Co-op removes trans inclusive toilet policy

[IwantToRetire]

The Co-op’s previous internal policy stated: “If the toilets where you work are gender-specific, you should use the ones you feel safest in. We’ll never expect you, or ask you, to use the disabled toilets instead, but of course if you feel most comfortable using them, then that’s fine.”

These sentences have been removed from the policy, which now states: “We know that for people who identify as trans, or non-binary, or intersex, it’s [sic] may be difficult to feel comfortable and/or safe using gendered toilets. For the comfort and privacy of all colleagues, wherever possible we will provide gender-neutral individual lockable units, with inclusive signage.”

It is not clear yet what this will mean in practice.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/6772d1ec-d619-4e4f-b952-395e268f63bb and archive at https://archive.ph/9JMRb

@ColorMeSurprised

As I, and others have stated already, Co-Op tend to have smaller stores and those stores almost overwhelming have only one toilet space in them.

I used to work for the Co-op at a corporate level and visited many stores. I'd be interested to know where you got your information that they "overwhelming [sic] have only one toilet space in them".

Patronising us doesn't work, mate. Nor does trying to rile us up. Pet.

Probably from a jamboree bag, like the rest of his information.

Do you agree that in workplaces with more than one staff toilet, with the usual configuration of two sets of toilets, one designated for women and one for men, and adapted toilets for the use of disabled employees, the employer is obliged to require trans employees [unless disabled] to use the toilet designated for their biological sex, not their gender ID?

That's all they're being asked to do - confirm that company policy is in accordance with the EA2010/Workplace Regs 1992, and require employees to comply with company policy.

Yes. I always want to say is that yoooo ( insert selection of girly names). But sense kicks in.

I wonder if they are having Angel Delight for tea?

I'm on the custard slices personally. I may even stick my little finger out like a lady.

Plenty of small workplaces have just one toilet for staff, male and female. They are contained units with a sink and hand dryer. I have worked in these establishments and there has never been a problem

Oh what a shame. I’m sure he’ll be back.

Returning to the original post - apart from the regulatory requirements of providing single sex spaces, what is being pointed out in the Co-op's statement is this recurring feature:
Organisations angsting about upsetting their trans et al. employees because they ave to tell them to respect single sex spaces, and in so doing they might as well put up big Jenny Holzer-style neon signs that they didn't give a damn about their women employees when they abandoned single sex spaces, and still don't give a damn about their women employees because they are still too busy angsting about their trans et al. employees' feelings.
[big sign; lots of neon]

It doesn't occur to all these organisations that they have women employees - most probably a lot more than trans et al. employees - who were never consulted about the withdrawal of their right to single sex spaces in the first place, and who are now very pleased to have that right re-established.

Where is the statement of concern about their women employees' privacy, dignity and comfort?

This is the not-so-hidden meaning behind these statements which have proliferated since it dawned on people that no, it's not complicated and yes, regulations and laws apply to everybody.

Gosh. All his posts are gone. It wasn't me Pet Guv. My syntax was playing up.
But till the next time, toodleoo.

And back on topic.

The Co-Op could make things much clearer to comply with its responsibilities to all employees. Favouring men to the extent of depriving women of their rights, is not in keeping with its original ethos, as well as being unlawful.

Privacy and decency should be afforded to all employees. Not to the detriment of those who want a dedicated single sex space, according to laws that have been in place for decades.

Yes, there are small workplaces, and that's understood, and covered by the Workplace Regs., Building Regs etc.
That's not the point - the point is that where there are separate men's and women's facilities - which has been the usual configuration for yonks - all people have to use the facility which is designated for their biological sex.
They are single-sex spaces, not single gender spaces.

I think you haven't quite grasped the issue.

Which is that many organisations, are saying they aren't going to obey the law.

Which is a strange concept in the UK, but apparently okay if the law is only about protecting women's sex based rights. And because it is about women obviously it is relevant on a forum about Women's Rights.

