Quote from: Shannon1979 on June 19, 2013, 06:03:43 PM
Of course my argument hinges on the disabled toilet being unsuitable, if it does turn out to be suitable my argument is shot too pieces.
Exactly.

I'm willing to bet that the disabled loos meet Equality legislation requirements (they'd have to, to ensure there is no discrimination against disabled people) so that argument probably wouldn't stand up. The case I linked to in my previous post was about exactly that situation, and the appellant lost her case against her employer because the courts considered the disabled loos to be perfectly adequate.
Which is why I suggested approaching it from the angle of feeling degraded or humiliated by being made to use the disabled loos. Equality legislation focuses very strongly on how a policy makes the victim feel. 'Harassment', under the Act, means that the company has done something that either violates the worker's dignity, or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that worker. So if Bethany were to approach it from that angle (e.g. if she feels humiliated at having to be seen walking into the disabled loos in front of her colleagues), she might have some success.
I'm very fortunate in that I work for a small company where we only have 3 loos in the whole building, so they're all unisex. But I do face the same problem as you ladies when I go out in public, which is why I go everywhere armed with my carry letter. It isn't a magic wand that gets rid of discrimination, but it strengthens my case if I'm challenged and it helps me feel more confident. It also sneakily mentions the Gender Recognition Act, because my GIC is savvy enough to know that most people won't realise that it doesn't apply to me yet.

This is its wording:
Quote
To Whom It May Concern
This person is a female to male transsexual in the care of this Medical Clinic. As part of his preparation for gender reassignment he is required to live fully in the male gender role for a period of two years. He should be afforded every courtesy under the terms of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. Your help and consideration in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
BTW, this is a direct quote from the Equality Act, proving that you don't need to have had surgery to be protected:
Quote
s.7(2) 2.24: The reassignment of a person's sex may be proposed but never gone through; the person may be in the process of reassigning their sex; or the process may have happened previously. It may include undergoing the medical gender reassignment treatments, but it does not require someone to undergo medical treatment in order to be protected.
So Bethany's boss cannot insist that she undergo medical treatment
at all, let alone before she's allowed to use the right facilities. Heck, we don't even need to have had 'the op' in order to get a GRC.