M&S changing rooms

Well Bridget Philipson seems pretty clear on this on behalf of the Government.

https://x.com/roseveniceallan/status/1914576957892608050

Facilities should be on the basis of sex. EHRC guidance will reflect this.

Nothing to stop there being unisex facilities but I can't for a minute imagine that Marks and Spencers will not offer single sex in addition to unisex.

Well done OP for sending the letter.

And to be clear she says that if a trans woman is out and about today they should use the facilities that correspond with their sex.

🙄

lol

Well how strange that you bi-passed an in built ability that most people have.

It's survival instinct.

Even very young children can tell.

I had a similar experience to others with using unisex toilets in a restaurant in Borough Market last summer.
DH had already been to the Loos and I asked him where the ladies was. He looked at me, said they were mixed, he knows how I feel about them and that they were up 2 flights of stairs, honestly, my face!!
The restaurant wasn’t busy so I asked him to come with me.
They were indeed up 2 flights and behind 2 doors. There were about 4 cubicles I think.
If I’d have been in there alone and something happened, absolutely no one would’ve heard. It’s stuck in my mind because of how isolated the toilets were and that no one gave a toss. I shouldn’t need a chaperone!!

Why do you need to know? My position has nothing to do with the thread topic.

Perhaps we can have a space designatned for misogynistic LARPING.

That would be unisex. It's my understanding that a space can't be marked female only if it allows biological men in. If you want to phrase it as inclusive of people with a different gender identity as their biological sex then fine but the sign on the door has to state that it's a unisex space.

I don’t doubt the odd person can can pass, but I do think it is a minority. If you happen to have more the sex characteristics of the opposite sex to start with such as height (shorter man or taller woman) or features (I have seen some very feminine males naturally) then of course it makes it much easier. I can honestly say every single person that has been on the TV recently has not passed at all, even the most super glamorous of trans women.

I can only speak that I have worked with several trans men and they were clearly biological women. Despite their increased body hair, the height, build, physical stance, mannerisms, even the way they laugh, and even their general aura was female and it is very hard to override. The way they sat in meetings gave it away pretty strongly as our skeleton affects how we sit and so it didn’t look natural for a male. These subtle clues give it away even if a person passes facially.

Their choice to disrespect biological women sad if they avoid the exception but we have to keep in mind the hurty feeelings of men in dresses who are the ultimate victims, suppress by more mysogonistic men and handmaidens, who never consider the feelings of Women whom have suffered for centuries

But what about the links for the attacks by the 'trans identified males' you've claimed happened. You've clarified nothing 🙄

Daily Mail? Really? LOL
I suggest you actually read the links you've posted.
Here's one from me
www.nytimes.com/2023/08/05/magazine/loudoun-county-bathroom-sexual-assault.html#

It was the Loudon High case that I remembered because there was so much publicity around it at the time - the school initially denied that an attack had taken place. I'd forgotten the name of the school, however
It's not 'Loudon High' btw so not sure you 'remember' anything. There was not 'so much publicity' either. Unless you are counting Fox etc. And no denials that anything had happened

Come on. You are doing yourself no favours here.

No deliberate attempt to be vague. Links given above.

I'm surprised that you now say that you're aware of the Loudon County case, since you accused me of making up things.

As I said, I did indeed confuse the two cases. I had been aware of the Loudon County Case, but couldn't remember the name of the school.

I hadn't realised that there was more than one attack in the US. I clarified in a subsequent post.

A teenage boy is accused in the Harrison High case.

A different teenager has been found guilty of sexual assaults including rape in two different high schools, one of them being Loudon High. (It was the Loudon High case that I remembered because there was so much publicity around it at the time - the school initially denied that an attack had taken place. I'd forgotten the name of the school, however.)

I'm not sure whether I can put three links in one post, but shall try.

As yet, there's no specific school for the Essex case, presumably to protect the identities of the victims. The accused is a teenage boy.

Harrison High:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/15-old-girl-says-fellow-180150306.html

Loudon High:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10396151/Loudoun-County-boy-skirt-spared-jail-sexually-assaulting-female-classmates.html

Essex:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-66052546

ETA Have just noticed your subsequent post where you say that you're aware of the Loudon High case. As I'm sure you'll agree, even one case would be more than enough.

Seriously, what are you on about? I think you are making up confusing a lot of things 🙄

Which cases did you 'mix up' exactly? I know of the Loudon County one but perhaps you are thinking of another Loudon County one, in which case, again, a link would help. Btw, the attacker is not 'accused'. He is convicted. Of 2 2021 attacks. Not 'trans' Whatever the defence case WAS in his case, he had met up with the Loudon County victim at least once for consensual sex. Which gave him no right to assault her when she arranged to meet him in the womens bathroom again. As a result, he was thankfully convicted and is a listed sex offender

So - for clarification - in the US, population 340+ million, which 2 attacks are you actually talking about. No need to be vague

It would be helpful if you posted a link with your claim. I looked but couldn't find anything?