Admittedly, it was posted as a point of information, and if nobody wanted to say anything it wouldn't matter. Because it is just part of the pattern of behaviour of supposedly law abiding people in the UK.

But then women remain second class citizens not just in the law, but health etc., etc..

And some of us, perhaps foolishly think that is why feminism is still needed.

One advantage of often coming to threads late in the day is that I dont always see the pathetic attempts of those who have nothing better to do than insult women. Or whatever.

Great to be able to whizz over all the deleted posts, and just focus on the genuine ones!

It doesn't occur to all these organisations that they have women employees - most probably a lot more than trans et al. employees - who were never consulted about the withdrawal of their right to single sex spaces in the first place, and who are now very pleased to have that right re-established.

Where is the statement of concern about their women employees' privacy, dignity and comfort?

This is the not-so-hidden meaning behind these statements which have proliferated since it dawned on people that no, it's not complicated and yes, regulations and laws apply to everybody.

Absolutely. Even all the campaigns, court cases, protests, the male dominated world remains ... male dominated. ie TW are more important than biological women.

And if any of us ever doubted the power of male bonding in the past, here we have an overt representation of it. If the law isn't convenient to them then men can ignore it.

I said, in my post, "And AFAIK, people with DSDs really don't like being bundled in alongside the cross-dressing/blue-haired brigade."

I did not say there is a 'problem' with blue hair. I mentioned it to identify the group/tribe of people who cross-dress and/or often dye their hair blue (I've no idea why). It's a cliché, yes, but certainly a tribal marker, alongside piercings and walking sticks.

This thread is like swiss cheese.
Someone has been naughty, haven't they?

Anybody would think that the legislation is new when it obviously isn't.
Stonewall et al must take their fair share of the blame for misleading trans people, leading to TW using the incorrect spaces, including toilets, for their sex.
Meanwhile, I guess they might have buckets at the ready

You still don't seem to grasp the issue. It's about where males can pee.

@MintBird didn't specifically reference trans-men, though.

I don't think that's true. I'm not going to read it all but AI tells me that piece of legislation allows all toilet facilities to be gender neutral as long as each cubicle has hand washing facilities inside it and is lockable.

That seems like a perfectly reasonable solution to me.

I shop in Coop stores in the north west and all of them that have a toilet have one toilet that is gender neutral. All the Aldi and Lidl strikes are the same, and they are much bigger stores.

Shell garages are all the same in this area.

So are all the 5 Costa shops I use, only they normally have more than one. KFC, Greggs, the list goes on and on.

And I've never seen a sexed disabled loo in my life.

There is no problem whatsoever with exclusively gender neutral facilities and it is doing no favours to the female side of trans discussions to insist that there is, it simply makes gender critical women sound as mad as the trans zealots (without the violence).

If all single sex toilets are replaced with unisex there will be fewer of them as they take up more space and people will take longer to use them so they will result in longer queues in busy venues

Plus the fact that unisex toilets are not as safe as communal single sex toilets with door gaps

In any case, the announcement was about staff toilets not customer ones

I'm talking about staff toilets.

ETA. Smaller Co-ops don't tend to have customer toilets.

Well the new one 200m from my house does.

Of course there’s problems with mixed sex toilets. However, the fact there’s only one toilet in smaller places does give some safeguards but the toilet needs to be in a visible position near the entrance so it is as monitored as much as possible.

Also when there’s one toilet, it will often be accessible so as many customers can use it as possible.

As much as you want to @imdunfer you can’t change ADT or ADM or the myriad of other health and safety legislation, regulations and guidelines.

In places with no public toilets (much of the country!) new supermarkets will build one in and this may be part of a community scheme with the council. It’s not some sort of gotcha. It’s just local planning. Councils are under no obligation to provide public toilets and they cost a fortune to maintain (often due to misuse) so they look favourably on businesses that allow toilets to be used by the public on their premises.