My workplace has been Stonewalled. Completely new policy released. If anyone objects to sharing facilities with a transgender individual of the opposite sex, they will be the ones asked to move.

[iexpectedthis]

I am considering posting the paragraph in question, but its obviously a bit outing as it's a massive corporation.

It talks about being sent to use facilities on another floor if you object, so I am sure they are thinking about their massive offices in London.

I don't feel it will affect me personally on a day to day basis, but I am feeling down on reading the whole policy full of assigned at birth and stereotypes.

I could see this coming as we have had a lot of Stonewall input on diversity days, presentations in London offices featuring Pip Bunce and visits from Scottish trans groups to educate us.

Just a bit of a vent and asking for any thoughts on whether/how to question or challenge this :(

@gutentag1

Toilets have always been unisex really - like you said, men often pop into the women's if they want to, no one stops them. Trans women have been using women's toilets for eons, too.

It's just a more formal recognition. I do think it's unnecessary pandering, but won't make a huge difference to you really.

It will, because it means if a woman sees a man in their space, she can no longer tell him to get out. All he has to say are the magic words - I'm a woman.

I thought I read somewhere that if someone avoided using a toilet with a trans person they can be accused of harassment or bullying?

won't make a huge difference to you really.

Again…. (I'm starting to repeat this in my sleep)

What are you going to do with the women who can't access mixed sex spaces?

What happens to them?

Anyone remember the youth hostel that tried to say women were only allowed female only spaces if they came to the desk and explained to a total stranger highly confidential information, like their rape history, disability...…

they backtracked fairly quickly in horror when the actual reality of how it would have to work was pointed out to them.

How does this new toilet rule fit with allowing religious freedoms for Jewish and Muslim women among others ?

And DO ask them what a Man is ....

How does this new toilet rule fit with allowing religious freedoms for Jewish and Muslim women among others ?

And with neurodiversity. And inclusivity of disabled colleagues.

@FemaleAndLearning

I thought I read somewhere that if someone avoided using a toilet with a trans person they can be accused of harassment or bullying?

That was implied in some Civil Service guidance, I think. It certainly isn't established law - though it may be shortly in Scotland.

*MissLucyEyelesbarrow

FemaleAndLearning
I thought I read somewhere that if someone avoided using a toilet with a trans person they can be accused of harassment or bullying?
That was implied in some Civil Service guidance, I think. It certainly isn't established law - though it may be shortly in Scotland.*

That was definitely an implication in the now withdrawn CPS transgender bullying and hate crimes document for schools.

Attention being drawn to it being quite possibly one of the reasons behind its withdrawal.

Imagine trying to establish this in a court room.

That a woman turned around in the doorway of a communal bathroom and left, while a TW was there. Now prove the woman left purely because of the TW as opposed to her phone rang or she remembered something or someone called her. And now look at her own situation in being able to share mixed sex facilities, and the issues forced upon women who can't when they are daily placed into situations where they may encounter male people in their facilities. And is someone's perceived sense of offense that someone may possibly have left a room because of them really something that should be taking up anyone's time and attention to formally deal with?

'Forced to the discourtesy' is an old phrase, but it's going to start reappearing in courtrooms very soon.

Oh and a good lawyer would also probably have a walk through the pressure and anxiety now caused to women about how they control their faces, bodies and voices while in the female facilities in fear that a colleague may perceive something they then interpret as rejection resulting in formal action/complaint and disciplinary procedures.

And was a proper impact assessment done with equal consideration given to all protected characteristics and to conflict of need, leading to planned arrangements that worked for all and avoided such situations arising for any of them. As opposed to just doing what a political lobby group said, not checking the law and not engaging brain first.

Plus, as was brought up in the thread about that case, the suggestion that if males who cross dress for sexual reasons (who as a group are under the trans umbrella according to Stonewall) are allowed access to single sex female spaces it could be a form of sexual harassment of the female employees.

The Civil Service thread I am referring to. Worth a read.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3520371-civil-service-trans-policy-what-can-i-do

My instinct is to avoid the training as I'll be annoyed having to listen to all the gender definitions being spouted.

I guess I will watch it if i can and see what is actually said. Kind of annoyed that the company is wasting money giving it to Stonewall to look good on a list.

[quote Wondersense]@SapphosRock You're joking yes?[/quote]
SapphosRock is very probably serious.

and today in 'missing the point' our inclusivity group is highlighting menopause and the stigma and the issues it can cause for women in the workplace.

It is all about women, funnily enough.

Although in the comments someone already got in with we should use 'menopausal people' as it also affects gender neutral an transgender men with ovaries.

I obviously don't mind including people who don't like to think of themselves as women, but it's not necessarily that helpful when highlighting a women's issue.

Unless your office is huge, the chances of you meeting a pre-op transgender person in your office is very small. I used to work in an office of 2000 people, and there was 1 person who transitioned in the 15 years I worked there. She was very upfront and open about her transition, and it basically affected no-one other than her direct colleagues who had to change the name they called her. Not a single person had a problem with it, colleagues or customers.

@Babyjakesmum

Unless your office is huge, the chances of you meeting a pre-op transgender person in your office is very small. I used to work in an office of 2000 people, and there was 1 person who transitioned in the 15 years I worked there. She was very upfront and open about her transition, and it basically affected no-one other than her direct colleagues who had to change the name they called her. Not a single person had a problem with it, colleagues or customers.

Why do you mention pre-op, Baby? OP mentions presentations featuring Pip Bunce who seemingly has no intention to "op". And you say in your office one person transitioned-- so assuming they "op-ed"? Are you suggesting chances of meeting a post-op transgender person is not so small? Just trying to understand.

I’ve been into a couple of offices with unisex toilets, including government departments. Invariably the staff have informally designated male and female toilets and even direct visitors to these.

The obvious thing to do is change your marker to male and use the gents.

Wander in and start doing your hair while male colleagues are at the urinal.

I suspect the policy would be changed quicksmart.

Of course in real life and at work, it would be a rare woman who would be brave enough to do that.

babyjakes it's disrespectful to use the term 'pre-op' as it implies transgender people will/need to undergo any sort of 'op'. Did you use that term around your transgender colleague?