How to approach the 'TW in a work loo' issue

[LockdownLisa]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a4279797-Workplace-advice-needed?msgid=108499436#108499436

This was my thread from a few weeks ago. My colleague has now come out as trans, which is fine. However, I saw her use the women's toilets today, which is not so fine. We do have self contained disabled toilets which I think would be more appropriate.

All we've had from management is a 'Peter is now Sandra, work systems will be updated to reflect this' type email. There's been very little chat in the office about it so I can't gauge how other people feel about it.

I don't really feel comfortable approaching my section manager as I know I'll just be fobbed off. I was thinking about emailing my HR department (I work for an NHS hospital trust, it's a Stonewall member as I think most of them are) but have no idea how to word it!

Does anybody have any suggestions? I was thinking something very simple like:
'Please can you clarify our policy on which toilets, changing rooms and showers our transgender staff are expected to use?'

I'm the lowest of the low in terms of my banding and although I've held more senior positions than this before, I'm so uncertain how to handle this. I believe (from the previous thread) that women are legally entitled to same sex provision, but fighting for that right in the workplace isn't an easy thing to do, especially from my lowly position 😕.

AnnFran

Sadly, this may well backfire on you and the other female staff in your workplace.

The OP is entitled to single sex spaces under the Equality Act, no matter what your worldview.

That's not what it says. The employer is entitiled to provide single sex spaces where it's for a valid purpose.

I suspect the problem for the OP is that they won't want to, so it's a case of trying to get them to have some single sex provision in addition to accomodating the needs of this transwoman.

Ann Fran I well understand your anger and the feeling that if only male people's needs matter and female people's are dismissed that you might as well play the game. However I suspect this won't help and will probably make things worse.

Someone more knowledgeable than me will know - is it Fair Play for Women who advise on the legal requirement to provide single sex toilets?

The point to return to over and over again, is that not all female people can access mixed sex toilets for a number of reasons and needs that are as worthy of respect and care under equality law as the TW's reasons and needs. Answers should be found that work for everyone, and the most practical solution is to agree which women's toilets remain single sex for female people who require female only spaces, and which toilets will be mixed sex while being labelled as women's toilets. Female staff are then able to make an informed choice of which space to use.

This does not require anyone to be discriminated against, to lose access or be harassed for their beliefs, and this needs to work both ways.

If your worldview is that the small wafer disc kept in a box in a Catholic church is the omnipotent divine being, you might want to genuflect when you enter or pass the church.

You've not got any reason to expect or require everyone who walks past the church to do the same. If you took that wafer and put it in a shopping centre, you still couldn't require it.

That's the thing about personal metaphysical beliefs. You can have them and live your life in the light of them. You can't force everyone else to do the same.

That's not what it says. The employer is entitiled to provide single sex spaces where it's for a valid purpose.

However the law for health and safety in the workplace goes further and mandates that in the workplace toilets must either be single sex or single cubicle in a lockable room.

A bit like male baldness.

Not like male baldness. Removal of testes/ testosterone and oestrogen therapy removes the risk and progression of male pattern baldness.

Because a transsexual person changes some of their physical/ physiological sex characteristics.

The workplace is complying with the law by providing single sex facilities. But nowhere does the law say a trans woman cannot use the women’s or that a trans man cannot use the men’s.

If a male uses female single sex facilities, they aren't actually single sex. There is a conflict here, which has not been resolved.

The workplace is complying with the law by providing single sex facilities. But nowhere does the law say a trans woman cannot use the women’s or that a trans man cannot use the men’s.

If the transwoman uses the women’s with the employer’s blessing then they are no longer providing single-sex toilets. I’m not sure where the employer would stand if an ordinary bloke also wanted to use the mixed-sex “ladies”.

Not like male baldness. Removal of testes/ testosterone and oestrogen therapy removes the risk and progression of male pattern baldness.

Because a transsexual person changes some of their physical/ physiological sex characteristics.

