Lloyds Bank bans trans women from using female lavatories (STAFF)

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/df3faa6e03ba7129

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1trc0a6/lloyds_bank_bans_trans_women_from_using_female/

Good.

@AuntieFar and @LittleBearPad give it a rest ffs 🙄

Thank you OP. Let’s hope more follow their lead.

Transgender apparently make up 0.5-1% of the population, about one in a hundred people, large banks get thousands and thousands of people contact them on the daily basis so I don't think it is going to be that unusual for staff to be speaking to trans customers. It is not a much smaller percentage than people who use a wheelchair for example. I used to work at a large contact centre, I spoke to a trans customer certainly at least once a month or so, at least ones that were obvious from the voice etc, maybe more I didn't recognise.

You are talking about speaking - how would you talk to a trans person in a different way ? Surely you are polite to everyone ? What special needs do they have over the phone or from a call centre? I see you are referring to voice. Don't many places just routinely say " is it ok for me to address you as Lizzie?"
Actually this reminds me of when I had to chat to someone eg BT and the account was in my husband's name and they would only speak to him. I said ok , cane back on the phone and deepened my voice - I could hear the hesitation in the person but of course they could not say " I don't believe you are Mr Lizzie" 😂

Well yes it is exactly this kind of thing - if someone's record says Mrs but they have a deep voice, as long as they pass data protection you don't accuse them of not being the person. And of course not addressing someone as sir or madam (whichever is wrong) or the wrong title which you might sometimes do based on voice by habit. And being aware of situations where sex on ID might not match or some relevant documents might be in a previous name, how to process a deed poll, how to update a record and all the admin that comes with that. And just generally not being disrespectful, I had a girl who started work at the same time as me we were both on probation together, she came off the phone with a client and announced loudly that she'd just been speaking to a tranny - needless to say she didn't pass probation. Obviously that's an extreme example but some people do actually need a reminder that it's a normal thing and not to be rude or insensitive or make jokes or giggle, even behind the customer's back. Sometimes it is literally just a case of having awareness or understanding so if you find yourself speaking to someone different you don't get thrown off.

It also wasn't just trans people, we had training on a lot of different characteristics, some because they did need their accounts handling in a slightly different way, and some just for knowledge/ awareness. I remember the first time I found myself speaking to a deaf customer through a translator, I was really thrown and kept addressing the translator directly which they kept telling me not to do - I actually flagged this to my supervisor and they organised some deaf awareness training. Again, sometimes it is literally just about awareness and knowing what to expect.

Bank follows law. Great. 😊

Finally they’ve decided to follow the law. Reluctantly by the sound of it but it’s good news.

Hopefully the disgruntled male staff who like using women’s toilets won’t advertise their maleness by staging a piss protest outside Lloyd’s Head Office.

Thank you for letting us know that Lloyds have seen some sense, @SingleSexSpacesInSchools.

Among the usual exhortations to carry on breaking the rules, it looks like there are some messages getting through all round. This from the Reddit link, between posters A and B. (Thanks again to Jolyon and the GLP.)

A
You’re right that the Eq Act + guidance doesn’t cover workplaces but that’s irrelevant because the high court has now ruled that ‘sex means sex’ in the Workplace Regs as well. It happened when Good Law Project lost their case against the EHRC in the high court, I think it was in March this year. The judge basically extended the Supreme Court definition to workplaces as well and the judgement from a high court is binding. GLP effectively caused this by bringing a case and loosing. Honestly I don’t know why we still give GLP money, they mean well but they f* everything they touch. So Lloyds is legally right so best approach would be to carry on as before but be careful if you get a formal warning as that could lead to disciplinary.

B
Yeah, I've wondered similar about GLP but not really legally minded enough to know whether I'm right or not. Before the high court case there was a few employment tribunals that went our way and it looked as though they were going to force the guidance to be more inclusive but any progress that was made appeared to be lost following the GLP defeat. They also like spinning losses and minor wins as huge successes to keep your money rolling in. Unfortunately, we don't really have anyone else though.

