Trans woman being threatening at work

[perpetuallyperplexedbylife]

I've name changed for this as it could be very outing, it's such a bizarre situation.
I work in a library. One of our long term customers, who I would class as vulnerable with clear mental health issues has recently declared themselves to be a trans woman. They are well over six feet tall, and now generally wear a frilly tutu over a mankini à la Borat, a corset top, ripped fishnets and New Rocks, along with a terrible wig. (This is the outing bit as anyone from my area might recognise them).
They have changed their name and sex on our database, and have started borrowing books for the first time. I think they are very vulnerable, and once or twice they have come in with obvious bruises, maybe from being beaten up? They also have a little blue haired handmaiden who hangs around with them (I know this all sounds cliched but I swear it's true!)
A few weeks ago they asked me if I would help them with makeup advice. I said that would not be appropriate. They have since got loads of makeup advice books, and now present with a face full of badly applied, smeared makeup. They have also started talking in a high pitched little girl voice. To be frank, I find them very disturbing.
Last week they seem to have a new tactic - going up to female members of staff (never the men - funny that) and asking for books on sex. They have also asked inappropriate questions about whether staff enjoy sex. If told they are being inappropriate they actually have a tantrum.
Our management say we have to treat them as a woman, but I am beginning to feel like I'm being sexually abused as part of this person's fantasies. I'm tempted to report them to the police as I feel violated.
Any advice?

Could you, perhaps, record their conversations with you, discreetly, on your phone?

I understand why OP mentioned appearance. It may be intended to cause alarm. Much like punks or the killer clown scares, people can adopt ways of dressing that are agressive and intended to provoke a reaction. I've met a man in the woods who put a pair of women's knickers on his head to cycle past me. In no way was that a neutral hat wearing act.

If then person behaving this way was a six foot male with a skinhead hair cut, reactions would have been different so I think the description of this persons appearance is relevant. I also think because they appear vulnerable, then ' niceness ' kicks in.

Does responsibility for the library sit with your local authority/local council? Report this to the head of libraries for your region. This kind of behaviour usually escalates and poses a risk to library workers and library users. It is sexual harassment. He should be banned. Report to the police. No need to mention what he's wearing unless they ask.

Actually - if he's a library member, surely you know who he is and where he lives?

Get video evidence. Keep meticulous records. Go through the official routes to get him banned, arrested and on the police's radar.

If the authorities don't act properly then go public with the evidence. Sometimes it is the only way.

If you can't afford to lose your job by doing this you may find that there are other women who don't mind, especially retired volunteer battle-axes.

Involve others in the recordings and record-keeping from the start for your own protection.

How are management suggesting you treat them as a woman? Ask them to be specific; it sounds like a very odd diktat considering you’re a library and all this person should be doing is checking out books?
Are they suggesting the sex talk is not inappropriate because this person is claiming to be female?? You all need to refuse to engage with him, if your manager sees no harm in it they should be happy to come out of their office and deal with it themselves.
Just keep walking away saying you’re busy elsewhere.

At the end of the day the trans status is irrelevant (even if this behaviour started after transition). Raising it gives management/the police to dismiss this as transphobia-especially after the way you have described the situations . I think you really need to put that to the side. A library user is sexually harassing staff members. Enough said.

The trans aspect isn't relevant really. It's the same way you'd deal with anyone behaving inappropriately who you felt was vulnerable, for example someone with mental illness. Basic customer behaviour policy.

Calm, firm and very consistent boundaries about limits of role and not engaging in inappropriate conversations.

Calm, firm boundaries about tantrums.

Usual policy followed about someone treating staff in an aggressive or abusive manner: I'll guess that's escalating steps from asking someone to stop, to asking them to leave, to what action is taken if they won't go? Customer has access to complaints procedure if they wish to use it.

Meant to add: you can also request training in working with customers with sexual/ aggressive behaviours, which in itself sends a clear signal to managers, and gets on record your need to be met and supported.

I'm afraid my union are the last people I would go to about this. They would throw me under that bus then drive it over me themselves.

That’s shit. Leave your union.

If you can't afford to lose your job by doing this you may find that there are other women who don't mind, especially retired volunteer battle-axes.

Jaysus.

I agree with Michelle and Boggles. Being trans is not relevant.

The behaviour of library user membership number is causing distress to library workers. Library member number does..... and list the behaviour.

Where on earth have some of you been which leads you to think the identity if the person is irrelevant?

People were banned from twitter for mis gendering ian Huntley fgs. You dont think that there will be a million blue haired people sending offensive messages and trying to get the local.librarian fired for refusing to let their poor most oppressed in the world friend into the library?

