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!

I think the main provision should always be the safer, single-sex with cubicles with gaps option. However, I agree that offering a private, self-contained, single occupancy option is not a bad idea. There are situations where I am myself happy to use it: when I have a very heavy period, and emptying my mestrual cup becomes a messy process, I like to have a very private space where I can wash my hands immediately. On one occasion, I had food poisoning while at work, and I was glad to have a private space (for myself and for the other people as well). I had alerted a colleague that was checking on me.
I really appreciate the work you are doing, @keeptoiletssafe, as my sister has epilepsy, but I also think that sometimes people might have their reasons to choose something marginally more risky.
It also depends on the settings: what's appropriate in a workplace is not, in my opinion, good for schools, or certain public spaces, like a station.
There could also be campaigns about safety in toilets with stickers inside the toilets :)
Anyway, I'm glad, OP, that your workplace is trying to apply the SC ruling in an appropriate and balanced way.

In an ideal world, everyone would like the comforts of their home loo - privacy, just their own use etc.

Studies show 80% of people refrain from using toilets outside the home. I think it is more subtle and this figure obviously changes depending on location.

Making all out-of-home toilets cubicles completely private will lead to more deaths and more sexual assaults. It is situational but that’s what will happen overall. I track the changes. Making more out-of-home toilet cubicles completely private will still lead to more deaths and sexual assaults because there will be more locations for these to happen.

The most common call out for London fire brigade? A collapsed person behind a locked door.

Designers have tried to find ways of keeping toilets safe whilst completely private. For example, proper building regs mean no public toilet door is truly secure as they need to have a mechanism to open and pull the door outwards so you can get to a body. Stickers aren’t going to work. Currently alarms aren’t pulled when someone is attacked or falls ill in disabled toilets due to several reasons (pull cord doesn’t work or is tied up, people are too embarrassed, person is too ill to reach, person wants harm to come to themselves, consciousness is impaired before collapse, ‘freezing’ response, it’s too dangerous, it does work but no one attends). These are the things that have been tried: heat sensors, weight limits that open doors to prevent 2 people being in the same toilet, intercom systems that send emails to wardens if a person mentions calls out a certain phrase or sound, making the cubicle so small you can physically only fit one person in, doors springing wide open after a certain occupancy time. None of them are as cheap, easy to maintain and reliable as a floor-to-door gap for instantly knowing if someone is in danger.

Going back to your examples, your office loos are like a home situation in that you had the ‘luxury’ of being private whilst ill safely because it sounds like you are a healthy person normally and you weren’t alone - people knew where you were and care for you and would assist quickly. This is the best situation. I think you are lucky to be in this situation at work and I don’t think it was risky.

People with medical conditions and those who haven’t got a person in the actual vicinity who knows they are ill and will check on them, haven’t got those luxuries. Neither has anyone led/pushed into their cubicle where people don’t come to their aid. This can be in surprisingly public places.

If you were on your own in the office, I would recommend the office door being unlocked, having a phone next to you getting as close to the entrance as possible and phoning someone to come and check on you physically. This is the same advice paramedics give people who live on their own who call them.

Good case study thank you @Brainworm. Every employer and service provider should be thinking about the best way to implement the SC judgement and the more examples of good practice we have the better.

@Keeptoiletssafe I agree with you, the situation I was/am in my workplace is a luxury one, and wouldn't work for more public spaces. I want to expand also on schools, totally enclosed spaces are more risky, at an age when teens are more likely to take risky, inappropriate or violent behaviours. It would only work if heavily checked by adults. In school, even truly single sex spaces are often avoided because of the irresponsible behaviour of a few.

Yes. I have spent the last few years listening to views, trying to work out how to solve privacy v health&safety but the traditional, widely used solutions are there because they worked best.

'Protocols have been developed for managing non-compliance (e.g. reminders/ clarification, formal warning, dismissal) and for legally verifying sex, should that be needed.'

I'm curious as to what those protocols are, as I'd have thought that the ability to change passports and birth certificates (with a GRC) would make it very difficult to legally verify someone's sex if they were inclined to lie about it.

The judgment in Croft v Royal Mail when discussing where a transexual employee can be accommodated states.

Circumstances could arise in which any employee might reasonably be asked for proof of anatomical sex.

I imagine a medical report confirming biological sex would suffice rather than a genital inspection by HR.

For places that have one toilet I recommend that it is is unisex (open to both sexes, but single sex in use).

But for bigger companies I believe that "best practice" involves both providing the safest options (single sex spaces) and NOT PROVIDING more dangerous options even though some people might choose to put themselves at risk by using them.

Why on earth should less safe spaces be provided simply because a tiny proportion of men wish to uses spaces with women, and a proportion of women have been gaslit into believing that some men are women and vulnerable when they are not?

Fire brigades give their staff the best, most fire-resistant kit they have at their disposal. They do not give staff the option of using the less effective kit from the 1970s. Why should toilet provision not be held to the same standards?