M&S changing rooms

But do I think most stores or consumer facilities are going to start labelling changing rooms ‘women only’?

Meaning more work for the female staff in retail as men won’t be allowed to staff those areas.

Is it really a win to increase workloads for women in retail who are already overworked?

My point is that they don’t use signs anyway. AND there will have to be some strict policy of what signs (if any) actually say. ‘Women’s’ may mean biological women only. But what if they are labelled ‘Ladies’ or ‘Girls’ or what if it’s just the figure in a dress symbol or the circle and cross gender pictogram? Is ‘implied’ still going to be protected lawfully?

I don’t have that answer and I don’t think anyone does yet before it all starts playing out in practice. But do I think most stores or consumer facilities are going to start labelling changing rooms ‘women only’? No.

What is this?

A bunch of fox news links for ME to go through? 🙄
I was after the one you referenced
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

Tbf, I did make an effort to find it but got as far as this, which just happens to be the first on your list 🤷‍♀️
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/05/magazine/loudoun-county-bathroom-sexual-assault.html#

Gay cake, if it's the NI gay cake, ended with the decision that a private business owner cannot be forced to carry out an act with which his conscience disagrees - this is the right to freedom of conscience (protected by EA 2010) i.e. it is not discrimination if a Jewish baker won't bake you an a cake for Hitler's birthday (which is today, apparently) if you wanted 'Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler' written on it at the baker's.
But yes, private businesses are not allowed to discriminate on grounds of sex or gender reassignment etc. If they advertise sex segregated changing rooms then they would be discriminating against women if they then let trans women use those changing rooms, since 'sex segregated' means segregated by biological sex, not gender. So M and S could face sex discrimination cases if they continue to allow TiMs into spaces they designate as single sex (but they will probably say their changing rooms are unisex, of course, like Primark).

But what's the answer?

See above. I don’t even think most are outrightly labelled.

Do clothing shops even label changing rooms? I don’t know if I recall that they do. They usually just have a changing facility in the area where the women’s clothes are and another nearer the men’s so it’s ‘obvious’ which is which.

Aside from the debate if a shop has to exclude male people or not, what really astounds me every single time the sheer disrespect the trans community have for women. A ruling made clear that female spaces do not include male people and a large group of transwomen go 'we'll see about that' and a large group of transmen go 'we'll go in an sabotage everything as much as we can'

Not making themselves look like nice people with this behaviour.

The reason shops have let men identify into women's spaces is 'the Equality Act' says they can.

No, it doesn't.

If it's a women's space it's single sex. For a proportionate, legitimate reason of privacy, dignity and decency. If any men are using it then it is a mixed sex space and will have to be labelled as such.

Well not a lawyer but that is not my understanding.

the definition of female as per the equality act is biological female. Any space that is designated a single sex space has to only take those with the right biology. So if a store says female changing rooms it must only take biological females (inc trans men) and VV.

a store is not obligated to provide single sex spaces. It can provide mixed sex changing rooms or unisex cubicles.

Males, whether calling themselves trans women or not, can be excluded from spaces advertised as being specifically for women, now that “women” has actually been clarified as meaning biological women.

Hate to spoil the surprise but who do you think is preparing the EHRC guidance…

With the greatest respect, lawyers have not been covering themselves with glory on their understanding and application of these issues over the last 15 years. So we will take even what you say with a pinch of salt and wait to see what the guidance is from EHRC

What a load of utter tosh! While everyone is entitled to an opinion here, reading this as a legal professional, I have no idea whether to laugh or cry.

The SC definition solely applies to these terms in the context of the relevant legislation. This has very little impact on who shops allow into their changing rooms. The main issue would be if they allowed TW into the female changing but didn’t allow TM into male changing - that would breach EA. Otherwise, allowing TW into female changing is still entirely lawful. You may hate that, love it or not care a hoot, but that is the law of England and Wales.

You don't even understand the meaning of 'legal advice'. And the further information in your subsequent post about shops and businesses being essentially able to ignore the law and make up their own rules is total nonsense.

Lawyer my arse 🤣

Which is completely different to “they can allow trans women into the women’s if they want to”, as you previously said.

Whaaaat?

1. If a shop is providing changing facilities it is legally obliged to provide equal access to both sexes. If one sex cannot avail due to privacy concerns then it possibly amounts to indirect discrimination.
2. Wtf do you mean here? A shop must follow the same definition as the equality act. It cannot make up stuff
3. See point 1..it can still amount to indirect discrimination against females if females are unable to use as there are big gaps in the cubicles or moving curtains.

Actually they could still fall foul of indirect sex discrimination if women argue that the changing facilities don't provide adequate privacy and decency from the view of men. Flimsy curtains for example. So your argument all the way through isn't entirely correct.

To answer the question, yes a shop can allow TW to enter the female changing rooms. There are a couple of reasons:

1. a shop is not legally obliged to provide single sex changing
2. the law defines “female” in a specific way. There is no obligation for a shop to follow that same definition.
3. assuming the shop also takes a similar approach to the male changing rooms, there is no discrimination, so they’re compliant with the Equality Act

I am very much team JKR but when the doors lock and it's all very private Im not sure why you need to do this.

After I saw the SM posts from men discussing how they like to wank on the lingerie and put it back on the pegs in the hope a woman tries it on, and wank on the floor in the hope a woman stands in it without shoes, I wouldn't set foot in those changing rooms without a hazmat suit on.

But yes, hopefully this judgement will get us back towards single sex spaces actually being single sex. Arguments that men will just do what they want to women and no one can stop them so there's no point trying aren't really acceptable arguments.

Can a shop put up a sign that says Women's Changing Room with no other wording and allow transwomen in?

As a lawyer, I can assure you this is complete rubbish. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the judgment, I do wish every clueless individual would refrain from giving legal advice on here. It really doesn’t help anyone!

So the ruling prevents a private company from having inclusive facilities if they want to?

Seems to have swung from one extreme to the other.

For employers providing staff facilities, they are obliged to provide single sex spaces. Business providing for customers - no, they can largely do what they like and it’s easy to get past ‘discrimination’. They can provide two spaces and call them mixed sex, they can also claim one ‘identifies woman’ and another ‘identifies man’ to get around it. Since most changing rooms in stores consist of single cubicles anyway, it’s all arguably (by law) private, so it would be very difficult for anyone to argue a space is ‘sexed’ or that it’s ’discriminatory’.