Regulating Access to Single Sex Provision in the Workplace

[Brainworm]

We have heard a lot from TRAs about the futility of trying to prevent transwomen from accessing female only provision. I am sharing a case study that I have been involved in that provides evidence that this isn’t the case:

1. They reviewed their facilities and made changes to ensure adequate single sex and mixed sex provision was available
2. Clear communication was provided across the organisation that there are 3 types of bathroom and changing facilities – male, female and unisex and these should be used in line with biological sex (female/male) or preference (unisex)
3. They are in the process of delivering mandatory training for staff to understand the legal definition of sex and gender and to explained the legal framework upon which the decision to provide 3 types of provision is based. The training also directs people to who to raise concerns with should the policy and practice concern them. The deadline for all staff having completed this training is nearing.
4. All managers have been provided training to help them handle any arising upset, frustration, or anger. This includes directing upset team members, where appropriate, to the organisation’s employee assistant programme where they can access counselling and legal advice.
5. The HR team are aware of their duties to monitor compliance and have published the auditing process that they will follow.
6. Protocols have been developed for managing non-compliance (e.g. reminders/ clarification, formal warning, dismissal) and for legally verifying sex, should that be needed.

Senior representatives from the organisation’s Pride Network were required members of the working party that developed the above strategy. They didn’t want to participate at first but were directed to do so. In being part of the working party, they witnessed the commitment the organisation had to respecting rights and dignity of all staff and they did end up making useful contributions that will benefit their network. Some Pride Network members have left the network, in protest, but have not yet resigned. The organisation has good terms and conditions within the sector, which probably accounts for the lack of resignations!

Thanks for that BW.

I think that the TRAs try to forget that decent people (whether they have a trans identity or not) will follow the law. With the correct guidance and unisex options available, this means that most people with trans identities will follow the law.

That all sounds really thorough, just as it should be. Great to see the insistence of requiring the pride network to be part of it and also that there will be repercussions if the guidance is breached. With it being such a complete approach I'd doubt there would be any breaches. Although there will always be one or two who want to make themselves a martyr.

Thats how to do it. Impressive.

I think it’s easier /easiest in the workplace. I think there are more moving parts with public facilities.

Makes a difference when grown-ups are in charge, doesn't it?

That's an encouraging case study, thank you Brainworm.

I'd like to see a statement that the accessible facilities are specifically for the use of people with disabilities - there was an example on another thread of a 99% acceptable statement about access to single sex facilities in a local authority-run venue, but then it offered up the disabled toilets as an alternative!🙁

In cases where there is no gender-neutral toilet there may be pressure to re-badge a women's toilet or the accessible toilet as 'unisex'.

If there is no fourth space i.e. a unisex/gender-neutral toilet, males have to use the men's and females have to use the women's, and the disabled toilet should not be offered up to placate 'uncomfortable' transfolx.

I think the company concerned are appalling.

The evidence suggests that women are less safe in mixed sex toilets, therefore any organisation who provides them is basically saying "some of our female staff may be stupid or vulnerable or terrified-of-being-shamed, woke, virtue-signallers, but we would rather validate a man's desire not to use the men's with the other men, than do everything we can to ensure women are safe".

It's very difficult to be a twat if third party provision is provided and part of single sex provision.

If you do, you instantly mark your cards as a problem who wants to use the women not use the toilets. Hello red flag.

If you don't want to raise a red flag and you want to show you respect women, there's a simple solution.

This isn't hard.

Did the Pride Network argue that the policy was unenforceable because it is impossible to know somebody's sex and that there is an Article 8 right to conceal sex?

If so, how did the organisation respond?

If you want to be up on a disciplinary, possibly looking at dismissal and police intervention it's very easy to do too.

Make a choice.

I think these are unisex facilities so a room for single use occupancy and to be used by either men or women.

I think it's difficult to argue that they don't have a place, because they will be the only option in many small workplaces.

That viewpoint is taking paternalism to the extreme!

