HR tell trans identified person to use work toilets that match biological sex. Person refuses. Colleagues complain about their presence in incorrect toilets to HR. What's the legal position of all parties?

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

Whats the legal position for the workplace (repped by HR) as well as the trans identifying person? Will it depend on written policies in the workplace? Or by toilets saying Male/Female on them (or with the recognised signs for sexed spaces).

Different from the NHS cases, as this time HR is saying "don't do that". Could the trans identifying person get constructive dismissal?

Does it just become a disciplinary thing for not doing what you are told?

This isn't actually a hypothetical, I read this reddit thread https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1ovzfde/hradvice/ along with the advice given to the OP.

(Do read all the comments if you have the chance ESPECIALLY the downvoted ones at the end by a user called "Protect-the-dollz" . I personally think it's awful there is so much disinformation and poor advice everywhere and people are risking their lives and mental health off of it)

Meanwhile, Scotland is ruled by a roaming miasma of smug and indifference.

There is a health, safety and welfare aspect to this design though (which is what legislation and building regs are for). This is the reasons we have the toilet designs that are single sex with door gaps.

Universal toilets you are describing have to be their own room, be sound resistant and private. Advantages: no one can hear you fart and you can clean things privately in the sink. Disadvantages: no one can hear you scream, or see you if you have collapsed (compared to toilets with doorgaps), they can’t be cleaned or ventilated so well as so they are scientifically proven to hold more pathogens, they are rife for hidden cameras, sex and drug use are more likely. Hidden cameras have been found in schools, hospitals, offices etc. Sex in toilets is surprisingly common so there’s a specific clause added in the Sexual Offences Act to prohibit it but that doesn’t stop people - it does mean it’s more likely to be where people can get away with it. Also more common than most people realise is that people have medical emergencies in toilets. The longest I have heard about this year is 6 days to be found in busy council offices. The universal design needs more components like ventilation and alarms, they cost more per toilet and people are in there for longer. All the disadvantages are mostly disadvantages to everyone but sexual assaults are more likely to women and children. Those disadvantages are barriers to a healthy and safe workplace. It’s also a pain when there’s a fire alarm. Checking all these loos individually takes a long time and a lot have to be fire doors.

If you go down this route, please be aware that the universal toilets need more supervision and maintenance.

@Keeptoiletssafe

From where do we infer the need for individual toilets to be “sound resistant”? I’m not sure that’s quite right.

Disabled people campaigned for decades to get accessible toilets because they need them, not because they prefer them or because using the non-adapted toilets would cause them 'distress'.

Handing over the accessible toilets as some kind of compromise or consolation prize for able-bodied transpeople to use because they refuse to use the toilet designated for them is not an acceptable solution.

But it's hard to tell from words on a screen, so I apologise if you were being ironic

I didn't and never have suggested only unisex available. It's just obvious and reasonable to anyone who isn't on a crusade that building should have SOME unisex facilities AS WELL AS single sex facilities. Anyone who really wants to use a multi cubicle room can do so. Anyone whose need to dissociate from their birth sex stops them from going into the single sex space of their birth sex still can still have somewhere to go. I don't care that they don't want to do that and I really don't care that you'd rather use the single sex rooms that I haven't suggested get removed and which are already provided. I do care to ensure that people who believe in the magic gender pixie should not have a leg to stand on in claiming discrimination when we assert our rights to single sex spaces, which they could succeed in without reasonable access to facilities that they can access without abandoning their beliefs. I disagree with their beliefs but I will defend their right to hold those beliefs in a way that doesn't threated the rights of others because only by iron-cladding those rights which provide reasonable access without threatening women's rights can force the fighters to admit that the only thing they really actually want is the right to threaten women's rights. That is when progress will be made.

On the HSE website they have an example of a reasonable adjustment for a toilet alteration as putting a bin in the mens for sanitary purposes for a man with prostate cancer.

I think the millions of people with invisible disabilities such as diabetes, epilepsy, general frailty and heart conditions, offices and other venues should be able to have safe toilets with the door gap at the bottom. That means single sex designs. Having researched safety for so many years I believe this option should be available unless it’s a one-toilet facility such as in a cafe that has more supervision and a greater turn-over by default.

I think we have exchanged posts on this before.

I absolutely agree with you that stall type single sex toilets is the ideal. It is what I am proposing for the majority of toilets.

However, from an employers perspective having, in addition to SS stall toilets, a Unisex/GN toilet solves the legal risk of discrimination claims on the basis of gender reassignment.

Yes, the problem is always going to be cost and retrofitting private, mixed sex spaces into unsuitable sites. Is it worth it in terms of risk?
If we’re going to be adding to provision, I think I may have told you my ‘ideal’ would be single sex accessible toilets (with door gaps!) so disabled people get included in the benefits of single sex toilets. It would avoid the problems of misuse (drugs, sex, dirt) in accessible toilets and a parent with a pushchair or child can use the space too - with it being safer for the child. The mixed sex accessible toilet would be the only one to keep extra supervision on then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqjvnkzgr1no.amp

@OpheliaWitchoftheWoods
Apologies - this post should have quoted @MyAmpleSheep's post at 20:25.
You must have been baffled!

