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.

and you’ve confused the provision of single-sex bathrooms with trans-exclusionary bathrooms.

Single-sex female-only intimate hygiene facilities would not exclude females who claim a transgender identity. Single-sex female-only spaces are not trans-exclusionary, they exclude males.

You have purposefully mis-described male-exclusionary as trans-exclusionary. You do so in an attempt to claim the moral high ground for your male sexual entitlement campaigning.

You’ve demonstrated many times your energetic commitment to arguing, lobbying and campaigning for males who want access to women and girls in a state of undress to be given access to women and girls in a state of undress.

You’ve also made clear that, in your world view, males who do not claim a transgender identity are not expected to share their intimate hygiene facilities with males who do claim a transgender identity. No scolding of those males for being trans-exclusionary. Funny that.

I wonder what possible explanation there could be for your energetic and single-minded devotion to denying women and girls the right to the dignity and privacy of single-sex female-only spaces when in a state of undress? It’s a complete mystery to us all, I’m sure.

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.

Yep. He's behaviour used to puzzle me but now I believe he has skin in the game and it's not us or the lurkers he's trying to convince, it's himself.

The Gender Recognition Act should be repealed. It did not take into account women and the consequences. Repeal the GRA. Make men men again!!!

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.

Well, it wouldn't be a story, given that the ONS won't have bathrooms.

Any governmental office will certainly have toilets. It may have changing rooms. But why would it have any baths? I've never even been on a hospital ward that had a bathroom, and people are expected to live there until they're well enough to go home! (Every ward I've visited or been on only had showers.)

Thread after thread, I point out the meaning of 'bathroom' - an incredibly simple, everyday term - and he refuses to absorb it. Then he expects us to take him seriously on legal vocabulary and statutory interpretation. Buster, if you can't handle the concept that a 'bathroom' is a room with a 'bath' in it, you have no business pronouncing on matters more complex.

There is also this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-building-requirements-for-separate-male-and-female-toilets

'The government has announced today it is acting to bring forward changes to regulations that will mean all new non-domestic public and private buildings will be required to provide separate single-sex toilets for women and men and/or a self-contained, private toilet as a minimum.
The change comes amid dignity and privacy concerns from women and elderly people who feel they are being unfairly disadvantaged as publicly accessible toilets are increasingly being converted into gender neutral facilities.'

Thing is, it doesn't matter how often it is explained the exact same thing is repeatedly posted. It is an abusive style because of the approach that has been adopted and MN allows it.

I don’t mind MN allowing it - it allows his poorly constructed reasoning to be dismantled publicly and his inaccurate assertions replaced with the full facts.

Thing is, it doesn't matter how often it is explained the exact same thing is repeatedly posted. It is an abusive style because of the approach that has been adopted and MN allows it.

The thing is every time someone replies it is encouragement.

Just dont.

The intention is to hijack and derail threads so what could be positive input and move issues forward just become Ground Hog Day.

Join the resistance - just skim over the genuine posts.

LangCleg, late of the MN Parish (through banishment) used to write regularly of the Duluth Wheel and the harms of tolerating displays of coercive control not only in private but on SM platforms because, in some contexts, it's normalising the control and abuse of women. (I'm paraphrasing, a little.)

I remember Cleg - a very wise woman. Thing is, he’s never successful in his attempts to control or demean - he’s regularly annihilated by women who are far more knowledgeable, insightful and articulate. We have all come across men like him many times in RL.

Thing is, he’s never successful in his attempts to control or demean

That isn't the point. In responding it only inflates his ego.

It confirms he is worth listening to.

Do not allow time wasters to use up women's energy on what is a negative cul de sac.

And makes threads tedious and many who were contributing just drift away as the thread no longer has purpose.

As long as there is at least one poster who acts like Pavlov's dog it will never stop.

When I first discovered this board I actually found it really helpful when the detail attempts were made. I read all the links and went off and did my own research so was able to see the derailment for what it was. You then see the same tactics employed on all kinds of social media platforms and in real life. Now I've learnt to skim over and will occasionally challenge or ask questions. I think it's important it is challenged as comprehensively as it is done here with all the information linked and thought provoking questions made on flimsy arguments because there will be lurkers seeing this and learning. And how we do it without being agressive or nasty is notable. Terfs are shown to hold well thought through positions that come from concern not hate. When someone does get nasty I've seen it called out by other terfs on here. To remain respectful and calm in the fact of repeating idiocy from people who just have no interest in seeing the other side and are just trying to derail/convert lurkers to their ideology has my respect. There are some awesome women here

Christ on a fucking bike! Why are we giving any headspace to this complete knobber?