Yes, fair point, male pattern violence isn't like male baldness. Male pattern violence is more ingrained in male people as a class.

I’m not sure where the employer would stand if an ordinary bloke also wanted to use the mixed-sex “ladies”

That's quite interesting. Presumably that ordinary bloke would have a case under the Equality act, with the characteristic of gender reassignment: that he (who was not undergoing gender reassignment) was being treated unfairly in comparison to another man who was.

It's the same as men being able to use the protected characteristic of sex if they are treated unfairly to compared to women. The equality act works both ways - not only for the 'usually discriminated against' variant of the protected characteristic.

So the logical end point is that all men can use single sex female spaces, without even claiming to be trans.

Because a transsexual person changes some of their physical/ physiological sex characteristics.

Except in most cases they change their appearance, they don’t go through surgery or in many cases hormone therapy. In most cases “living as a woman” involves wearing a dress and calling themselves by a typically female name and on that basis they demand access to female facilities.

I’d have much less issue if men who opted for top and bottom surgery wanted to access female spaces, but oddly enough the folk publicly sabre rattling on this issue seem to want to hang on to their penis. Willy waving at its very best.

Male pattern violence is more ingrained in male people as a class.

Have you any evidence that isn’t specifically related to testosterone?

There is evidence that (transsexual) trans women who transitioned after 1989 are no more likely to commit violent crime than non trans women, and females to males who take testosterone are more likely to commit violent crime than females.

Presumably that ordinary bloke would have a case under the Equality act, with the characteristic of gender reassignment: that he (who was not undergoing gender reassignment) was being treated unfairly in comparison to another man who was.

Actually, the "gender reassignment" discrimination clause appears to not be symmetrical. You cannot discriminate due to "gender reassignment" but there's nothing blocking discrimination due to absence of gender reassignment.

(I do kind of have some sympathy for the drafters of the EA2010 - they couldn't reasonably have been expected to figure out the full complexities of the ramifications of the recently-passed GRA2004).

However, the male in your scenario could plausibly complain about sex discrimination. If transwomen are being permitted into this space, then it is not a single-sex space, and hence the single-sex exemption that permits discrimination against males is not being utilised, and males can not legally be barred due to their sex.

What is this nonsense about having testicles removed?

That's not common at all. And it shouldn't be seen as a a condition for anything because it's massive irreversible surgery with no going back.

To suggest this should be a norm is really unpleasant imo.

First result on Google, I can go and get more if you like @Fieldofgreycorn

Women work with Dave for some time and know him as a colleague/ friend.

Email comes round Dave is to be called Sandra and is using the ladies.

How can anyone not see why the women would not see this as ???

...

Men work with Shital for some time and know her as a colleague/ friend.

Email comes round Shital is to be called Ramesh and is using the gents.

They would not bat an eyelid? No posters thinking that could be expected to be pretty ???

a transsexual person changes some of their physical/ physiological sex characteristics

But the OP and this thread are discussing a 'transgender' person, who is quite likely to have changed nothing but their pronouns.

@NecessaryScene

Presumably that ordinary bloke would have a case under the Equality act, with the characteristic of gender reassignment: that he (who was not undergoing gender reassignment) was being treated unfairly in comparison to another man who was.

Actually, the "gender reassignment" discrimination clause appears to not be symmetrical. You cannot discriminate due to "gender reassignment" but there's nothing blocking discrimination due to absence of gender reassignment.

(I do kind of have some sympathy for the drafters of the EA2010 - they couldn't reasonably have been expected to figure out the full complexities of the ramifications of the recently-passed GRA2004).

However, the male in your scenario could plausibly complain about sex discrimination. If transwomen are being permitted into this space, then it is not a single-sex space, and hence the single-sex exemption that permits discrimination against males is not being utilised, and males can not legally be barred due to their sex.

I anticipate this being the next stop if TRA pushes succeed in stamping on any exceptions as per Stonewall demands.