It’s interesting to see how this will all pan out.
Disabled people don’t even get to call their loo the third space and have the benefits of a single sex loo.
Now they’ll have extra wait times too if more people go in the accessible toilets.

Because of the designs differences, it isn’t a ‘neutral’ solution. This is because of the dangers of a private space leading to a public area. It’s worse if that private space is mixed sex.

I disagree with this when there is no option for a fourth space.

I understand the frustration linked to the perception that those who need accessible facilities are being edged out because the pool of people using the facilities has been extended, but given the small number of transpeople involved, I think the impact will be negligible. In an imperfect world, I think extending the use of accessible facilities to transpeople is a reasonable solution which balances the needs of all of the user groups.

They didn’t argue that the policy was unenforceable because the policy stated what was expected and
the measures taken to ensure it would be upheld.

The organisation has a very active Disability Network and much of their work focuses on safeguarding. The reps in the working party would have reacted strongly to the suggestion that sex isn’t anyone else’s business (their take on this hasn’t be gender identity focussed to date).

The organisation is very disability aware. Accessible areas were already integrated into single sex toilets and changing areas.

That assumes people are going to use the accessible toilets for the reasons they were intended. These toilets are used for lots of different things already which is why they are left in such a state for the people that have no other options.

If there is any excuse to misuse a toilet people will take it. Some public toilets don’t even last a day before they are closed down due to vandalism etc.

It’s a difficult balance but I find people constantly overestimate how nicely toilets will be treated.

Accessible toilets really need to be respected more.
https://www.euansguide.com/campaigns/safer-toilets/

Single sex disabled facilities are definitely something that needs to be done more.

Yes!

If they are going to provide single use occupancy toilets then SURELY the safest place for them is in single sex spaces?

We have two sets of toilets, based on sex, for reasons of privacy, dignity and safety. There is literally no need to provide any more, not least as every single person can use their correct sex space, and if they can;t then surely they have a right to use the disabled because they have a debilitating mental health issue.

Imagine an incredibly high-risk role dealing with HIV positive mentally ill drug users. Anti-retro-virals are available for anyone who has an incident which risks HIV infection. Imagine someone, based on no evidence at all, came along and said "I don't want to use those retro-virals, I want to use those other ones that we used to use until 10 years ago - you need to supply the old ones and make them available to staff who prefer them to the new ones".

The old retro-virals were only half as effective as the new ones, which is why we have moved onto the new ones.

If you were the boss would you provide a choice of retro-virals to your staff, even though the evidence was clear that if the staff used the old ones they were twice as likely to end up with HIV?

Can it ever be acceptable for a boss to give staff two choices, one which is much less safe than the other?

The risk of physical harm occurring in these toilets and changing rooms, even in they were mixed sex, is extremely low. You can never say never, but robust vetting is undertaken before joining. Should anyone threaten or intimidate a colleague, anywhere within the building, they would be immediately dismissed for gross misconduct.

Privacy and dignity are the most significant factors at play. I really don’t see the harm, and see the benefits, from providing a mixed sex option for those for whom this affords greater privacy and dignity. No one is forced to use them, it’s just an option.

No one is being forced into mixed sex toilets. There are single sex female, and male, toilets as well. Having the unisex provision as an extra option is the right compromise.

Many work places have just one toilet.

That's a fair point and I don't disagree tbh, but that is already true and I don't think that extending the user pool to transpeople makes that particular problem worse.

There is certainly a good case to increase the provision of accessible facilities across the board, but that is a different battle.

I disagree. Health and safety should be the most significant factors at play. Safety is an absolute right.

What do you think is extremely low?
There are many people who die on the toilet because it’s where you go when you feel ill. 11% of cardiac arrests happen on the toilet. You can’t mitigate for that.

There is at least one rape per school day in a British school. These happen in private areas.

The more I investigate, the more incidents I find. WRN found horrendous levels of abuse in hospitals (locations unknown). BBC journalists were the ones finding the figures in schools.

Absolute privacy is not a friend of safety.