A
I half sympathise with GLP because the law is defo against us so they’re always arguing from a weak base. However if you read their submission to that high court thing it’s a straight up dog’s breakfast, bits of it are incoherent or self contradictory. Even the Judge said so. And then although they lost they claimed it was a victory. I half admire them, they’re like a sinking ship that’s still firing. What grips me tho is they keep calling for money and they never tell the truth afterwards. Perhaps we need to crowdfund a case against an employer like the terfs do ?

Part of me almost hopes they do. The more people see who these men really are, the better.

Or hopefully they will. It might concentrate some minds if people at the top are targeted.

Crossed there!

Haven't they tried the crowd funding thing before a few times and it's been a dismal failure?
Seems TRAs aren't as keen to put their money where their mouth is as we TERFS are

I saw this on my news feed last night. Next item down was the M&S article about ejecting a woman who asked for the female changing room 😬

Perhaps we need to crowdfund a case against an employer like the terfs do ?

How can a case be brought against an employer who is following the law? Surely it wouldn't even make it to court?

No doubt they’d trump up some Bananarama reason why it was harassment.

@mrshoho "It goes against all sound business sense doesn't it! I will never understand it. Same with the likes of John Lewis, M&S etc pandering to one tiny section of their customers at the expense of their majority customer base."

The thing is, it's all about optics. You, I and they know that trans customers are a miniscule percentage. But it isn't about trans customers. It's about the up-coming generation that potentially represent their future clientele - a large percentage of which are utterly captured by this issue. Plus all the slebs who'll be only too happy to bad mouth their brand for wrong thinking.

Exactly this. It's very interesting when a previously trans-positive (for want of a better description) company takes this kind of step.

Possibly it's dawning on them that there's a need to be trans-positive and women-positive, and equal in consideration and accessibility.

We all know the gender movement requires women to have nothing and be jumped up and down on before they're happy, but they are going to have to grow out of that now.

I think that’s an excellent point @OpheliaWitchoftheWoods and that’s a perfect description of what TRAs want.

Like others I saw this last night and am pleased there is a thread about it.

Because despite those pretending it isn't a big deal (which just exposed them as having false intent on FWR) sadly it is news that a business is actually following the law.

Lets face it if we had 2 threads, one to list all the companies and organisations following the law, and one (the list of shame) for all those finding any number of immature, unprofessional, illegal and anti woman "rationale" for not following the law, it is obvious that the shame list would be many, many times longer than those doing the right thing!

What do you mean by "exposed as having false intent on FWR"? People of all opinions are perfectly entitled to post here, there isn't a mandated belief system or opinion you must adhere to to participate.

They've taken their time but it's still good to see.

Yes, they've stopped men from using women's toilets, as per the law.

Why do TRAs have a problem with this? What are the factual and historical reasons that women have to have single sex spaces and services in particular situations (toilets, changing rooms, prisons, intimate medical examinations, if they want to gather with other women,be lesbians and not shag men, or only date other women), and how are they relevant to the largely heterosexual mle population which "identifies" as whatever the hell they imagine actual women and girls to be?

I mean, these are all actual human rights for women that women had to fight for.

So could we be told whether men's ideas of "womanhood" ever really override the lived experience of the half of the population who are ACTUALLY women and girls and why? And have it eplained what similar experiences of oppression do men who id as women supposedly have? Can any TRAs on here point us to where 'trans women' have historically een treated as the legal property of male relatives, for example (in real daily life, not fetish), prevented from owning property or voting, prevented from working, having bank accounts or being able to make their own reproductive choices without censure?

If not, why not? And if yes, why would ANYONE believe women should be subservient to the men who are larping as them?

I wonder just how many transwomen Lloyds have on staff? One? two? None? Or is this announcement simply a PR exercise?

How would anyone know? Seeing Actual staff in a bank these days is like seeing a white rhino in the serengeti