Please help me draft a response to my company's new stance on toilets

[Flamingo49]

The company I work for has just produced a "Commitment to Trans Equality" document, 99% of which I wholeheartedly agree with. We then come to the sticky issue of toilets, where the doc says "It is up to you to decide which gender toilet you wish to use" and then "The following are examples of unacceptable behaviour: objecting when a trans employee uses the toilet facilities of their affirmed gender".

I feel so annoyed and frustrated by this. Is it really "unacceptable behaviour" to open up a debate about why single sex spaces are so important for women? I feel like this has been written without any acknowledgement or appreciation of the women who have their own adverse life experiences and might find it incredibly threatening to find someone who looks and sounds like a man (regardless of how they identify), in what was a safe single sex space. I say this in the context of women historically being the ones to have to move aside and accommodate the feelings of others, to dismiss their own feelings of discomfort in order to placate others. I really struggle to put my feelings into words though. Can I have some help with how to respond? I work in a very forward thinking, socially inclusive environment and I don't think any challenge will go down well.

Slight tangent: my workplace sent a survey asking if staff would consider making toilets gender neutral temporarily due to Covid. Background: it's a big school arranged such that each building has one staff toilet block, Covid precautions mean less time for staff to use the toilets (long story, think crocodile files of kids and one-way systems, pick up points etc) so the proposal is that toilets become mixed sex. Interestingly, very few people have responded and the suggestion has been dropped.

I was against it and cited the law, privacy and dignity as reasons. It is inconvenient to have to walk further to use a toilet. Disabled toilets need a key - which I don't have - and all the toilets are very clean due to our excellent cleaning staff. However, I don't want to use the same toilet as my line managers and make small talk as I wash my hands. School being school, toilets are places to cry (really), adjust clothing and change menstrual products. We are a diverse staff with religious women who would be disadvantaged by mixed sex facilities. And many other reasons already set out in this thread.

So, stick to your guns. Single sex facilities work for women. We need to keep them single sex.

@pensivepigeon

Why not single sex, mixed gender facilities rather than mixed sex single gender facilities? Single sex, mixed gender means people can look like whatever they want but still protects women under the law. No one should be questioned with regards to their gender.

Actually that makes perfect sense - especially in a workplace situation where I'd assume that most people are known to each other in some capacity. Not at all the same as public toilets where a man who looks different might feel threatened or be at risk of assault.

Are we back to wants over needs?

Toolkit - ooh look it's self ID by stealth.

I would suggest talking to FPFW, Transgender Trend (who focus on schools but have fought this battle to demonstrate to schools that the law has been misrepresented and the preferred version discriminates against the legal rights of girls/how to balance the two) and also to Baroness Nicholson.

Employers need to be told: if you take information as gospel from a highly biased, political lobby group without thinking and taking advice from other groups with other views too, you are likely to find yourself in expensive shit with employment law.

Although again, I think it will take a couple of public and expensive cases testing this in court before it sinks in.

As well as the point about health and safety requirements for single sex facilities, I would ask them about the equality impact assessment they’ve carried out in terms of how this change of policy affects the protected characteristics of sex, race and religion. Are they seriously saying it is against company policy for a Muslim woman who uses the women’s loos to adjust her hijab to object to a male person walking in?

I wonder what the men would think if all the female employees starting doing their makeup and hair in the men’s toilets while the men are using the urinals?

Hermione / Michelle

I actually doubt they've thought about it. We have gender instead of sex in the equality policy so they've clearly fallen for it all.

Also, check out the section on harassment in the Equality Act. Excluding female employees from their own, legally mandated female-only facilities is discrimination against those who cannot use mixed-sex facilities. But harassment (Part 2 of the EqA, Section 26 under Other prohibited conduct gives us another area to look at:

26 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.
(2) A also harasses B if—
(a) A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, and
(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b).
(3) A also harasses B if —
(a) A or another person engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature or that is related to gender reassignment or sex,
(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b),
and
(c) because of B’s rejection of or submission to the conduct, A treats B less favourably than A would treat B if B had not rejected or submitted to the conduct.
(4) In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account—
(a) the perception of B ;
(b) the other circumstances of the case;
(c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.
(5) The relevant protected characteristics are—
age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation.

