Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Considering the legalities of single-sex toilets

6 replies

IwantToRetire · 14/05/2023 22:26

I am not posting this because I think the advice in the article is 100% correct, but more to show that recent media coverage and legal actions, has meant that mainstream employers are having to (re) consider their toilet policies!

Providing single-sex facilities is an aspect of work where de facto discrimination is potentially permitted under the Equality Act 2010. Preventing an employee from entering facilities allocated to the opposite sex is unlikely to amount to sex discrimination under the Act in most cases.

Indeed, the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 set out statutory obligations to provide separate male and female toilet facilities for employees. The regulations do allow for facilities not to be provided for different sexes, but only where they are in separate rooms that are lockable from the inside. In Miller, the claimant successfully argued that the facilities she was provided with were inadequate, in part because they exposed her to the potential discomfort of sharing that facility with a male colleague using the urinal.

That case involved a cisgender female employee who, by virtue of her sex, held a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. However, the outcome of the case may impact employers faced with the already difficult issue of providing appropriate facilities for transgender employees.

https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1822248/considering-legalities-single-sex-toilets

Although the final paragraph certainly seems to imply the writer of the article thinks the impact on trans people is what should be upper most in employer's minds.

Considering the legalities of single-sex toilets

How should employers deal with complaints about shared facilities in the workplace? Abigail Reynolds and Jonathan Shevlane report in light of a recent tribunal ruling

https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1822248/considering-legalities-single-sex-toilets

OP posts:
OP posts:
Hagosaurus · 15/05/2023 09:25

Thank you IWantToRetire, it’s always useful to see. Tribunal outcomes in this area, I’ll have a read when I have time later

PriOn1 · 15/05/2023 10:26

That article is highly confusing in that they misuse sex and gender, or use them interchangeably throughout.

PriOn1 · 15/05/2023 10:34

Apologies, on re-reading, it’s more subtle than that. In trying to avoid use of the term “sex” or “biological sex” for “transgender people”, the terms “assigned gender” and “acquired gender” are used.

But yes, it is framed as a problem for “transgender people” and though it is mentioned that (presumably) women might object to men in their spaces, it definitely has a tone suggesting that those women are not being reasonable if they object.

PriOn1 · 15/05/2023 10:42

Here is the paragraph. Sorry for the multiple posts - not so easy to skip between tabs on my phone.

”This could in theory be argued both by transgender employees forced to use toilets of their assigned gender, but also by those employees who declare themselves to be discomforted by the prospect of a transgender employee using the facilities aligned to their acquired gender.”

So men who claim they are women might be “forced” to use the toilets for their sex, while women (who presumably would equally be forced to use toilets with a man present, if that’s what the employer decreed) are not actually distressed, but rather merely “declaring themselves discomforted”.

Maybe one day, this biased, misogynistic reporting will stop.

IwantToRetire · 15/05/2023 17:06

I propable was too "kind" to the article as it certainlt doesn't inform the employer they have an equal duty to all staff and the rights of one group do not take precedent over anothers ie if women employee ask for women only toilets then that is what they should have. And finding a solution for trans staff should not in any way impinge on that.

But I suppose on first reading I thought well at least they are suggesting in a very low key that women do have rights.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page