Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By john cornhill
Got a real poser for you. A man employed for several years has decided to change his name by deed pole to that of a womens. he has provided us with information that he/she is on hormone treatment and in the future would like to have a full sex change. the company has done all it can to communicate this persons wishes to the rest of the employees. the person is now requesting to use the ladies facilities. A further development has now confused us because the person in question now claims to be a lesbian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sean Fraser
One for your HR department!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Allan Kerrigan
Same here let HR do the talking, you just look after the persons H&S.
allan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By bigwhistle
Is he an MP?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Hallett
Hi John
There is a potential for a whole range of discrimination arising from a situation as you describe it - none of which would be likely to be resolved on an open Forum such as this.
The earlier respondants have given the best advice - start with the HR Dept if you have one; if not, I would suggest a suitable Consultant be brought in.
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richard Mathews
We have a (not very convincing) male to female transsexual who sometimes uses the public ladies toilet on one of our sites and we have received complaints from some women. We ran it by our legal department who informed us that legally she/he can use whichever toilet they want to. Anyway, none of our people fancy arguing with a 6’4’’ 25 stone bloke in a frock!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Charles
Maybe the following link would answer some of the sensitive questions for which I am sure have been widely researched and legally confirmed.
http://www.wmin.ac.uk/page-1860
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil.D.Baptiste
Failing a lack of HR, (we are only here to make IT look normal),
Leeds has a trangender clinic with a counscelling service...they have lots of useful info...I cant find the directory but you could go through the Leeds NHS Teaching Trust
Philby'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By stevehaigh
Give him his own loo!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gilly Margrave
Steve,
If you read the guidance you will see that "he" is a "she" and that your suggestion is specifically ruled out.
"It is not acceptable to insist for the long
term on a transsexual employee using separate facilities"
Gilly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gilly Margrave
Why has Phil's very constructive posting been blocked whereas other postings bordering on the discriminatory have not?
Gilly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nick House
On a quick speed read through the above links, although I couldn't see any specific reference to the use of toilet facilities, the general inference is that as soon as the employer has been notified of this person's wish to embark on gender reassignment, and has started on treatment/ counselling to enable them to do so; 'he' should be treated as a 'she' (or vice versa).
As I see it, this means that you cannot discriminate against his wishes. However, to look at this from the other side of the coin, some people may have significant issues about someone going through this kind of treatment, and it would seem that the guidance/ law is biased against them.
I think you/ your may well have one hell of a can of worms to contend with here..... Best of luck.
If your company is large enough, would it not be possible to discuss the possibility of moving the person to another department where no-one knows them? You could sell this by saying that this could make things 'less awkward' for them as well, as effectively, no-one would know that 'she' was really a 'he'. Until the usual workplace grapevine sprung into it's inevitable motion, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil.D.Baptiste
Thanks Gilly,
I wouldn't mind knowing the reason for the censorship myself....I admit its not spelt correctly, nor explicit, but I genuinely could not find the website address...as for anything that was inflamatory, I think not, and as previously employed as an access and equality advisor, on top of H&S, and the first wife being a Psychiatric Nurse who actually councelled on gender issues, including that of transexuals...I am probably better qualified, by association than most to comment...
Philby' (normally the one that's devils advocate)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil.D.Baptiste
...anyway...
the issue is not the welfare facilities but a lack of understanding by the staff...the issue is that this person feels that the physical gender AND sex does not display the persons mental ones...ie one can be any sex or gender but have the very real sense that one or the other, or both, are wrong...
vive la diference
Philby', (not Kim but a true moral socialist)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gilly Margrave
Nick,
The specific reference from the government advice reads:
"Use of Single Sex Facilities
The employer and employee should agree the point at
which the use of facilities such as changing rooms and
toilets should change from one sex to the other. An
appropriate marker for using the facilities of the employee’s
“new” sex may, for example, be the point at which the
individual begins to present permanently in the sex to
which they identify. It is not acceptable to insist for the long
term on a transsexual employee using separate facilities, for
example a disabled toilet. Transsexual employees are
entitled to expect support from their employer including
any necessary discussions and explanations with other
members of the workforce or members of the public.
Similarly, a transsexual employee should be granted access
to “men only” or “women only” areas according to the sex
in which they permanently present."
Gilly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Salus
John, When they have the change they can use the ladies, until then it will be the mens.
Make a stand and take it all the way, if you are reasonable after taking into consideration every ones views I maybe niavely believe CS will previal.
If all just allow these sort of legal issues (no running in the playground / eye protection when playing conkers) to terrorise employers the country will get nowhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nick House
But it still states that the employee/ employer should come to an agreement as to when this transfer takes place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gilly Margrave
The problem with Salus's suggestion is in defining when "the change" takes place. The issue is not about hormones or surgery but gender identity which is a highly individual matter.
Gilly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Salus
Gilly, don't moan then when a man try's to go to the toilet while you are in "your gender" loo, after all it is an individaul matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gilly Margrave
Salus,
Why would I moan? I'd probably be too busy sniggering and making sarky commentss.
Gilly;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil.D.Baptiste
....still no response as to why my post has the 'test-card' up?
Do I sound agrieved?
Do bears c**p in the woods?
Do pedants walk?
Do the moderators over react?
Does anybody eat yellow snow?
Philby' the rhetorical man
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By AlB
This may bring with it additional problems - many men may feel highly uneasy with this person in the men's lavatory and likewise the women may feel highly uneasy when this person goes to the ladies. What about their rights????
Good luck - you may need it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gilly Margrave
It just occurred to me that most of the postings on this thread are from men. Maybe you guys don't know this but women's loos normally have doors on them.
