"Supporting trans colleagues through this difficult time."

Councilworker · 03/12/2025 22:01

Ive been invited to three training sessions on Trans/NB issues this week. Lucky me. Oh wait it's two. The first one if for the T and Nb only so they can set the agenda for the training.

Realityisreal · 03/12/2025 22:09

I tend to question further to bring a bit of sunlight into the room and also to not to appear to blindly agree, something along the lines of, 'oh, I've seen something about the case, I thought it was about securing safe space for women who may have previously experienced violence against them to ensure they aren't intimidated out of spaces, I know VAWG is, at last, a hot topic, was that the case?'
Not overly subtle but raises an example of women's exclusion while not being something that can be taken as openly hostile nor easily dismissed either!

Wbeezer · 03/12/2025 22:12

I have female friends in public sector jobs like health and education who used to be more sceptical but I think they trained themselves to stick to the party line in public so well that you can’t have a meaningful discussion with them anymore, they just won’t engage. They don’t have any confidence in their own instincts or thoughts anymore and just want to avoid saying the “wrong” thing and being seen as a fuddy duddy or a bigot. There’s a lot of cognitive dissonance going on…
i have much more robust conversations about gender with male friends in the pub.

Original poster

StopTheHyperbole · 03/12/2025 22:14

Councilworker · 03/12/2025 22:01

Ive been invited to three training sessions on Trans/NB issues this week. Lucky me. Oh wait it's two. The first one if for the T and Nb only so they can set the agenda for the training.

Oh you'll need your poker face for that one then! Good luck!!!

OP posts:

EmilyinEverton · 04/12/2025 00:58

StopTheHyperbole · 03/12/2025 21:59

So I've NC for this, I'm a fairly regular poster on this board, but I've been pushed to start this thread as I am just in despair at the hyperbolic statements certain people at my place of work are spouting. Ugh!!!!

Anyway, so, I work in the public sector, there was a big gathering of opinions on the workplace, all invited to chat, round tables, discussions etc. Key questions being: what can we do to improve? How do we do things well? What do you think about our organisation? Etc. It's a yearly thing that's gone on for at least 20 years.

One of the colleagues on another table (everyone asked to write down then summarise discussions) said the company could "do more to help support trans colleagues during this extremely difficult time." Silence round the room and then when asked to clarify, they said "due to the supreme court decision."

I had to physically stop myself from sighing out loud as I was right in the eye line of the person who said this. A young, fairly grumpy they/them (actual female though) from a different team. It's just such utter UTTER bullshit. No one challenged this view, a few people NODDED!!! ARGH, it's just so frustrating.

What difficult time? Nothing is difficult??? The court decision just clarified equality law, why the need for this hyperbole? Nobody is banned from anything, this over-dramatic language about a law being clarified to ensure that single sex spaces are respected in certain circumstances is just...nuts.

Anyway I'm venting, but it worries me it's so prevalent at my work, when we should be neutral to activist causes (as a public sector organisation) and it clearly isn't the case. I wish I'd been braver in challenging this arrogant, grumpy young person but I didn't. And I slightly hate myself for it, but I have kids, mortgage and bills to pay. I just can't rock the boat. HR and the internal equality team are very much on board with it all unfortunately.

Neutrality doesn't mean not being supportive of work colleagues who may feel they are being discriminated against or social pariahs or any other perceived difficult time they are going through. While you may not agree with the premise behind a grievance that doesn't mean its being untrue to yourself or being politically bias for not 'correcting them'.The necessity of neutrality being maintained in the public sector is more related to the provision of services to the public than how supportive work colleagues are of each other.

Unless you are compelled to act in any way that contravenes your personal beliefs I really don't see how a work colleague who feels for good reason that others may feel threatened as being 'othered' is such a hanging offence.

SternJoyousBeev2 · 04/12/2025 01:10

But if the colleague is not actually being discriminated against and is just unhappy about their unreasonable demands not being granted why should the rest of the workforce have to be supportive.

Why isn’t “ sorry you feel that way but women’s rights are also human rights and as a public body we have both professional and moral responsibilities to comply with the law” a sufficient response from management?