The OP on that Reddit thread hasn’t posted any update, so I’m assuming HR didn’t leave them much wiggle room.

Document T

He has posted on amother thread about how colleagues in a previous job raised complaints about him in the toilets, making them feel uncomfortable, so it seems to be a theme.

Yes, he’s very rude about women when they aren’t doing what he wants. Not very inclusive or kind.

Thank you, this nails exactly my views too.

The accessible toilets would still be available to disabled people who need them.

I think many workplaces would be able to absorb the additional accessible loo usage from trans or non-binary individuals, but if that's not the case, they could add more. This is surely more practical and economical than adding a fourth type of loo everywhere.

In most workplaces there will not be a high percentage of disabled employees reliant on an accessible loo, and it will be a perfectly sensible solution not impacting on anyone else. I've seen this used in secondary schools too. A sensible thing would be to check numbers and with the employees involved.

In other workplaces with many employees and a higher number who do not want to use the facilities provided and labelled for their sex, a proportionate number of entire cubicled spaces can be re labelled gender neutral, and it would make sense for these to be one of the male facilities so urinals and cubicles available. Accessible facilities for everyone within the building. And yes, I know, less safe, but at least those going into the mixed sex labelled space have consented to be there.

I would add that the women who cannot use mixed sex loos, and are still unable to use mixed sex loos while the government waffle and flap and wring their hands and worry about what will men dooooooo, have had nobody caring one scrap, never mind worrying about what facilities would work best for them and how to cost it all. Those women - no one even knows how many are involved, no one's ever cared enough to research it or check on this - have just managed by using the mostly unused and forgotten loos in the basement while praying the male colleagues involved don't find those too, or gone to shops or other places. They have managed. It's been unpleasant and inconvenient and difficult, but they have managed. Any raising of any complaints have normally been shouted down and their inconvenience seen as a perfectly reasonable burden to carry.

Are men less capable? Why can they not suck up the disadvantage for a change, take their turn, and just get on with it the way that they demanded women should?

The ambulant loo is another type already in place. They are single sex and can take some burden off accessible loos as they have hand rails, a shelf etc. They are a very useful addition.

My post was about the system that pertains here. I was explaining to a pp (among other things) that the SC is indeed the highest court in the land and Parliament is not a court and cannot simply "overrule" SC decisions. It has to pass new law.

So the Supreme Court can be overruled.

Therefore it is not the highest court in the land.

I gave up ignoring what things are called before I left primary school. I only go on what they do and how they act. It's got me this far in life.

Parliament can change the law, but cannot overrule the Supreme Court's interpretation of existing law.

Haven’t read the full thread.

But the problem with SOME men not being allowed to use the women’s toilets is that the toilets they are allowed to use don’t contain women.

It’s not really about the toilets. It’s about validation, forced participation, and what they see as the role of women in that.

I can't use the toilets at work. They are unisex toilets - sink in the stall, but crammed into a normal sized stall. There's no real way to use them without setting the hand dryer off, which is sensory hell to me. So I waste my lunch break driving back home to use the loo and hope I can make it through the afternoon without going again! I'm aware that most people don't have the same issues that I do - but ugh!!

So the Supreme Court can be overruled.

Therefore it is not the highest court in the land.

Can you give the name of a higher court?

Surely it is transphobic to build mixed sex toilets for trans people when we know trans people will be safer in single sex toilets?

How does telling a man who wishes to be in with the women that he must use a mixed sex space solve any issue?

Surely inclusion matters. My local bookshop is for men and women, trans and not, black and white, straight and gay. So it should be. Everything should be for everyone, unless we have a specific reason for it not to be. We divide a lot of things by sex and / or age, for good reason. We have never divided things by gender because stereotypes are an arbitrary basis for categorization.

"Anyone whose need to dissociate from their birth sex stops them from going into the single sex space of their birth..."

A couple of the first things that came up on a google of "dissociate"....

Dissociation is a mental process where a person disconnects from their thoughts, feelings, memories or sense of identity. Dissociative disorders include dissociative amnesia, depersonalisation disorder and dissociative identity disorder.

Dissociation might be a way to cope with very stressful experiences. You might experience dissociation as a symptom of a mental health problem, for example post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder.

Yes, it is normal to dissociate, as it is a common human experience that can happen to anyone, especially during periods of stress, exhaustion, or trauma. Brief, mild dissociative episodes are not usually a cause for concern, but if dissociation is frequent, severe, or interferes with daily life, it may be a symptom of a mental health condition and a professional should be consulted.

Obviously we need to consider the needs of people who dissociate in one way or another, but surely the answer is much more about teaching resilience and providing good mental health support, and much less about changing society at huge cost in order that people who dissociate to the extent that it interferes with daily life are less affected?

Well I have suggested mixed sex toilets with gaps around the top and bottom of the doors to transactivists. No one commented. My thoughts are that they would only be used by men. The accounts and blogs (mainly from America tbf) sugggest that women who want to be men don’t like this design. It would be a new regulated design for this country. When secondary schools have allowed mixing in single sex designs it’s been a disaster. WRN have got some good pictures to show what happens.