Gilly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil.D.Baptiste
AIB
'many men may feel highly uneasy with this person in the men's lavatory and likewise the women may feel highly uneasy when this person goes to the ladies'
What are they expecting! What about the other men in your loo, do you know their sexuality, should you be worried (and vice versa for the ladies)...
I don't know about you, but when I go to the loo I want 'number ones or twos', then out, after washing hands of course...what are people afraid of? Or, what do other people do in there, sharpen their knives, strip down their Kalashnikovs, play the 'pointless sax and senseless violins'?
Philby' (almost sane)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil.D.Baptiste
I'm going now...to the loo that is...
if I'm not back in 24 hours...
kick the dog for me
Philby' (desperate)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Allan Kerrigan
lets not get bogged down in detail
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bill Fisher
Phil
You seem slightly aggitated that you don't know why your message was "test carded".
The Moderators tried every trick in the book to e-mail you and on every occassion the message was bounced - Name not known.
I am keen to discuss the issue with you - indeed that conversation may allow your message to get back on.
I am keen to chat with you, could you e-mail (use the link above) a phone number and I can ring you between 6 and 7 tonight.
Regards
Bill Fisher
(Moderator)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
This thread is a good reflection of british prudishness.
In France, if the cleaner is in the ladies toilets then the ladies go in to the men's. And vice-versa.
Politeness is of course essential - one may see, but one may not look.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bill Fisher
There have been a number of critisisms on this Thread regarding the "Test Carding" of a posting by Philipe Babtiste.
Those voicing those critisisms including Philip need to recognise that if a spurious e-mail address is given or an e-mail doesn't work there is little a Moderator can do. The following is a cut and paste of one of the messages being returned after many attempts to make that contact:
From: "System Administrator"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 8:05 PM
Subject: Undeliverable: Contact
> Your message
>
> To: philip.baptiste@hmps.gsi.gov.uk
> Subject: Contact
> Sent: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:09:19 -0000
>
> did not reach the following recipient(s):
>
> philip.baptiste@hmps.gsi.gov.uk on Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:05:37 -0000
> The recipient name is not recognized.
Without discussing the detail of the need for contact, I can tell you that it was a point which if we are able to make contact could result in the message reappearing.
If Mr Baptiste sees this posting and would like a Moderator to contact him then he should contact Neal Clark at IOSH HQ on 0116 257 3100 and Neal will forward the details.
Bill Fisher
(Moderator)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil.D.Baptiste
Aha...
now I understand,the spurious link is MY email address....
I informed IOSH of my change of employer back in September, the Yorkshire Branch got it right, and they were informed by the good people at the Grange, I also personally updated my details
Any way back to the point....
Merv,
you should try Croatia...went to a unisex loo there after eating something dodgy, or was it a combination of sun and slivovitz, to be confronted by a line of WCs, actually just a row of slightly raised holes, no partitions, no doors...
Occupants: 4.5, two old men, a thirty something women with child, and a very red faced Yorkshire bloke who, in the circumstances, had to go...and had to learn to squat pretty damn quick...
Philby'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Neal Clark
Phil,
I have discussed this with you on the telephone, but thought the information may be useful to other forum users.
It is the responsibility of all forum users to keep their forum registration details up-to-date. You can manage your personal information by logging into the forums as usual, and selecting 'update my details' which is located in the right hand panel labelled 'section links'.
This area will enable to update your name, username, email address and password. In addition, you can choose to have your email address visible or hidden from other forum users, and opt to receieve email alerts when a response to your posting has been made.
Thanks very much,
Neal Clark
IOSH Web Assistant
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By AlB
Phil,
I'm easy going and fair and I wouldn't give a monkeys which bathroom anyone uses, but I do know how other people react, and I do know how some people will deliberately go out of their way to cause problems, and this is an example of a situation that may well cause a number of problems.
I have commented a number of times that British attitudes has caused some scenarios to become over regulated and over emphasised. However, this is the situation we find ourselves in and we must deal with it as such, in order to protect our employers from liability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Phil,
don't know why, but your croation comments somehow reminded me of watford gap service station as it was about 20 years ago.
Try crete where the lady asks you how many sheets you need. (the more you take the bigger the expected tip) Now, you tell me what is the "Best Practice" and you are not allowed to bench mark.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By john cornhill
Hi again i seem to have created quite a topic for debate and i must admit i tend to fall in to Gilly's thoughts until we had a further development were the person in question made a pass at one of the women on the shop floor and the situation is now if we inforsed the use of the womens loos for this person we would almost certainly have a stoppage of work wether or not this was supported by the union.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Perhaps this thread needed to be headed GENDER and SEX, as all good writers of the modern feminist schools of thought will remind you these are NOT the same thing.
What is described is a physically apparent sex change the gender aspect involves the psychological re-adjustment to that the changed physical appearance. In this case the second change is running behind the first and I find the lack of understanding by your staff rather concerning. The doctors assisting this man will know whether the desire to change is real enough to continue treatment, the workplace though can be very judgmental with inadequate knowledge of the facts. Your HR should be actively working with this person and not placing them in this vulnerable position.
I personally do not have a real comprehension of how this person feels, one has to be guided by a sense of a deep respect for life. Condemnation and difficult questioning are not conducive to making difficult life changes.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bill Fisher
The Moderators have been keeping a weathered eye on the developments in this Thread and as you will have noticed a few postings have been removed.
We are still receiving contacts from readers concerned about the content of some of the postings. Whilst we are keen to give a significant degree of latitude, we do have to remember that this forum is primarily concerned with "health and safety" issues.
Following the postings of yesterday and the comments resulting from them the Moderators are of the opinion that the responses are generally straying from the original question posed and there is no further benefit to be gained in leaving this Thread open. As a result of these discussion the Thread has now been locked.
Bill Fisher
(Moderator)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.