Terfs are shown to hold well thought through positions that come from concern not hate.

Only by people who read, not those who end up avoiding these threads/sub-forums altogether. What do you think the wider public perception is or even the perception on other MN boards?

Anecdotes to the contrary are useful but go completely against the arc of the published evidence that exists on community disruptors. NB: I haven't updated my knowledge since the narrative summary of relevant research in the early Bunbury/PSA threads. I've no idea how community/cultural disruption research has moved on from individual bad actors to the influence of larger scale bad actors.

As mentioned across several discussions, the secondary gain for disruption is on display and richly rewarded.

I don’t mind MN allowing it - it allows his poorly constructed reasoning to be dismantled publicly and his inaccurate assertions replaced with the full facts.

This is the balance. It's not always easy, and there are sometimes things which absolutely need to be challenged. Most of us get drawn into these conversations at some time or another. The fact is, that the position is so indefensible that only a certain type of person will try to argue it. Moderates aren't going to attempt it.

Hm. I'm not sure any posters using bots in that way are getting one over on FWR if/when we don't realise they're bots! Wouldn't that just be further evidence of the low quality of debate posters have come to expect from those arguing against women's rights?

Robotic repetition - par for the course
Bland expression - fairly standard
Generalised responses to nuanced argument - yup
Reductive mantras - soooo many
Lacking a sense of humour - check!

Hm. I'm not sure any posters using bots in that way are getting one over on FWR if/when we don't realise they're bots! Isn't any failure to realise they're bots just further evidence of the low quality of debate posters have come to expect from those arguing against women's rights?

Robotic repetition - par for the course
Bland expression - fairly standard
Generalised responses to nuanced argument - yup
Reductive mantras - soooo many
Lacking a sense of humour - check!

This is an excellent point.

I've seen suggestions that FWR is subject to expts. involving Turing Test bots and I'm not finding that as humorous or far-fetched a suggestion as I used to (although it was tongue in cheek, iirc).

There was a thread a year or two ago where this was definitely happening and I think there was some kind of script on GitHub. There was also a man scraping all our data into a database.

Delightful.

It's like the standard template for detective dramas where the detective at the heart of it has phenomenal results despite never acting by the book, having an over-use disorder, and/or negligible personal skills. Who wants to watch a drama about someone thriving or succeeding by following SOPs or validated guidance?

Despite the logical preference for evidence based research, it's certainly tempting to default to our anecdotes and personal experience rather than accepting research guidance. It's easier to deplore it in others rather than ourselves, of course. And it might switch by context. People might be tempted to disregard guidance on SM yet still be strong supporters of evidence-based medicine or value-based workplace HR.

I am waiting for a single example of a major employer which bans trans women from women’s toilets. It can’t be that hard. The sense of outrage which the ONS article is generating surely means they are doing something unprecedented. Either this is just confected nonsense, or you will have no problem naming the mainstream employers who do this.

@ArabellaScott yes, this is true, and it has literally nothing to do with the ability of transgender people to use toilets which match their gender identity. Of course, I could be wrong, in which case you will have no problem whatsoever pointing out to me those providers who interpret “single-sex provision” for toilets which do not follow this rule.

@NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision just so we are on the same page, I was using bathroom in the American “bathroom bill” sense. So, no baths are involved. I mean toilets, as other posters seem to have grasped.

@LoobiJee not a single thing you have said addresses my point. Pretty much every employer allows transgender people to use the toilets which match their gender identity. You could write this same article about any employer and their hypothetical gender critical employee. That’s why it isn’t a story.

Still no link to the statutory guidance which, allegedly, requires employers to take disciplinary action against employees who express discomfort at being required to undress in front of a member of the opposite sex, I see.

Still no recognition that it’s the threat of disciplinary action against employees who express discomfort at being required to undress in front of a member of the opposite sex that’s the “story” in this article.

Best get yourself a chair and something to read because I hate to break it to you but women aren't here to serve you! Why don't you do the work and educate yourself?

Don’t wrestle with a pig.