Toilets

[LanguageAsAFlower]

Changed some detail, but the problem remains the same. I hope that people will have a pragmatic/effective way forward.

Person close to me is a manager in a cafe. One employee is a TW. TW "came out" to my manager friend and brought up the toilet issue. My friend asked me and HR and we all said no to women's toilets there's a mixed accessible toilet on the premises and this should do.

To add to this there are two women who also work there who have recently been victims of sexual assault and are very young and very vulnerable and IMO need to know that they have a sex segregated toilet.

Anyway this all went ok to start with, was talking to my friend yesterday and it transpires TW has started using the ladies now, despite discussion being clear and other options available.

HR have been really good, however it is a very woke company and if something were to be more public I don't imagine there would be much support.

Any ideas of how to support the women who need a space whilst maybe not starting a war/losing jobs/being labelled a bigot?

Do the young women actually want to ban their TW colleague from the ladies? Is there any reason this person makes them feel threatened or unsafe?

If not then it doesn't seem worth the hassle as there isn't really a legal leg to stand on.

If so then the sexual assault trauma could mean female only toilets excluding TW could be a proportional means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Let's clarify the law. The proportionate means of achieving legitimate aim could be considered to be single sex spaces for achieving female privacy and dignity, in and of itself.

See Center Parcs who have used the single sex exemption in this way.

Stonewall and other organisations have interpreted that all MTFs can access these female spaces simply as they identify as "women", but this has never been properly tested in law.

There are also problems with the Gender Recognition Act which assumes that a trans person's biological sex might be in doubt and restrictive privacy rules are needed to prevent people finding out that they are trans. In reality this is not normally the case.

Interesting, to answer the first question yes the women do, and thank you for the info in the second post, that is what needs clarifying.

The TW has broken rules that have been made expressly clear - wouldn't that be a disciplinary? I think I'm any other case it would mean words at the very least.

Self ID is not law - does TW have a GRC?

It seems they have disobeyed a clear instruction given by their line manager - this should be dealt with using the company disciplinary procedure

TW has also disrespected two colleagues, they may not wish to make a complaint but they are meant to endure this to keep their jobs? This is unacceptable.

It is perfectly proportionate for the TW to use the mixed sex facilities. The women and the company are perfectly entitled to have single sex toilets.

HR need to ask the TW to either use the facilities appropriate to their sex, or the mixed sex toilet. The fact they insist on using the women's would be a red flag to me.

Do the young women actually want to ban their TW colleague from the ladies? Is there any reason this person makes them feel threatened or unsafe?

It's not individual women's responsibility to voice their objections or explain why they don't want men in women's toilets. This is for the employer to sort out.
Does the company have a sexual harassment policy and procedures in place?

Quite right Purported if it was an employee using the company twitter for personal use or repeatedly entering the kitchen that was only for the catering team there would be uproar. Whether they are a TW or not they cannot simply do as they please, rules is rules and they have an alternative provided already. It sound pretty sinister if you ask me. It can't simply be about going to the toilet.

For legal purposes, a person who does not have a GRC or amended birth certificate is treated as their natal sex.
This is not discrimination. Under the Equality Act, an adjustment is made to permit people to participate in everyday life; people who do not share the protected characteristic have no right to use the adjustment, and cannot claim for discrimination if they are prevented from doing so.

When it's lawful to provide separate services for men and women;
The Equality Act says it's lawful to provide separate services for men and women if:
there's a good enough reason for providing separate services, for example;

• the services are of a type that you would object to someone of the opposite sex being there - for example, separate changing rooms or a service involving personal hygiene.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services1/goods-and-services-what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/what-doesn-t-count-as-unlawful-discrimination-in-goods-and-services/single-sex-and-separate-services-for-men-and-women-when-discrimination-is-allowed/

For legal purposes, a person who does not have a GRC or amended birth certificate is treated as their natal sex.

And a person who does have a GRC can also be treated as their natal sex if proportionate blah blah

I thought TW were generally allowed to use female facilities already whether or not they had a GRC. Nobody is realistically going to police it.

But I guess individual businesses can make their own rules and this particular TW needs a clear reminder of the rules they agreed to.

"I thought TW were generally allowed to use female facilities already whether or not they had a GRC."

Allowed? Who does this allowing?

Or do they just 'take' through a sense of entitlement?

Isn't the dodgy Stonewall argument the gender reassignment category of the equality act? It's very broad- anyone "intending to undergo gender reassignment" pretty much leaves it wide open to the you can't say no brigade.

"I thought TW were generally allowed to use female facilities already whether or not they had a GRC."

Only according to Stonewall law. The actual Equality Act allows exclusion of TW from certain female only facilities and services.

I'd be tempted to turn the TRA language back on themselves and claim that the individual is making them feel "threatened and unsafe" due to their biological status - which is in keeping with other males on the business who use male facilities.

What is done with the knowledge and consent of the employer becomes part of the contract of employment, which includes terms and conditions such as access to toilets. Management need to nip this in the bud or it becomes "custom and practice" and potentially applicable to others in the workplace.

If the agreed arrangements were not put in writing then there should be confirmation in writing. It can be done politely as a reminder rather than a reprimand and confirmed in a record of a "counselling" meeting or as a memo, whatever it most appropriate.

It would be best stated as a general rule of the workplace rather than a provision specific to this individual and the "reminder" should be a reference to the decision applying to the workplace. Obviously, everyone should be made aware of what has already been agreed and this can be done as a general statement about facilities.This could be reinforced by appropriate signage.

This framing is transparent and will be useful if the issue arises in future in respect of new employees or non-employees, eg. customers, visitors, contractors. For this reason, if there are already any general statements about facilities, it would be sensible to add this arrangement.

All the legal stuff about GRA and/or EA as above should be on file by HR and management, who should be familiar with it so they are confident to deal with any questions, challenges or issues. It should not be left to individual members of staff to have to deal with lack of compliance.

If management fail to deal with this then the women who are inconvenienced are the ones with cause for grievance, as management are in breach of contract as far as their terms and conditions are concerned. If this causes them avoidable distress then it is arguable that there is a Health and Safety issue.

Management needs to uphold their rights in law to safety, dignity and privacy in the workplace.