In the actual Guardian! "The law is now clear: you can’t be punished for having gender-critical views. So why does it keep happening?"

[AlphariusOmegron]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/26/law-clear-cannot-be-sacked-gender-critical-views-women-sex?CMP=share_btn_tw

@lechiffre55 Mackereth goes into great detail, citing other case, about how someone who doesn't want to use a trans client's preferred pronouns might be accomodated in this case and others, while suggesting all of these have been reasonably rejected. So it might be possible, he could have continued working their but it seems unlikely.

One suggestion (which was then not tested) was that Mackereth avoid the use of pronouns altogether when interacting with clients.

It does seem certain that people can't be forced to state their pronouns or pop them in their emails. To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a case where an employee deliberately misgenders other employees because of GC beliefs, but I'd love to know if that's not the case.

I'd be interested to hear if any GC people have managed to work with trans colleagues or clients without using their gendered pronouns or misgendering them. I suspect it's very hard work.

'The aim of the proposed new requirement is to ensure that:
separate single-sex toilets facilities are provided for men and women'

Sex is biological sex. It couldn't be clearer. 'Gender' has fuck all to do with it.

I love the attempt to suggest that the 'norm' is that men use women's loos if they feel like it and everyone's totally cool with that. 😂

I'd be interested to hear if any GC people have managed to work with trans colleagues or clients without using their gendered pronouns or misgendering them. I suspect it's very hard work.

And have you ever managed to work with women without patronising them? I suspect that would be hard work for you.

The current norm, which GC people want to change, is that transgender people use the toilet which matches their own gender.

I would suggest it is possibly the norm in businesses which have paid to be part of the Stonewall Employer Diversity Scheme.

The fact that it is the norm amongst such employers does not mean it is the norm elsewhere. As pp says most of the employers I've worked with are not part of such schemes and have either single sex loos or for very small employers mixed sex loos.

The fact that it is the 'norm' for Stonewall scheme employers doesn't mean it would withstand scrutiny should a female employee make a request to an employer for single sex provisions, particularly if that female employee had specific reasons for not being able to be in mixed sex provisions such as because of religious belief or being a sexual abuse survivor. The larger the employer the more likely that they would discriminate against the female employee for not making single sex provisions, especially given that they are specifically provided for under the EquA.

So please do not assume that because Dadjoke says it's the norm you have to put up with it if your employer fails to provide single sex spaces, or if you are in HR don't assume you have to make all single sex spaces mixed sex. This is completely and utterly untrue.

The LAW as it currently stands allows for single sex provisions if it is legitimate and proportionate, it is hard to see how single sex toilets in the workplace fail to meet this. Obviously if you have a TW employee you should be sensitive to their needs and it would be appropriate to offer an alternative to the male facilities where possible.

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/employee-awarded-15000-over-failure-to-provide-female-toilet-facilities/

'A female security guard has been awarded £15,000 for injury to feelings after her employer failed to provide a lock on a communal toilet.
An employment tribunal in Glasgow found that the claimant, Vaneeza Abbas, had been subject to sex discrimination and sexual harassment.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/simple-health-safety/workplace-facilities/health-safety.htm

'Employers have to provide facilities suitable for any worker, including those with disabilities, which includes:

• enough toilets and washbasins for those expected to use them – find out how many
• agreed reasonable adjustments for workers with disabilities, for example, a worker with prostate cancer
• separate facilities for men and women, except where each toilet is in a separate room lockable from the inside
• for female workers, somewhere to dispose of sanitary dressings'

@DadJoke

My employer, which I won't name for obvious reasons, separates the loos by sex and has two single occupancy loos the are labelled male/female.

Pretty much every pub around where I live separates the loos by biological sex and means it.

Bannatyne is a major fitness provider that segregates by biological sex.

It's just so dishonest to suggest that just because the law does not mandate that businesses provide single sex facilities this means that they should be mixed sex everywhere.

The law cannot mandate single sex bathrooms because many spaces are too small for them.

