Recent one of our members wrote an open letter to the membership bodies asking for online placements to be considered a reasonable adjustment for disabled trainees.
Very briefly, the letter argues that not all placements will be accessible, which leaves some trainees on a training course that requires a placement that the trainee must find for themselves, but a placement has no requirement to make itself accessible, and the membership bodies refuse to accept a wholly online placement even if there is no physical placement accessible to the student. This means that the trainee is stuck in an impossible situation of not being able to qualify without a placement, and not being able to physically enter a placement to qualify, whilst not being allowed to complete a placement that would give them the hours.
It is worth signing on that basis alone, however, we want to talk here about the recent high court decisions that will impact trans trainees. Whilst reasonable adjustments are usually thought of as being something ‘for disability’, what we are actually talking about here in relation to this issue with BACP, is an ‘access need’. What do students whose access to placement is limited or non-existent as a result of a protected characteristic need in structural terms in order to complete their placements?
Let us create a fictional person for you and demonstrate.
Marie is a 32 year old trans woman who has five or six placements available in her local area (within an hour’s drive). She has had excellent feedback on her skills practice. Her tutors are telling her they are looking forward to her going into placement next month. She has obtained her readiness to practice and shows herself to be an excellent trainee. Three of the placements in her area are in the subject area that she would like to specialise in, but she would happily accept a placement in any of these and is in the process of interviewing.
Marie is sometimes read as trans, but not always. She does not want to disclose at interview that she is trans, as she doesn’t feel it’s relevant to the work she wants to do. If the environment feels safe once she has gained a placement, she is happy to consider this.
However, in February, the high court ruled on the interim EHRC guidance and it appears to suggest that if toilets in a place of employment are cubicles, that Marie would be forced to use the men’s toilets if there are no accessible toilets in the building.
Marie has asked around and discovered that two placements locally have accessible toilets, but the other four don’t. Unfortunately for Marie, she does not gain a place at either placement with an accessible toilet but gains three offers at places without an accessible toilet.
If none of these places has single ‘rooms’ rather than cubicles, Marie cannot legally use the women’s toilet and would be forced into using the men’s, a position that she feels is degrading and humiliating were she to be seen be other staff or clients. It forces her to out herself against her desire, or risks her being viewed as someone incapable of following rules (or worse).
If she is not willing to take that risk, she must go without using the toilet, which also means that she must also go without drinking for the large part of the day, as her placements want her to see clients every 90 minutes, and she travels up to an hour to get to placement. That is 2 hours’ travel, plus 2-3 hours of clients, plus the 30 minute space between, plus any administration time needed. Marie would be regularly going 6-7 hours without using the toilet.
The law and guidance will be fought out in the courts. But none of this happens fast (and may not find in trans’ people’s favour). If Marie was an undergraduate student all of this potentially happened after she became a student. Now she has to decide whether her personal safety is more important than BACP/NCPS’ idea of reasonable adjustments.
Unfortunately, because BACP and NCPS refuse to allow a wholly online placement, her safety does not matter. She either takes the risk, or stops training. Both BACP and NCPS seem to suggest that ‘taking longer’ is an option (the law may not change), and that ‘not wanting to travel’ is not an option. In already being willing to travel an hour when there are several places Marie has been offered a place, we at TACTT would suggest that this is unreasonable, especially for people in more rural areas. How far is too far?
‘Marie’ isn’t a single person here. Marie could also be a trans man, forced to walk into the women’s toilets. There are currently dozens of Maries in training across the country, many of whom know that they are now in an impossible position. Placements have the toilets they have and this will not change. Students will actively lose placements as a result of this and many more who are out about being trans (or who are suspected of such) will not be offered a placement as a result of this issue. The landscape is becoming significantly more hostile to trans people, and our membership bodies are the only people who can ensure that discrimination isn’t a reason why trans and disabled (and trans disabled) students can’t complete a placement.
If you agree with us that it should not be possible to force a trainee into this position then please join us in signing this open letter.
Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia 