Disciplinary action for ONS female employees if they object to trans colleagues using their lavatories

[ChristinaXYZ]

This -

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/30/ons-female-employees-disciplinary-object-trans-toilets/

"Women working for the Office for National Statistics face disciplinary action if they object to male-born colleagues using single-sex lavatories and changing rooms, documents leaked to The Sunday Telegraph reveal.

A cache of HR policies, internal communications and posts from the ONS intranet show that the statistics body has been subject to “institutional capture” by trans activists, gender critical campaigners have alleged...

A set of ONS resources on “Gender Identity and Transitioning at Work” includes a manager’s checklist for supporting a transitioning employee with a section headed “use of single-sex facilities”.

It says: “Have you agreed when the employee will start to use single-sex facilities, such as toilets and changing rooms, appropriate to their acquired gender? This will usually be on the first day of transition.”

The document says that “if colleagues object to sharing facilities with employees going through transition, the situation should be dealt with through communication, discussion and education”.

“If colleagues persist with unreasonable objections you may need to manage the situation via grievance or disciplinary procedures.”"

Much more detail including a response from Sex Matters in the article linked above.

Who would have thought that there were so many omega males on the planet?

The headline is a poor summary of the story, as there is no story if you say they are simply following the statutory guidance. Again “hypothetical gender critical employee who continues to object to transgender people using the bathroom after they have been told their employer is following the law might be disciplined” is not remotely a story.

I also think we can see some male
people thrive on humiliation. It is obvious and unavoidable once you see the pattern.

And he’s back with the same old patronising, dismissive BS…

i really try to avoid making personal comments but I've read enough of his posts on here to recognise that he is a complete misogynistic git. And as I'm a bloke and he's a bloke I fell quite comfortable telling him that he's a fucking dickhead.

It's a story if an employee's WORIADS belief that the employer is not following the law is met with the response 'get back in your box, bitch'.

Indeed.

The ONS are choosing not to follow the EA 2010 exceptions that allows for provision of single sex services for toilets and changing rooms. As for the Workplace Welfare Regs, they require that separate rooms are provided for men and women unless each convenience or changing room is in a separate room and lockable from the inside.

So no, not following statutory guidance.

And punishing women for objecting.

In my day we just called them dickheads or creeps.

It was a time which was much simpler and arguably easier.

As I say. Not legal.

As I say. Not legal.

But hell here's yet another thread where a dickhead knows the law better than all the women.

Who'd thunk?

You can get as abusive as you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that the EHRC statutory guidance says transgender people should use the bathrooms associated with their gender identity, and that pretty much every single employer in the public and private sector follows this policy. Self-righteous outrage is no doubt enjoyable, but it doesn’t change the facts. What do you think should happen to an employee who objects to this after these facts have been
communicated?

I’ve quoted the statutory regs many times, and you’ve confused the provision of single-sex bathrooms with trans-exclusionary bathrooms. Please name a major employer which excludes trans women from women’s toilets. I am sure you’ll have no difficulty at all.

back when the GRA was getting passed, did anyone really think that it would lead to supposedly sensible, logical evidence-based organisations like the ONS would start implementing shit like this?

“Associated with … gender identity”? How does that work? It must be via gender stereotypes, which are a fluid concept. Gender stereotypes have changed significantly in my lifetime, but sex hasn’t. Law and regulations work much better when they are based on stable, defined terms. Until the trans activists confused society, we all knew where we stood - or sat.

Gender is a bag of dicks and I don't want any part of it.

You can get as abusive as you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that the EHRC statutory guidance says transgender people should use the bathrooms associated with their gender identity

No it doesn't.

The latest EHRC guidance (Separate and single-sex service providers: a guide on the Equality Act sex and gender reassignment provisions 2022) expressly provides an example of lawful treatment, whereby a provider "decides to introduce an additional gender-neutral toilet. It puts up signs telling all users that they may use either the toilet for their biological sex or to use the gender neutral toilet if they feel more comfortable doing so."

The PC of GR incluludes people proposing to undergo gender reassignment.

Its difficult to prove if someone is or isnt going to undergo gender reassignment in the future. Therefore if an employer allows those with PC of GR into the opposite sex facilities, they basically have to allow anyone into the opposite sex facilities.

In these situations, the purpose of single sex facilities stop being for the safety and dignity for women and becomes a space for men with or without gender to use it as validation, for a chance for voyeurism, or to intimate women colleagues.

I cannot believe men would support their inclusion in womens spaces when its clear to everyone else why they are doing it.

iirc, several members of the HoL anticipated many comparable scenarios in some memorable debates. Memorialised in Hansard but quoting it was enough to get Vulvamort suspended from (then) Twitter back in the day.

HoL debate and questions in 2004, some extracts.

Thread app: archive.is/6Oj7G

As stated many times, the EA 2010 allows service providers to provide single sex facilities.

And workplaces are subject to HSE regulations that require single sex facilities.

That’s a fact that you, @Dadjoke, find it convenient to ignore.

And as for single sex facilities being ‘trans exclusionary’, employers can provide a separate room with facilities for anyone that does not want to use the facilities for their birth sex.

Well said.

Hopefully that clarifies things for you @DadJoke . You often seem quite confused although you are very confident in your ignorance. It’s a trait of some males that women are familiar with.

In these situations, the purpose of single sex facilities stop being for the safety and dignity for women and becomes a space for men with or without gender to use it as validation, for a chance for voyeurism, or to intimate women colleagues.

I cannot believe men would support their inclusion in womens spaces when it's clear to everyone else why they are doing it.

This. Only a certain type of man supports this. Most women have a lifetime of dealing with them in all areas of life. We see them.

The only thing offensive round here is the man who has a habit of telling women they are wrong and he knows better.

Even when the women can provide case law and legal exemptions.

Even when women have a shit load of robust medical evidence which is often a much higher quality than the 'look I googled and here's 300 studies for you to look which prove my point at but hell I can't be arsed to actually read them and see if they do actually prove my point'

Some might go so far as to say this bloke was sexist and in the habit of mansplaining, but I'm sure I'll be told something along the lines that the man in question has godlike ability and should be a Marvel superhero.

Shrug.

Yep. We get It.

And yet no link to the statutory guidance which, supposedly, requires employers to discipline female employees who object to male employees watching them get undressed in the female changing rooms, thus making the ONS’s threat of disciplinary action against staff uncomfortable disrobing in front of members of the opposite sex the “non-story” DadJoke asserts it to be.

It‘s the pattern of his posts. He asserts something, throws in his (inaccurate)interpretation, adds a few links that have no legal basis, repeats assertions, ignores the posters who explain where he’s factually incorrect, repeats assertions, ignores again, disappears from thread.