The 51¹ú²úÊÓƵ of Warwick has been accused of a ¡°knee-jerk reaction¡± after a draft new code of conduct proposed that transgender staff and students should use toilets for the sex they were assigned at birth.

Warwick, like many institutions in the UK, has been reviewing its equality policies after the 51¹ú²úÊÓƵ of Sussex was fined for apparent free speech violations, and the Supreme Court ruled that women should be defined by biological sex, not gender identity.

A draft of the new ¡°trans inclusion code of conduct¡± was apparently mistakenly uploaded to the university¡¯s website on 13 May and has since been removed.

It outlined that trans staff and students would not be permitted to use the toilets of the?gender with which they identify, but instead should use the toilet for the sex they were assigned at birth.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

Times Higher Education understands the policy was due to be considered by the university¡¯s executive board, with a view to being officially adopted on 16 May. But staff are pushing the university to U-turn, claiming the policy is transphobic.

According to the draft, seen by THE, the policy reads: ¡°Trans people may use facilities ¨C such as toilets and changing rooms ¨C that are (1) identified as those for the trans-person¡¯s sex assigned at birth, or (2) that are identified as gender neutral. Trans people may not use single-sex spaces identified as being for the gender that is not their sex assigned at birth.¡±

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

This contrasts to an earlier version of the policy that explicitly stated:?¡°Trans people have a legal right under the Equality Act to access facilities ¨C such as changing rooms and toilets ¨C according to the gender the individual identifies as. It is important that all staff, students and visitors are free to use the most appropriate facilities for them.¡±

A spokesperson for the Warwick 51¹ú²úÊÓƵ and College Union (UCU) branch, who asked not to be named, said they were ¡°raging¡± after seeing the proposals.

¡°If they turned around and said, ¡®we¡¯re going to have separate bathrooms for people of a different race¡¯, that would be absolutely not acceptable. But because, somehow, being anti-trans is socially acceptable, they just think they can get away with this.¡±

The spokesperson added that they feared that such policies could become widespread across the sector if Warwick goes ahead. They added that they felt it was a ¡°knee-jerk reaction¡± in response to the Office for Students (OfS) ruling against the 51¹ú²úÊÓƵ of Sussex,?which saw the provider fined ?585,000?after the regulator said that its trans equality policy had created a ¡°chilling effect¡± on free speech.?

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

They said that the current financial climate,?in which UCU has estimated that 10,000 jobs could go from the sector this year alone, could be pushing universities into being ¡°more risk averse¡± as ¡°they don¡¯t want to have the threat of fines¡±.?

The Sussex ruling prompted several universities to remove their trans inclusion policies from their websites, with many stating they are now under review.

Campaigners have argued that some contravene the Equality Act, which allows for women-only spaces in circumstances related to?.

A Warwick spokesperson said:?¡°We are deeply sorry for the pain and upset caused by the recent draft version of our Trans Inclusion Code of Conduct, which was inadvertently published in error. In the light of the Equality and Human Rights Commission Interim Guidance and legal developments we are continuing to review our policy.¡±

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

juliette.rowsell@timeshighereducation.com