EmilyinEverton · 04/12/2025 02:23

Perhaps if you were excluded from being able to use the necessary public facilities of your choice as everyone else has you might appreciate the discriminatory nature of the outcome. Just because it's been deemed by the courts as a more practical outcome doesn't mean there isn't any collateral damage, compromise of rights or hurt involved.

Being sympathetic to other people's hardship however justified the trade offs were that created that hardship is just basic human decency. The idea that work colleagues should be at their leisure to 'educate' their fellow work mates on their 'interpretation' of complex legal decisions where the parliamentary approval of logistics are yet to be decided let alone any cases being tested in court against it doesn't seem appropriate or conducive of a cohesive working relationship.

Ultimately its management's responsibility to do the 'educating' once they are fully aware of what that actually entails which they don't yet & work colleagues being limited to offering their support or not.

MyAmpleSheep · 04/12/2025 04:07

Perhaps if you were excluded from being able to use the necessary public facilities of your choice

There's the rub; we don't agree that people "get to use the facilities of their choice"; we think people get to use only the facilities intended for their sex.

If everyone got a free choice to use whichever facility they wanted, I'm sure everyone would pile into the womens'. It's usually cleaner and smells better.

moggly · 04/12/2025 04:08

EmilyinEverton · 04/12/2025 02:23

Perhaps if you were excluded from being able to use the necessary public facilities of your choice as everyone else has you might appreciate the discriminatory nature of the outcome. Just because it's been deemed by the courts as a more practical outcome doesn't mean there isn't any collateral damage, compromise of rights or hurt involved.

Being sympathetic to other people's hardship however justified the trade offs were that created that hardship is just basic human decency. The idea that work colleagues should be at their leisure to 'educate' their fellow work mates on their 'interpretation' of complex legal decisions where the parliamentary approval of logistics are yet to be decided let alone any cases being tested in court against it doesn't seem appropriate or conducive of a cohesive working relationship.

Ultimately its management's responsibility to do the 'educating' once they are fully aware of what that actually entails which they don't yet & work colleagues being limited to offering their support or not.

Edited

Difficult to find any sympathy whatsoever for male colleagues who desire to impose themselves upon the female facilities. Of course they should be excluded.

sashh · 04/12/2025 04:56

I think I would have countered with, "I'm all for supporting people in different ways, but we have to be careful to make sure we comply with the Equality Act"

EmilyinEverton · 04/12/2025 05:15

MyAmpleSheep · 04/12/2025 04:07

Perhaps if you were excluded from being able to use the necessary public facilities of your choice

There's the rub; we don't agree that people "get to use the facilities of their choice"; we think people get to use only the facilities intended for their sex.

If everyone got a free choice to use whichever facility they wanted, I'm sure everyone would pile into the womens'. It's usually cleaner and smells better.

"intended for their sex"

Most households don't have or need urinals to get the job done.

SigourneyHoward · 04/12/2025 05:18

“Most households don't have or need urinals to get the job done”

Love such a retro take, it’s been a while since I’ve seen this one trotted out. Sad Times

EmilyinEverton · 04/12/2025 05:31

moggly · 04/12/2025 04:08

Difficult to find any sympathy whatsoever for male colleagues who desire to impose themselves upon the female facilities. Of course they should be excluded.

Show quote history

Men used to (& some still do) make the same senseless argument about women 'imposing' themselves upon 'their' work place 'inevitably' suffering the consequences of sexual harassment. But civilised society begged to differ.

Namelessnelly · 04/12/2025 05:35

EmilyinEverton · 04/12/2025 02:23

Perhaps if you were excluded from being able to use the necessary public facilities of your choice as everyone else has you might appreciate the discriminatory nature of the outcome. Just because it's been deemed by the courts as a more practical outcome doesn't mean there isn't any collateral damage, compromise of rights or hurt involved.

Being sympathetic to other people's hardship however justified the trade offs were that created that hardship is just basic human decency. The idea that work colleagues should be at their leisure to 'educate' their fellow work mates on their 'interpretation' of complex legal decisions where the parliamentary approval of logistics are yet to be decided let alone any cases being tested in court against it doesn't seem appropriate or conducive of a cohesive working relationship.

Ultimately its management's responsibility to do the 'educating' once they are fully aware of what that actually entails which they don't yet & work colleagues being limited to offering their support or not.