If it was anyone else they would have been arrested or cautioned on the way to the bloody library. Ask yourself why they were even able to make it there every time in the first place.

And in the small chance the police show up they wont do anything unless the staff member uses she/her or they may find themselves carted off instead.

Not relevant?
Really?

Why on earth do you think they arent dressed in Jean's and a t shirt or a summer dress ? Cos they know they can parade their fetish consequence free now

^^. Sad but true.

It is the behaviour of the person which is relevant if the OP is going to make a complaint to a more senior manager.

Stating that this person is trans is irrelevant to that.

Of course it's not irrelevant in why they are doing it but you have to treat it as irrelevant in the way you need to approach it. I think the ambiguity over this has led to some people on this thread disagreeing when they probably are mostly on the same page underneath...

I suggested not mentioning the person being trans as the response might be better - sadly. I just thought I'd OP mentioned it to start with she will be told to put up and shut up because the perpetrator is one of those "sacred" people.

"Sacred" is reference to the Detroit penis
bill board.

I suggested not mentioning the person being trans as the response might be better - sadly. I just thought I'd OP mentioned it to start with she will be told to put up and shut up because the perpetrator is one of those "sacred" people

Sadly the last time multiple people tried that , objecting to completely inappropriate behaviour they were publically branded homophobes by the nspcc on twitter.

Ironically that time the sexuality of the person was completely irrelevant and in fact wasnt even mentioned. Nor did anyone care.

Didnt stop them from jumping to that defence though...

1. report to the police as a woman. Always refer to them as she. Act bewildered if they raise the transgender question

2. if customer approaches female member of staff, female member of staff can assert that they self id as a man and therefore cannot help

3. let a male member of staff deal with them from now on. If they refuse to deal with male member of staff because they are male, said male member of staff just asserts that they are, in fact, a woman. And as gender is now so fluid, they can revert back to being a man as soon as Borat has left

And this cannot be questioned either, surely precedent has already been set by WYP themselves with their gender fluid officer?

We live in a crazy world... Agree though. If he’s getting off on the sex talk with the female staff it won’t be quite for entertaining with a male “woman”.

Wonder if you could play this person at their own game? Maybe some of the male staff members could be supportive by telling this person that they identify as women too and insist on dealing with them. Turn it around on to them if they refuse to deal with another trans woman?

Where on earth have some of you been which leads you to think the identity if the person is irrelevant?

I'm really not in the least unaware or unsympathetic to the OP or to the obviously troubled customer. I'm suggesting this because I think it's one of the most protective ways the OP can manage this situation for themselves.

If standard policy is followed, and the OP is then asked why this particular customer was not exempted or treated differently because of their protected characteristic, the OP is then able to have the protection of pointing out this is absolutely what the paperwork, policy and training requires them to do. If challenged on this, the OP can then ask why - and to ask for the bit in the LGBT+ policy that explains to staff specifically how and what to do in the case of this one specific exemption from standard policy. This will, of course, not exist.

The obvious questions the management then have to face: on what grounds do we believe that customers with this protected characteristic should be exempt from standard customer boundaries/staff wellbeing and safety? Which implies the question is sexually inappropriate or aggressive behaviour an integral part of the protected characteristic?

To which the answer is: of course it isn't, and it genuinely is transphobic to suggest that it is. This is what has to be challenged over and over again. People are being intimidated from applying standard policy equally because of fear that somehow this one protected characteristic is more special and boundaries or protecting yourself will get you into trouble. It's based on a kind of reverse discrimination and it is never written into policies and procedures because it's indefensible on paper. By sticking to policy and treating all people equally a staff member has stronger ground to stand on without accusations.

...if we banned all the customers who smell (male and female), especially at this time of year, our computer section would be half empty!..

So?

Why haven't you done it?

When you complain about the behaviour of this person without mentioning their sex/gender/trans status (as many posters have suggested) it will be pretty obvious that the person is male.
Sexual intimidation is a male behavior.

Trans status is relevant in that there seems to be a fear about tackling inappropriate behaviour from this group of people.

The McCarthyism burns so brightly. If you don't feel like that then lucky old you. Most of us feel vulnerable, seeing what's happened to other women.

However there's been interesting comments on here (other posts) from HR professionals saying you shouldn't be afraid to speak up. That we worry unnecessarily, if that makes sense.

Keep a diary with dates and times of incidents. Report concerns about behaviour to management in writing. Call the person by the name on their library card. Don't bring trans status into it. Focus on behaviour.

You wouldn't accept personal questions like these from either sex. Totally inappropriate.

Good luck op