all separate floor-to-ceiling cubicles with a wash basin in each cubicle. The queue was long and moved quite slowly slower than when the basins are in a communal area, which makes sense. The loos looked nice and modern but all the doors were filthy sort of stained!
And... they stank. There seems to be no ventilation in the cubicles and as they are closed off --well, if a lot of people poo in there it will stink!
It's the first time I've experienced such cubicles and it's worth noting that if there is no proper air extractor it will soon stink in such a closed space.
So, that might be another argument. Air extractors will mean more cost...

Your gender doesn't go to the loo, your body does. Why would toilets be segregated by sexist stereotypes?

Lamaha Reykjavik airport is similar. Were tonnes of them though, so no queue. There is something hideous about single cubicle loos with sinks etc, which I most commonly come across in places like Coffee shops and petrol stations. I think it is because when you are in cubicles you are much more aware of being in a shared space and of people being able to hear and maybe even see what you’re doing. In enclosed all-in-one cubicles you are on your own in a room and I think people are just more careless/inclined to be gross. Added to this is the fact that cubicles with shared basins are much more time efficient.

Let us know how it goes.

It's hardly inclusive if women feel excluded whether for reasons of religion, fears for safety or simply desire for female privacy. It seems expensive too - clearly if all loos are to be unisex the simple male urinals accommodating a lot of men will have to replaced by fewer loos with handbasins inside. I would imagine some men will object, too.

I don't know whether your organisation also has visiting members of the public but if you go unisex on loos I won't be visiting!

As far as the plans for all mixed sex toilets go, the H&S legislation is probably your best bet. It has far more teeth than the EA because it's criminal law and it's far more black and white. Either the toilets comply with regulations or they don't. If they don't, will they be fixed pronto or would your employers prefer to be prosecuted?

One thing I haven't seen used yet but I think might be useful in these sorts of cases is harassment under the EA:

Harassment

(1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if—

(a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and

(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of—

(i) violating B's dignity, or
(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

In this case, the unwanted conduct is making all the toilets mixed sex, plus embracing self ID on a whim and from the sounds of it, the training as a whole.

This conduct would certainly violate my dignity and create 'an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment' for me.

Explanatory notes on harassment under the EA here:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/2/2/14

They also were proposing making everyone have their preferred pro nouns on their id badge but thankfully that got dropped.

This sounds hopeful, not everyone's swallowed their rohypnol. Also that your gay colleague was unimpressed with the training. He may have a stong harassment case as well, especially if they insisted on the word 'queer'. It's worth putting a few quiet feelers out among colleagues - can you raise the issues as a group?

If you work for a private company they are not bound by the public sector equality duty. Nevertheless, you could suggest a full equality impact assessment before any changes in policy as best practice. After all, if they're woke enough to fall for the transactivist agenda, why on earth would they not want to do what they can to promote equality across the board, throughout the organisation?

P.S. I don't even pretend to be a lawyer. I believe there is a network of GC lawyers taking shape so if the SHTF, send out the bat signal.

Yes, health and safety is very straightforward, just go with that. No need to mention anything else other than this would be in breach of regulations

Thanks everyone I think I’ve got a really clear idea of what I want to say and how to phrase it. My key point will be the HSE legislation, followed by the EA and the question of how this affects women as a sex and people whose religion prevents them from using mixed sex facilities. Then cost and then women’s rights to safety, privacy and dignity. A bit sad to put that one last but breaching legislation and cost will carry the most weight I think.

I’m also thinking that this would have indirect discrimination ramifications.

Not just women of faith and culture but also disabled women, particularly those with autism who are not able to lie/pretend about the reality of what they see in front of them, and those with trauma from domestic abuse, violence, sexual assault, rape. Those women should not be deprived of facilities or forced into disclosure.

I would also want to impact assess this from an ageist point of view, this potentially more seriously affects women who grew up in decades where privacy from men was much more rigid in society than it is now. The expectation that women abandon their entire lifetime training around privacy, dignity and safety in order to prioritise the need of some men is a very drastic and disproportionate/unfair and sexist one.

If women are unable to use mixed sex facilities what arrangements will be made for them? Long enough breaks to go to another building or local café? What about women who are pregnant or disabled and may regularly need urgent unplanned access to a loo? What about the mental distress this may cause women, some of whom may not feel able to disclose their reasons for that distress? Either everyone's feelings and needs matter equally here, or this is pure sexism.

I believe there is case law that says employers don't have to allow a male employee access to the women's toilets as soon as he says he is a woman. It's quite an old case but I don't think it's been superseded. I'll see if I can find it later this evening.

Then cost and then women’s rights to safety, privacy and dignity. A bit sad to put that one last but breaching legislation and cost will carry the most weight I think.

It does breach legislation. Removing women's rights to safety, privacy and dignity is harassment under the EA.