If you alert HR to your rights under the Equality Act being breached by this new policy (do make sure to refer to this), and you feel that you are treated worse because of this, the Equality Act also protects you for doing so. (See Section 27, Victimisation)

To be protected under this section, it does not matter whether you are mistaken about your rights being breached. Even if you are wrong you are protected, as long as you are not acting in bad faith or make stuff up.

Would also be interested to know how an equality impact assessment can be done without first taking an indepth, carefully anonymised survey of all employees, particularly women employees, to gain data on general feeling about this and how many women employees will be unable to use mixed sex facilities.

Have they checked? What is the percentage of employees who will be rendered without facility compared to the percentage of employees whose gender will be thus affirmed? Is there any risk of direct or indirect discrimination to protected groups/less favourable treatment on grounds of disability, faith, sex? Have they checked the law on ensuring that under these circumstances with new groupings of people using women's toilets, people using men's toilets and people either going off site of sharing a disabled toilet they are still compliant with designated number of toilets available per users? Are they in danger of creating hostility, resentment and bad feeling amongst their employees where previously there wasn't any? Because in terms of diversity and inclusion that's #massivefail

I agree, I doubt anyone's bothered to engage an experienced, critically thinking brain at all. This is a political lobby wish list, is this even compatible with the wishes and feelings of the actual employees they are launching this in the name of? Have they even bothered to ask them?

When I say "do make sure to refer to this", I mean that you refer to sex being a protected characteristic under the Equality Act in addition to referring to the Workplace Regulations. And that you feel this new policy would breach your rights under the Equality Act.

...you feel this new policy would breach your rights under the Equality Act.

Well, it would breech every woman’s rights under the Equality act. I tend to depersonalise, if appropriate, which I think, in this situation, it is.

Thus, I would say something like ‘It is concerning that this new policy is in breech of the Equality act with regard to”..quote relevant section”. An alternative which would protect both the rights of female employees and trans employees would be to make available single sex, mixed gender toilets.”

Small tweak but I think it important to highlight this is not merely about individual wishes.

OP here. Thanks so much for everyone's comments and links. If it's ok, I'm going to write a draft response and post it here for feedback.

I also wanted to get some thoughts on their definition of gender reassignment, which I don't think corresponds to the legal definitions and will probably influence their response to me:

Gender reassignment: people who decide to live their life in the opposite gender to the one assigned at birth could be described as reassigning their gender. Gender reassignment is another way of describing a person's transition. To undergo gender reassignment usually means to undergo some sort of medical intervention, but it can also mean changing names, pronouns, dressing differently and living in their self-identified gender."

It's so frustrating that gender is applied to things where biological sex is the key factor. I would say have they looked into creating a third space, or if not and they insist on 'mixed gender' toilets, will they be adhering to all of the relevant laws, such as the door to floor self contained cubicles etc. The cost of converting one rather than all of them might be tempting.

Regardless of their definition, the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment doesn't give an individual the right to access opposite sex spaces, whatever Stonewall says. The pc of GR means that an individual cannot be treated less favourably than someone of their birth sex (with a gender recognition certificate they should be treated as their 'new' legal sex, but there are still circumstances where biology trumps identity, even with a GRC)

From FPFW:

"Across the UK, many organisations have adopted policies that entitle a man who self-identifies as a woman, without a GRC, to access women’s spaces. The law does not require this, but campaign groups like Stonewall have claimed that it does."

This page might also be useful as it goes through the relevant bits of the equality act

fairplayforwomen.com/equality-act-2010_womens-rights/

'mixed gender' toilets

If these toilets are single sex it's what we've had for years. People can dress however they like. Style themselves however they like. Call themselves whichever name. However, with single sex spaces such as toilets, they would use the toilet assigned to their sex.

