M&S changing rooms

Again, depends how the space has been labelled and whether implied use is as strong as direct labelling.

The real world application is muddy. You may not like it, but it simply is. And no one is ‘wrong’ for pointing out that is confusing and it will be until all policies are updated clearly.

Shocking how many people are tying themselves in knots to excuse the fact that equality for women has been removed.

They used to be labelled.

And yourself to see above yet again – where I said that implied use would have to be clarified.

They are not labelled though. They are simply situated where the women’s clothing is. Another issue that may come up is whether ‘implied’ is as good as formally labelled.

Trying on bras is absolutely a real world scenario so I don't know why you are pretending otherwise.

The shop may not have it written down word for word that they MUST provide single sex spaces but they will be cautioned to consider how certain groups could suffer detriment from not doing so. (That's the indirect discrimination I keep mentioning and which you keep ignoring)

Most real world people would not consider it reasonable for a woman to be trying on a bra with a man on the other side of a curtain. Therefore for a multinational company to only provide unisex curtained spaces or cubicles without a staff memeber nearby is likely to fail that test for indirect discrimination if it went to court. A small business with only one space will be able to manage the use of the unisex fitting room to one person at a time and it would not be proportionate to make them build an extension to their property.

Maybe no woman will ever take it to court but businesses certainly have to consider that they might. And that's where we will see the outcome of their considerations.
A shop selling bras likely will end up providing single sex space and a shop selling only jumpers probably not.

It will be.
For the proportionate and justifiable reason to have been applied in the first place the business first needs to justify why males need to be excluded from the female space.

If they've met that test then it follows naturally that TW must also be excluded as they are male. If TW were allowed then it does away with the proportionate and justifiable reason to exclude males in the first place and the business fall foul against sex discrimination against other males as they haven't undergone GR

So M&S & other stores absolutely could probably just say: We don't feel our staff can challenge any well behaved customer who is politely requesting access to a fitting room, even if we put up signage saying 'women' & 'men'. Accordingly, we aren't going to claim our changing rooms are single sex. They are not. They are unisex. As our clothing is laid out in 'women''s & 'men''s sections, we expect most people will go to the fitting room at end of the store that has clothes being primarily marketed to their sex...but we are not planning to stop a man who is peaceably bra shopping from trying things on in the facility nearest to the lingerie section.

I mean, they could. & women like me who don't fancy sharing the space will say: ok, I'll shop elsewhere, at a store that meets my needs.

OR they could say: We are following the SC judgment, our changing rooms are going single sex & staff will refuse entry to customers trying to access the wrong one. We fully support any of our customers who prefer not to use correct sex facilities to try items on at home & return them if they are not happy.

They just can't fudge it anymore, & call a fitting room a space for women if that isn't what it actually is. Nor can they claim they genuinely think Bra Buying Barry is a woman. The SC says he isn't.

I imagine how it'll pan out in the long run is that most businesses will adapt to the needs of their most profitable demographic, or they'll go under. Like pubs having to adapt due to cheap supermarket booze & the smoking ban.

As I said, M&S's stores in the ME have single sex changing, end of. They'll do what is most profitable AND keeps them out of court, wherever in the world they are. After the SC judgment, I would put a fiver on them wanting to keep their UK female customers happy.

That's because the world went mad and changed their policies to appease the trans ideology.

20 years ago large firms selling bras had female changing.

Men do not wear bras so this primarily affects the decency of women. For most other goods women do not need to expose their breasts when trying something on.

See above yourself...

Do you understand what INDIRECT discrimination means?

An unlabelled space can still fall foul of indirect discrimination

What is it you think that link is saying? Because it really isn't 🤣
Daily Mail? Do better
You said "look at the school in the states where girls were held captive in locked cubicles and raped by a boy who claimed he was trans" but it seems this is something you made up. Why?