The law does not state that a single sex facility should not be made available and actively makes provision for them where it is legitimate and proportionate. It is dishonest to propose that large businesses should only provide mixed sex facilities, and if they do they are likely to fall foul of the Equality Act for indirect sex discrimination, (a policy practice or criterion which has a disproportionate impact on women for the pc of sex). Likewise the larger the employer the stronger the argument for gender neutral provision in addition to single sex so that trans people are not discriminated against for the pc of gender reassignment.

Stonewall has taken the fact that the law doesn't mandate single sex spaces and twisted it to suggest that all spaces should be mixed sex with no regard to the women this impacts.

But anyway this thread is not about toilets. Dadjoke clearly doesn't want us to focus on the recent tribunal successes, hallelujah that the Employment Tribunals do have a grasp of the law and are applying it appropriately to these cases.

The fact that these cases needed to be brought in the first place has shown how far the reach of bodies like Stonewall and the TRAs has damaged the rights of female employees in the workplace. This redress is much needed and I applaud these brave women for bringing these claims in spite of all of the personal cost to them.

Has anyone else got Felix vibes from this thread?

Yes maybe the Guardian should circulate this to their own staff!

Not just this thread.

You've twisted the meaning of "mixed sex" to include spaces which exclude men, but include trans women. This is not what the law says. You can provide single sex spaces for women which exclude trans women, but single sex spaces for women per do not exclude trans women by default.

AEA vs EHRC

"The claimant submits that if a difference of treatment can be justified vis-a-vis birth men in general, then it is inconceivable that it cannot equally be justified vis-à-vis birth men who are transsexual women. On that approach, though, the Equality Act's gender reassignment provisions would in substance provide no protection at all, in the context of an SSS, to transexual persons without a GRC. The claimant points out that what has to be justified under s.19(2)(d) is the PCP in general. So if vis-à-vis men in general it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate end, then the same must apply vis-à-vis birth males who are transexual women. Thus, the claimant's approach would place transsexual women without a GRC in the same position for these purposes as all other birth males. That is clearly incompatible with the tenor of the Act, which plainly sets out distinct provisions in s.19 (as applied to gender reassignment) and in Schedule 3 para. 29, which apply to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment: over and above, and separately from, those in paras. 26 and 27 of Schedule 3 relating to sex discrimination."

Yes how the fuck did this thread end up circling back down the toilet?!

Jo's victory is a balm. Employers should be very clear that they can't discriminate against employees for having 'gc' views, and also that anyone with 'gc' views should not be bullied or harassed for those views.

It is not twisting the meaning of anything, to say that toilets that allow women and trans women (even those with GRC are biological males) are mixed sex.

They are.

You are putting forward your interpretation of the AEA case, I'm not going to paraphrase but there are alternative interpretations of the impact. Here is the SEX MATTERS interpretation.

The EHRC’s argument for having to justify gender reassignment discrimination rests on indirect discrimination. Indirect discrimination is when there is a practice, policy or rule that is applied to everyone, but has a worse effect on some people than others. Mr Justice Henshaw said: “The exclusion is unlikely to be justified if inclusion is possible while the ‘privacy and decency of all users’ is respected.” We think that if a service provider offers what purports to be a single-sex environment, then the only way to respect the privacy and dignity of users is to communicate this rule clearly to all. To avoid indirect discrimination the Equality Act 2010 requires that service providers consider whether there are alternative measures that would meet the aim without too much difficulty. The obvious alternative measure that protects the privacy and decency of all users is to also provide (and clearly signpost) alternative facilities that do not apply sex-based rules (that is, unisex facilities). This should normally avoid any “particular disadvantage” to transsexual people

https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Recent-cases-%E2%80%93-implications-for-single-and-separate-sex-services.pdf

Hence my suggestion of both single and gender neutral toilets upthread.