Edited

So where was the sympathy for women’s hardship when they said sharing facilities with males made them uncomfortable? Where was the sympathy when women were made to use mixed sex facilities instead of the single sex facilities they had the right to? Or is it just transpeople we’re supposed to feel sorry for?

Namelessnelly · 04/12/2025 05:37

EmilyinEverton · 04/12/2025 05:15

"intended for their sex"

Most households don't have or need urinals to get the job done.

Show quote history

Exactly. So we eliminate all the urinals in the men’s, put in more cubicles abd then males with a trans identity will have all the safety and privacy they need in the male facilities. Job done! You’ve cracked it.

EmilyinEverton · 04/12/2025 05:40

Namelessnelly · 04/12/2025 05:35

So where was the sympathy for women’s hardship when they said sharing facilities with males made them uncomfortable? Where was the sympathy when women were made to use mixed sex facilities instead of the single sex facilities they had the right to? Or is it just transpeople we’re supposed to feel sorry for?

Show quote history

Shared facilities has been around for decades but interestingly, the 'discomfort' is only new that's hardly a broad grass roots concern rather a fringe one.

ittakes2 · 04/12/2025 05:43

EmilyinEverton · 04/12/2025 02:23

Perhaps if you were excluded from being able to use the necessary public facilities of your choice as everyone else has you might appreciate the discriminatory nature of the outcome. Just because it's been deemed by the courts as a more practical outcome doesn't mean there isn't any collateral damage, compromise of rights or hurt involved.

Being sympathetic to other people's hardship however justified the trade offs were that created that hardship is just basic human decency. The idea that work colleagues should be at their leisure to 'educate' their fellow work mates on their 'interpretation' of complex legal decisions where the parliamentary approval of logistics are yet to be decided let alone any cases being tested in court against it doesn't seem appropriate or conducive of a cohesive working relationship.

Ultimately its management's responsibility to do the 'educating' once they are fully aware of what that actually entails which they don't yet & work colleagues being limited to offering their support or not.

Edited

”….Just because it's been deemed by the courts as a more practical outcome.”

?

Namelessnelly · 04/12/2025 05:43

EmilyinEverton · 04/12/2025 05:40

Shared facilities has been around for decades but interestingly, the 'discomfort' is only new that's hardly a broad grass roots concern rather a fringe one.

Show quote history

So if shared facilities have been around for decades, why are males with a trans identity kicking off about not being allowed to use women’s facilities? They could just use those. Or do you mean, men used women’s facilities and didn’t care how the women felt about it? And because women were too scared to cause a fuss, the men just thought that was ok? I mean, marital rape was around for centuries, are you saying we should keep that as well? Sometimes women do get their lives changed for the better even if that makes men a little bit sad.

Mapletree1985 · 04/12/2025 05:44

Wbeezer · 03/12/2025 22:12

I have female friends in public sector jobs like health and education who used to be more sceptical but I think they trained themselves to stick to the party line in public so well that you can’t have a meaningful discussion with them anymore, they just won’t engage. They don’t have any confidence in their own instincts or thoughts anymore and just want to avoid saying the “wrong” thing and being seen as a fuddy duddy or a bigot. There’s a lot of cognitive dissonance going on…
i have much more robust conversations about gender with male friends in the pub.

Yes, men know they probably won't be sent to Coventry or constructively dismissed for expressed such views. But a woman's job is to be kind. Not rational.

OnAShooglyPeg · 04/12/2025 08:06

These sort of staff surveys are rife in the public sector, I dreaded them every year. The responses were broken down per team, and then potentially again per area. The managers would take a divide and conquer approach to try to figure out who didn't respond or who responded with answers that didn't make them look favourable. One of the red flags was always bullying and harassment, and every year my team had someone say that they had been or had witnessed it. Every year the managers held group sessions gaslighting and victim-blaming rather than actually addressing the known bully in the room.

I either arranged some sort of personal appointment for when the meetings were, or if they were last minute just didn't say anything. I did once, bore the brunt of it, never again. I wish I had stood up more, but with bills and mortgage to pay I couldn't risk it.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 04/12/2025 08:15

Perhaps if you were excluded from being able to use the necessary public facilities of your choice

Women have been excluded from any public facilities at all so that men could have their choice.

No one wailed or held anxious meetings about that: apparently it doesn't matter unless it happens to men. No one was going to think about third spaces for those womens' comfort (and if they were produced this particular group of activist men would want those too.)

Men and sadly many women enablers too, having to respect women's rights in law is not a tragedy for men. They are certainly not going to respect womens' rights unless the law forces them. This kicking off is proving exactly why women have to have strong legal boundaries and protections.

I think btw that women who could not use a mixed sex facility were told to reframe their trauma, just abandon whatever history or cultural or other part of themselves was a barrier - vile ways to respond to someone's distress and I would never suggest that perhaps the activists who said this might now think about the men affected doing the same. But conversations now considering how to manage third spaces is a far kinder, more generous response than women ever got.

RepurposedArmSkin · 04/12/2025 08:16

EmilyinEverton · 04/12/2025 02:23

Perhaps if you were excluded from being able to use the necessary public facilities of your choice as everyone else has you might appreciate the discriminatory nature of the outcome. Just because it's been deemed by the courts as a more practical outcome doesn't mean there isn't any collateral damage, compromise of rights or hurt involved.

Being sympathetic to other people's hardship however justified the trade offs were that created that hardship is just basic human decency. The idea that work colleagues should be at their leisure to 'educate' their fellow work mates on their 'interpretation' of complex legal decisions where the parliamentary approval of logistics are yet to be decided let alone any cases being tested in court against it doesn't seem appropriate or conducive of a cohesive working relationship.

Ultimately its management's responsibility to do the 'educating' once they are fully aware of what that actually entails which they don't yet & work colleagues being limited to offering their support or not.

Edited

I’m sure we would all have to do so much work to enable and address the hurt feelings of a white woman who was excluded from a Chinese man’s association because she identified as both Chinese and a man.

Thinking things are things being true are very different propositions.

SternJoyousBeev2 · 04/12/2025 08:17

Perhaps if you were excluded from being able to use the necessary public facilities of your choice

why should I get to use facilities of my choice rather than the ones that are appropriate?

People sometimes have to be told “no, you can’t have what you want all the time”.

If they don’t like it they can do what numerous TRAs constantly tell women and they can stay at home.

And I didn’t say anything about colleagues ‘educating’ other staff about the interpretation of the SC ruling (which is painfully simple). Instead I suggested a response that management could provide. But it’s funny how transmen and NB colleagues never seem to shy away from insisting on educating their colleagues.

Coatsoff42 · 04/12/2025 08:18

Realityisreal · 03/12/2025 22:09

I tend to question further to bring a bit of sunlight into the room and also to not to appear to blindly agree, something along the lines of, 'oh, I've seen something about the case, I thought it was about securing safe space for women who may have previously experienced violence against them to ensure they aren't intimidated out of spaces, I know VAWG is, at last, a hot topic, was that the case?'
Not overly subtle but raises an example of women's exclusion while not being something that can be taken as openly hostile nor easily dismissed either!

I like this position, agreeing to support suffering colleagues, but also helpfully raising the other hot topic of VAWG as something to consider and temper the passion of the trans people. I think seeking a balance of rights and support is a fair and non-controversial position to take, and difficult to argue with.

gryffindor1979 · 04/12/2025 08:20

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 04/12/2025 08:15

Perhaps if you were excluded from being able to use the necessary public facilities of your choice

Women have been excluded from any public facilities at all so that men could have their choice.

No one wailed or held anxious meetings about that: apparently it doesn't matter unless it happens to men. No one was going to think about third spaces for those womens' comfort (and if they were produced this particular group of activist men would want those too.)

Men and sadly many women enablers too, having to respect women's rights in law is not a tragedy for men. They are certainly not going to respect womens' rights unless the law forces them. This kicking off is proving exactly why women have to have strong legal boundaries and protections.

I think btw that women who could not use a mixed sex facility were told to reframe their trauma, just abandon whatever history or cultural or other part of themselves was a barrier - vile ways to respond to someone's distress and I would never suggest that perhaps the activists who said this might now think about the men affected doing the same. But conversations now considering how to manage third spaces is a far kinder, more generous response than women ever got.

Yesss! Say it louder for the women at the back! ❤️