So single sex toilets can be mixed gender. If trans people feel uncomfortable using the one appropriate to their sex this should be tackled. All toilets should be safe spaces.

I think the situation in a workplace is different to prisons and refuges. I’m concerned about women who are vulnerable needing single sex spaces but I’m really uncomfortable about the absolutist attitude that’s building up against transwomen using the ladies in offices. Workplaces will have conduct and discipline policies to guard against abuse, and it’d be massively demeaning for trans staff to have to use the toilet of their biological sex.

Workplaces will have conduct and discipline policies to guard against abuse, and it’d be massively demeaning for trans staff to have to use the toilet of their biological sex.

But it needn't be? If trans people were more accepted into their biological sex as a group. The fight could be to normalise this. As in don't attack people if the way they look and act challenges traditional sexual stereotypes.

And all bathrooms should be safe spaces for girls, women, boys and men.

Workplaces will have conduct and discipline policies to guard against abuse, and it’d be massively demeaning for trans staff to have to use the toilet of their biological sex.

I think protection against abuse and safety and abuse victim's mental health should be the top priority over what people consider 'demeaning'.

Tbh if more acceptance for gender diversity beyond traditional stereotypes was the issue which was fought for and won then natal sex would just be a non issue. No one would have the need to say their sex was any different to their natal sex or ask for their natal sex not to be disclosed or mentioned in relevant health care etc. It just wouldn't matter. They could wear whichever clothes they liked, have their hair how they liked etc with no comment in regards to their sex.

”it’d be massively demeaning for trans staff to have to use the toilet of their biological sex.”

It would also be massively demeaning for women to have to share their space with males.

It would be massively demeaning and significantly traumatic for women who have suffered abuse to have to share safe spaces with males.

It would be completely impossible for many women of faith to share their spaces with males, leaving them in an impossible situation.

It would place employers at significant risk of sex and/or religious belief discrimination claims.

But it seems all of those things are less important than validating someone’s self-declared identity.

@Bvop

I think the situation in a workplace is different to prisons and refuges. I’m concerned about women who are vulnerable needing single sex spaces but I’m really uncomfortable about the absolutist attitude that’s building up against transwomen using the ladies in offices. Workplaces will have conduct and discipline policies to guard against abuse, and it’d be massively demeaning for trans staff to have to use the toilet of their biological sex.

I’m concerned too but I keep coming back to the question “what’s the definition of transwoman in this situation?”. Is it the original use ie someone dressing as a woman full time with a medical diagnosis and some level of surgery/medical treatment or is it the new ‘self id’ model? How would I feel about someone like pip bunce using different facilities on different days? If it wasn’t an office workplace but a school or hospital?

Their equality impact assessment should have the fact its illegal to make all the toilets mixed sex listed as the first point.

Women shouldn't be asked if its ok to make all the toilets mixed sex. We can't give consent for the women who start work next week.

Okay, this is a discussion point I've seen before, and it massively disturbed me.

This idea that sharing toilets with people of the opposite sex is safe if they're people you know at work. It keeps popping up.

You know, workplaces, at least some of them, have policies against sexual harassment. It still happens. A lot.

Perhaps your workplace will be a happy place with improved productivity if it has a communal unisex, à la Ally MacBeal. But across the country, disrupting the social norm of men's and women's toilets is going to take away some women's only refuge in the workplace. It is going to give their harassers the opportunity to escalate. The man who always finds any opportunity to slightly cross women's boundaries in a way you can't describe without sounding mad? Who always stands too close to junior female colleagues by accident? The one you always avoid sharing the lift with? And you think no-one will feel distressed when they go to the toilet with him on the other side of that thin plywood door?

”This idea that sharing toilets with people of the opposite sex is safe if they're people you know at work. It keeps popping up.”

Exactly. All those who sexually harass and abuse women? Most of them have jobs and they work somewhere. And are therefore known to their colleagues.

Exactly. All those who sexually harass and abuse women? Most of them have jobs and they work somewhere. And are therefore known to their colleagues.

Yes.

Hence #MeToo