Same for me. Walked out of the cubicle in some gender neutral loos in a cafe, actually thinking I was reluctantly on board with using them in that instance, to see a man at the sink a few feet away - and the instinctive reaction was instant and absolute. Automatic risk assessment: he's between me and the door, there are empty stalls behind me, the toilets are at far end of a huge open room with no one in immediate hearing... I know it's a thousand to one, but if he had been that "one", I'd have been utterly helpless - the mixed sex space put me in a position in which I, quite simply, had to trust that he wasn't. And being forced to place my trust in a strange male, with all I know, when there are alternatives to this, is simply not good enough.

I've not actually gone back since - I'd have liked to, but why would I when other venues don't present the same slightly increased risk and stress? But why the hell should I have to self-exclude in this way?!

I just don't think men, including transwomen undergoing treatment, begin to "get" the impact of the male-female strength & size differential on how women navigate the world. OK, men may have play-fought, or real-fought, other far, far stronger men, as I have other, far stronger women (martial arts) - but being overpowered by the same sex is simply not the same as when someone is, quite literally, in a totally different (sex) class to you strength- and size-wise.

Most males, including most transwomen, are in a position of absolute, not relative, power over most females. With that comes, for almost all women, a deep-seated wariness that's totally natural - nature - and encouraged by nurture - how many bad encounters of what kind & to what degree degree have we each had (& it is a matter of how many etc., not whether we ever have...)

We deserve space from this, and from them.

When you recognise and accept this, the sense with which words like "inclusion" and "safety" are now often used is, frankly, insultingly facile and ironic.

And as you have been told, just because you personally cannot correctly sex a person, doesn’t mean that other people cannot. Your personal inability doesn’t reflect the rest of the population’s ability.

I don't agree with this. I would never in a million years have known. I've known a few trans women who I only found out after a few years were born male. They absoutely passed.

Agree. I've pointed this out before but not even Thai Lady Boys are convincing as women, if you spend more than a few moments in their company (and yes, I have).

Despite them only being my height (I'm 5ft 6") or often a fraction less, and incredibly glamorous You. Can. Tell. They. Are. Men.

It's how they move, it's always how they move. They move like men trying to move like women (and failing).

All I'm gonna say, I was in the toilet cubicle at my local Costco, in the Ladies WC, having a pee, and heard a male voice in the cubicle next to me. I instantly felt like a shivery feeling. Like fearful. I didn't want to leave the cubicle. Then I heard a little girls voice and realised it was a dad taking his daughter to the loo!

I realise that's off subject but the reaction I had to hearing a blokes voice in the ladies is enough for me to know, I don't want men dressed like women in the ladies loo's or changing rooms.

Gender neutral toilets are popping up in places, so why not have gender neutral changing room. Maybe just one cubicle per store?

And this has most likely been already shared but here is another for people to read so they don’t have to go back to find it.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/publications/supreme-court-judgment-summary-and-practical-advice/

This is likely to be accurate due to the contributions from Naomi Cunningham and others who have been the go to teams for some of the decisive wins around the application of anti-discrimination laws in the UK on this topic. But people should always do their own wide research.

Considering the people I have posted have been consistent in this advice even before the judgement, I would consider them highly credible in their interpretation. No doubt some people will dismiss them are hateful. But I think this week has shown just how fucking empty those types of dismissals are.

But my point is separate - if a private business wants to have inclusive toilets isn’t that for them to decide with others deciding whether or not to frequent them?

I certainly read that as supporting the hypothetical removal of female-only spaces on the basis of a limited understanding of the real-world implications for many women ("deciding whether or not to frequent them" - if only it were that simple...)

I have no idea what it is you are asking and don’t
want to know.

I am speaking generally. I have no idea what intentions that poster had. But I can link you up to possibly a hundred recent posts where posters have weaponised that group of female people.

It becomes like a predictable script.

Discussions about their lovely male friends and how they should be included because no one can ever tell and those male people have worked so hard that they should be rewarded where others aren’t.

Then comes the weaponising of the female people who have taken testosterone and often the plight of other female people who might be asked if they are in the right toilet.

Then the falsehoods about policing toilets and the accusations about obsession. And sometimes the accusations that we want vulnerable male people to be assaulted and abused.

All aimed at shaming female people who want single sex spaces to be single sex. All aimed at women who refuse to centre male people.

What exactly are you having trouble with?