It's a complete lie to state that transwomen have used women's spaces for years. As all women know. And as ever, transactivists desperately try to swerve the discussion to toilets.
Because once you start discussing swimming pool changing rooms where girls and women must be naked, hospital wards where women sleep, YHA hostel dormitories where lone women face sleeping alongside an unknown male born transwoman, let alone inflicting teenage boys sharing all the above with teenage girls, then a different agenda becomes apparent. An agenda that is immediately apparent to all responsible adults.

As others have pointed out, society operates on the basis of the social contract that accepts single sex spaces to ensure the safety, privacy and dignity of women. Just because some men demand the presence of women & girls, undressed and vulnerable for their validation purposes, doesn't mean society should grant them their wish.

Hey @DadJoke
I have a hypothetical question.
A large organisation in a large building with lots of people working there. Members of the public are also passing through the space continually to interact with the services the company provides. HR thinks long and hard about accomodating everyone's needs, and the Equality act.

HR decide on a three space policy.
Single sex toilets for people born male. This includes trans women.
Single sex toilets for people born female. This includes trans men.
Whoever wants toilets for whever wants to use them. No restrictions of any sort.
All of the single sex spaces are enforced as company policy. No one may use a single sex space that does not correspond to their biological sex.
There are plenty of all 3 facilities equally accessable.

For 99% of the people this works great.
Some females choose to use the female single sex facilities.
Some males choose to use the male single sex facilities.
Some females and some males choose to use the whoever facilities.

A trans woman ( male ) wants to use the single sex toilets for people born female. The company says they must use either the male single sex, or whoever facilities.
Is this unlawful discrimination against the trans woman, and not allowed under the Equality act exemptions?

To be fair to DadJoke, when I met the transwoman (would have been called a 'cross dresser' at the time) in the ladies it was the late 90s. So I guess I would agree from personal experience that men have been masturbating in women's toilets for a long time. Doesn't mean it's okay, doesn't mean that women have given them permission, doesn't mean they shoudl continue to do so.

'@lechiffre55 I am not a lawyer.

As things stand, I think excluding the single trans woman from the women's loos is not lawful as it's not legitimate or proportionate, or based on any existing case law around loos.

First, you can make no assumptions about how many transgender employees you have, and the ruling in a company of that size can make no assumptions about it.

It would, at the very least, involve outing any transgender employees (and there may well be more than one). It's also entirely uenforceable unless you (a) insist on all employees telling the employer whether they are transgender (unlawful), inspecting everyone's genitals (illegal) or taking an enforced gene test (also unlawful).

It will also result in any GNC employees or guests being potentially subject to harrasment by people trying to enforce the policy. It is absolutely not proportionate.

The alternative is that gender critical people who object to transgender people using the loos which match their gender have the option of using the loo which matches their sex or the unisex one, which I think is a reasonable accomodation.

I'm not sure if it's direct or indirect discrimination, but it's certainly discrimination.

It would make an excellent test case.

Masturbating in loos is illegal. It still is. Whoever it was should have been arrested. Nutpicking doesn't really tell us anything. I remember my aunt saying she was ogled by a lesbian in the changing rooms - doesn't mean we should ban gay people from changing rooms.

t's good at least that you acknowledge that you want to stop it, rather than it isn't the norm.

Yes, I want to stop men invading women's spaces and sexually assaulting them. Surprised you think that isn't the case for almost every sane person tbh.

So, in summary;

You cannot be punished for having GC views in the workplace. You cannot be punished for stating biological facts or for saying that you believe in biological facts.
Thusly, to state that trans-women are male, is not transphobic. Seeing as the ONLY people who can be trans-women are biologically male men.
You cannot be punished for having single SEX facilities either.

So this sentence makes no sense: This is not what the law says. You can provide single sex spaces for women which exclude trans women, but single sex spaces for women per do not exclude trans women by default.

P.S. I have completely forgotten the significance of T W vs TW so have plumped for the hyphenated version. Not sure if that is nazi-bigoted, so apologies to all the grammar nuts out there. Speaking of grammar; when languages with gender use adjectives they are also often used according to f or m (or neutrum). Which is cool.

BINGO!
We got to the genital inspections - that phrase so beloved by transactivists for some odd reason 😂