I've said for some time that the Girl Guides, for example, fought very hard against considerable pressure, to remain single sex. Once they have capitulated and let trans mtf people in, I can well see a case being brought to demand access for boys/men because the Girl Guides (and any other organization that claims to be single-sex but allows males in with special identity claims) are discriminating against men by requiring a special identity they don't require of women.

@ArabellaStrange that link is to a page from a "gender critical" lobbying group and their takeaway from the studies have been clearly disputed - it's one small study and the outcomes are not at all clearcut.

You clearly agree with their lobby, but if you want to convince people who don't agree, or who are undecided, you need to learn what an unbiased source is.

you need to learn what an unbiased source is.

Because trans activists are so good at providing unbiased sources.

That's not common at all. And it shouldn't be seen as a a condition for anything because it's massive irreversible surgery with no going back.

And yet it’s ok for schools to set children on course for massive, irreversible medical interventions in the name of being trans affirming.

Shall we discuss the current statistics for the male trans people in UK prisons and the proportion that are in prison for sex offences compared to females then?

There can be little dispute about real statistics showing the prevalence for committing sex crime at a rate that looks nothing at all like female crime rates.

[quote Wroxie]@ArabellaStrange that link is to a page from a "gender critical" lobbying group and their takeaway from the studies have been clearly disputed - it's one small study and the outcomes are not at all clearcut.

You clearly agree with their lobby, but if you want to convince people who don't agree, or who are undecided, you need to learn what an unbiased source is.[/quote]
That's hilarious given how trans activists are determined to stop studies in their tracks.

Frankly, I don't give a monkeys if reduced testosterone turns a man into a purring kitten. Women don't want men in their private spaces. It's an instant boundary violation. The very desire to do it, should immediately preclude anyone from being able to.

And you only have to look at sports to realise that reduced testosterone does nothing, absolutely nothing, to dent the entitlement and male privilege exhibited by those who've gone through it.

Strewth. Women do not consent. Get used to it.

@flibberyjibbery8

Tread very carefully... trans women are viewed as women and therefore you may be thought of as transphobic by any perceived objection. Trans people are pretty marginalised and I doubt this person would change up their entire life to use a female toilet, so I think I'd ask yourself what is making you wary and why. Then decide how you'll answer this if asked.

Gov. Equalities Office still says.

"Use of facilities – a trans person should be free to select the facilities appropriate
to the gender in which they present. For example, when a trans person starts to
live in their acquired gender role on a full time basis they should be afforded the
right to use the facilities appropriate to the acquired gender role. Employers should
avoid discriminating against anyone with the protected characteristic of ‘gender
reassignment’. Where employers already offer gender-neutral toilets and changing
facilities, the risk of creating a barrier for transgender people is alleviated."

[quote Wroxie]@ArabellaStrange that link is to a page from a "gender critical" lobbying group and their takeaway from the studies have been clearly disputed - it's one small study and the outcomes are not at all clearcut.

You clearly agree with their lobby, but if you want to convince people who don't agree, or who are undecided, you need to learn what an unbiased source is.[/quote]
Should I post the link to the review of the studies published by Joanne Harper that draws similar conclusion to that of Drs Hilton and Lundberg that testosterone reduction in post pubescent males has relatively little affect on their strength and power? That is research by a well known trans activist.

This means that even if it was just a 'few' males who entered the female toilets who had malicious intent, the females in that toilet have less chance to overpower that male and get to safety. And that is even ignoring whether these males have suppressed their testosterone (which we are also told by researchers is very varied in success) in any way.

That and the undeniable fact that the proportion of males who identify as women being imprisoned in the UK for sex offences is so very much higher than female sex offenders.

So..... tell us again why safeguarding principals should exclude this subset of males please. Why, since this subset do not lose the ability to overpower women, yet demand that they are not impeded access to women's single sex spaces, should society be ignoring this retention of strength and power?

To be kind? Because like magic the words 'I am a woman' has removed the male propensity to commit sex offences as well as dramatically reduced their ability to overpower women?