This is from the 'evidence' you posted to back up your claim
Still, the assaults appear to have little to do with the attacker´s gender identity, according to documents filed with the family´s lawsuit.
Teachers say he preferred and requested male pronouns, according to the report.
Dan Adams, a spokesperson for the school system in the wealthy Washington suburbs, said it does not comment on pending legal matters.
A law firm's investigation, requested by the school board, found 'no evidence that the perpetrator identified as a female or that he wore a skirt or kilt in an effort to gain access to the girls' bathrooms'.
A policy that expanded access for transgender students to school facilities was not in place at the time of the assault
The attacker and his victim had agreed to meet in a Stone Bridge High School bathroom before the May assault occurred, according to an investigation conducted by a Loudoun County grand jury

This is from a NYT article about the incident
“Bro I’m so bored,” she wrote.
They had slipped out of class before to meet in girls’ bathrooms around the school. They had met in a stall to have sex at least once before, and this morning, the boy suggested something similar.
“We could call a pass,” he wrote. “Have some ‘fun’”
“Maybe,” the girl wrote back.
“Maybe”
“Where doe”
“What about the bathrooms by the Tech Ed classroom?” he proposed.
The girl hesitated for a moment before replying, “I’ll meet u but I’m not promises anything”

I think your "things that never happened" is enough for me 🤷‍♀️

Why?

How many attacks against women and girls are acceptable in order to “compromise”?

why should women of certain faiths be prevented from using changing rooms while men swan around doing whatever they like?

If a woman is trying on bras behind a curtain and a man comes along and can either see her breasts through the gap, or worse, rips open the curtain as says " oops I didn't realise someone was in there" (whether deliberate or accidental)

Then that is certainly a proportionate and justifiable reason.

Shops are using these changing rooms to support their business of selling bras. They are making profit from the changing rooms. If they are providing changing spaces at all they therefore form part of their process in provision of their goods to the public and therefore both sexes must be able to access dignity equally.

It might not be laid out in plain terms that they have to provide separate rooms for m/f but it will likely only take a few high profile complaints to lead to it now that the law is clear. Or for them to withdraw changing rooms altogether.

No we don't have to reach a compromise.

Male people already have the right to be in the space designated for male people.

By compromising male people have 2 options and women who need single sex spaces have none.

That's not equality.

I realise I keep repeating myself on this thread but it bears repeating.

Some people don't seem to understand what equality is.

But it is the same for unisex toilets though. I don’t like them but we do have to reach a compromise.

It doesn’t.

Doors that are floor to ceiling means nobody can help if someone is attacked. (And no retail worker on minimum wage is going to want that responsibility.)

Doors that aren’t floor to ceiling creates a voyerist playground. As do cubicles which are open to men and women simultaneously.

They haven't declared their changing rooms as mixed sex though, they just allow males into female changing areas and they are not allowed to do this under the equality act

I have zero problem with lockable individual cubicles . I think they are the only way to go tbh as long as there is a member of staff always on hand outside.

curtained areas are not cubicles. The curtain is flimsy and can be pulled back. I absolutely advocate for a shop to have either individual lockable cubicles with a help button inside if any issues or alternatively biological sex spaces which are either open plan or with curtained cubicles inside.

this caters for everyone

I disagree if the company is of the size to offer 3 alternatives then this is what they should do.

Otherwise male people have 2 options and female people who do not want to be in mixed sex changing rooms have none.

There is no equality in that.

@CantStopMoving

No, the whole issue is legally not about 'the dignity of women'. The rights of different groups have to be balanced under the Equality Act.

It will likely not be considered necessary and proportionate to exclude trans people from a changing area with individual cubicles.

The trans activists are rightly criticised for their extreme ideology. It is also right that those on the other side are scrutinised when they propose extreme views that are based on ideology rather than safety.

I think the word in psychology is schema.

No man is a woman. The highest court in the land said so.

Female people matter.

I will be highly surprised if a company the size of Marks and Spencers will ever be able to justify ignoring the needs of female customers in the light of this judgement.

It would be so much simpler if men just stayed out.

I’m not looking for answers!

I can’t tell you how it works when each escalation or prosecution will be subject its own set of circumstances. No one can. The ‘dignity of women’ will be open to interpretation in court and set up just as every law is, whether it be sex-based discrimination or not. We aren’t talking about something as clear cut as a registered sex offender lobbying to enter a women’s hospital ward – we’re talking about changing rooms in an M&S.