Organisations changing policy since Fridays GLP/EHRC DECISION?

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

Two I’ve just learned of, DHL and a pub chain

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1r75xg4/bathroom_ban_in_affect_at_work/

sorry both reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1r70c3y/mtf_couple_told_we_have_to_use_mens_toilets_by/

any others?

Love the fact that several of the complainers have both "gender neutral" & mixed sex disabled facilities available but are planning on leaving work to go and use the McDonalds toilets nearby - presumably where they can find women to harass by their presence.
Tells you everything you need to know about their real motivation.

Interesting. So one of the respondents is now saying he’ll leave work and go to another location to use the women’s loo instead of using the unisex facility offered by his employer.
‘But we just want to pee’ (next to women)

We need more and more of the complaints that they are being banned from the women's where there are mixed sex spaces available too.

Much much more sunlight.

Cross post! Good that DHL is reacting (finally). A US company I think.

We have 4 types of toilets in most of our offices - men's women's, disabled and gender neutral - and there are still men using the women's toilets. I'll be interested to see if anything changes now. Last I heard they were waiting for the EHRC guidance before changing anything 🙄

I'm glad to see it's filtering down, this is one top down imposition I can get behind. I particularly liked the second one in the pub, not just the management but customers as well. 👊

"Somewhat emboldened by Friday's High Court ruling," the mis-informed echo chamber strikes again. 🙄

DHL was founded in the US but has been owned by Deutsche Post for the past twenty years.

This reinforces the point I keep making [or 'boring on about'] -
It seems disproportionate to require venues that already have men's, women's and accessible toilets to go to the expense of adding a building regs-complaint fourth space, when quite a lot of the mere 262,000 transpeople in the UK who just might visit your venue sometime will probably ignore it and head for the women's anyway.

Kicking off about being able to use a gender neutral toilet - so much for "we just want to pee".

Yes, and the other argument that they frequently make is that they can't use the gender neutral toilet because it will be too outing and it will breach their human rights 🙄 My team sometimes travel to another office, and I (and I assume some of my colleagues) use the gender neutral toilet because it's right next to the meeting room. Nobody pays any attention to which toilet people are using. I know different building will have different set ups, but they certainly can't use that excuse where I work (but they use the women's anyway).

Plus,.can't all the the allies also use then GN toilets in solidarity?

Also, the performance of leaving the workplace provides maximum demonstration of victimhood and being made awfully sad.

they can't use the gender neutral toilet because it will be too outing and it will breach their human rights

Addressed and dismissed in last week's judgment alongside the 'well she's taking her four year old son in there so .... random blokes can go in too!'

The judgment, as ProtectTheDolls has commented, has more or less brought the guidance in by the back door. And it's now going to be difficult for the employers if they don't say clearly to their staff, you are expected to use the space for your sex OR the mixed sex provision, and you may not under any circumstances use opposite sex single sex spaces. As confirmed is legal in that guidance Jolyon took to court to test.

Equally the judge addressed the issue of 'well what if we men just do it anyway' or 'it's all tooooo confusing' with a statement that reasonable people would get their heads around this and follow the rules.

It's going to need to be a condition of employment, with consequences for breaches. Men employees cannot harass women employees in a single sex space, or deny them a single sex space by walking into it and turning it mixed sex. Otherwise the employer may find the women employees taking them to court.

I dont think this is because of last Friday.

This is because, although slowly, some organisations are taking legal advice based on the Supreme Court ruling.

Not just businesses but also other groups such as WI.

Last friday didn't change anything, other than of course showing that GLP will apparently go on and on and on raising money to start court cases to try and reverse the Supreme Court ruling.

More worrying IMO is that Polanski is now saying it would be so easy for the Government to change the EA, why aren't they doing that to protect trans rights. ie advising anyone who will listen to him, that the UK should have an EA that has within in it enshrined that trans rights take precedence over women's rights.

The pub chain challenged one them - this transwoman's girlfriend - a few months back. Thought it was interesting that the couple tried again after what they thought was a win for their cause in the High Court on the Friday.

I did think that the whole sequence was interesting. A few months ago the manager changed (might now be a newly trained one who was conversant with SC?) A female customer challenged the GF (transwoman) in the toilets and then the manager backed her up. This time a member of staff came over (not the manager).

The post suggests that this couple do not look particularly like women (enough to be mistaken for) as although he planned to write to object and claim that this was an infringement on privacy he also says 'not that we are claiming to be stealth'. So claimed that this would out them as trans but actually looking trans anyhow?

It did cross my mind that as this is the GFs local that others in the area may know this couple from outside the pub. Leading to the woman accosting them months back and the new manager reinforcing this. Just a thought as they say they have not been challenged in other pubs.

It's long overdue for these people to be reminded that they also are expected to follow the laws of the land like everyone else. Very pleasing to see that in the judgment

How does one know that a service user has the PC of gender reassignment? Or should one just assume it from the lady clothes?

It's also refreshing to have a "it is common sense" response, rather than "but they cannot SEE MY CHROMOSOMES"

Yes, its interesting that using the gender neutral or Disabled toilets is outing, but leaving the building to walk to MacDonald’s is not.

I know it's not the point of the thread, but...
I find it baffling when TRAs say things like "a female customer challenged the GF" or "a woman followed her into the toilets". How do they know that person was a woman? Just because she looked like a woman? Is it all based on looks then? Did they ask? Did they check the person's genitals? How do they know how that person identifies?
It all sounds a bit like double standards to me.

My heart fails to bleed over that; they've openly laughed at women who couldn't access mixed sex toilets and had to go off site and find some single sex facility somewhere else because of them, and for those women to risk being outed as a 'terf' even by turning and walking out a space which they expected to be single sex and had a man in it. And being 'outed' as a terf frankly carries one hell of a lot more real and serious risks such as being bullied out of your job, and being wholly unsupported and turned on by your employers and unions while you're bullied out, than the largely imaginary risks of being trans in the UK in a workplace.

They would be very happy to continue on with doing that to women, and they weren't about to offer an additional facility to make sure everyone had provision, so whatever. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and those men are better off than they would like to leave women.

"This is the same shit that black americans had to go though in the 50s in USA."
😒
The sheer audacity of these losers never fails to amuse me.

Amused to see how so many of the actions recommended on those reddit threads are, unintentionally, very helpful to women! Loving seeing those entitled arseholes repeatedly punching themselves in the face!

🤭

The TRAs here took action specifically because they believed Jolyon’s misinformation about the case, that they were entitled to use female spaces.

Yes, it was so refreshing to hear that. And hear what many women need (ie safety, privacy and dignity when vulnerable) discussed as reasonable.

IwantToRetire More worrying IMO is that Polanski is now saying it would be so easy for the Government to change the EA, why aren't they doing that to protect trans rights. ie advising anyone who will listen to him, that the UK should have an EA that has within in it enshrined that trans rights take precedence over women's rights.

So Polanski and the Greens want to change the EA, and Braverman and Reform want to repeal it completely on day one....