Thread by @2010Equality

[Thread] Good morning. Let's take a look at the new guidance for employers published by @GIRESUK recently gires.org.uk/transgender-po…

It does contain some helpful, EqA compliant advice. Don't discriminate against people at work because they are trans or are taking time off for treatment.

But it also contains a lot that goes beyond what the EqA says, and there is barely any consideration of other protected characteristics.

...in particular the PC of sex. It promotes a form of self ID where the employer treats people who are legally male as if they were female.

So it says treat people who identify as non-binary, gender queer etc... as if they are trans, and treat everyone as if they have a GRC ....i.e. with strong confidentiality about their sex

Rather than encourage a uniform or dress code policy which allows everyone to dress as they feel comfortable, it suggests making a thing of what clothes people wear

Transwomen Maggie would be disadvantaged at work by having to wear trousers they say, so should get special dispensation to wear a skirt.

Maggie, patients are not having trouble "reading" you as a women because of the trousers!

This recommendation makes for alarming reading next to the one on occupational requirement. So they are saying an elderly woman who has requested a female nurse for intimate care can be faced with Maggie in a skirt...and no one can talk about it...

... because they are saying that you have to treat what everyone can see (Maggie is male) as if it were highly confidential. You mustn't ask if Maggie has had surgery or has a GRC. You must gaslight the care home residents that Maggie is a woman & always has been.

Trans individuals must be able to use the facilities of the opposite sex it says. Unisex facilities (like trousers for all!) are not good enough. Colleagues privacy and dignity must be undermined to validate the gender identity of the trans employee.

This is *NOT* what the EqA says! The EqA says that single sex facilities can be provided. Offering alternative single occupancy/ unisex facilities would accommodate anyone who doesn't feel comfortable sharing with those of the same sex as them.

This case study is interesting for what it doesn't say.....which changing rooms is Joan using? Is it a mixed changing room or is it the women's?

There are a couple of clues....the other employees are explicitly noted as women (why?) and the cubicles are curtained (unusual in a mixed facility because of gaps and the potential for accidental or accidental-on-purpose exposure)

So Joan is changing in the women's, and the women are unhappy. The employer handles it badly. Joan shouldn't be in the women's in the first place. Everyone would be better served if the employer offered a single occupancy option.

But remember, GIRES says this option, which would protect everyone's dignity and privacy, is not acceptable.

This case is also interesting for the presentational choices made. It's the only time a transman features. So here the female transman gets the job over an equally qualified natal man.

But equally the logic is that if two people are equally qualified for a job where women are underrepresented in management, the "positive action" thing to do would be to hire a male who has recently changed their pronouns to "she", rather than an actual woman.

This one on harassment is fair enough. Joking about "trannies" at work is not on. But what about say, discussing the GRA consultation, or Karen White in the news etc...What if someone is upset and hurt because someone disagrees with their view that "transwomen are women"?

That would seem like a case to be covered, since we know that many complaints are being made like this. And people are losing their job for having "TERFY" views, but on this question....

Arguably the women in the case of Joan-behind-the-curtain (or Alex, say..), and Maggie-in-the-care-home have a case for sexual harassment.

Forcing women to undress and share intimate spaces with men, and to have to pretend they are women (look a skirt!) violates their dignity and creates a hostile and intimidating environment (this screen clip is from @CitizensAdvice )

GIRES does mention religion or belief, but the example it gives is extreme. Should a person who doesn't believe that transwomen are women be allowed to refuse to work with a transwomen? Of course not.

But the guidance also slips in "share facilities with" ....so single sex dormitories, toilets, showers, changing rooms. Refusing to undress with someone you know and perceive to be a member of the opposite sex, says GIRES, could be a dismissable offence.

A person has the right to believe, they say, but not to act. And, as they've previously stated they encourage employers to view saying anything that upsets a trans person (or a relative or friend of a trans person) as harassment (which is discrimination).

So that's all quite chilling. In fact the religion or belief PC offers a helpful way to think about how to accommodate people with different beliefs in the workplace. Joan can believe they are a woman, but no one else should be compelled to act like they share that belief.

That's the end of the thread. Except to say (1) Gender critical womens organisations it's time to put out some better guidance for employers, service providers and schools, on following the EqA ! (2) does anyone know the details about Alex Drummond's 2013 case?? 🤔