Some good news - Primark!

You don't have to risk each male person individually. You can just do one risk assessment which then covers any man who wants to access the female changing room.

You know this isn't true so why lie.

The correct comparator for someone undergoing gender reassignment is someone of the same sex. This means that a man who says he is a woman cannot be treated less favourably than any other man.

There is no requirement for a case by case risk assessment in the EA 2010 and the need for privacy and dignity is a legitimate aim which means that even men who say they are women AND have a GRC can be lawfully excluded.

Despite your assertion that a man would not put on a dress to go into a female changing room you have, rather unhelpfully, left out how we distinguish a man in a dress from a man who says he is a woman.

Privacy and dignity and equality of access for female humans not a legitimate aim then?

To ensure that, it doesn't matter which male is refused access and told to use their own accessible sex based or gender neutral choices of space: it's all males. Any male at all removes privacy, dignity and equality of access in that female only space by walking into it. Case by case is irrelevant.

No it isn't. They can perfectly legally limit a changing room to women only.

I would imagine they have taken legal advice, hence the notice directing people to an 'any gender' changing room.

A proportionate means to a legitimate aim, remember?

It can't slipped your mind, surely. 😁

A person can be an "obvious man" to the observer and yet believe he has a feminine soul/essence and intend to undergo gender reassignment, no? It's not all about wearing dresses.

The problem is that spaces where women get undressed should be single sex. Gendered feelings don't matter in this context. Sexed bodies do.

You agree that the category of "gender reassignment" is functionally meaningless.

That's something, I guess. Do you think that a meaningless definition is an acceptable substitution for a meaningful (in terms of risk) one such as physical sex?

So how many traumatised women and girls are acceptable in your opinion? Is there a list with a quota? Are your female relatives on it? Why should any male have access to female spaces because he claims to “feel like a woman”? Yes. Most changing room invasions are to do with men, some wearing a dress and some not. Why should we let men into fe all spaces just because they are wearing a dress? Does that suddenly negate any threat they may pose? If so,how?

What's a woman, @MishyJDI ? Do you think perhaps if don't actually know, you might be better deferring to those of us who do know?

Don't get too excited OP. Primark define "woman" as anyone who identifies as one.

You don't need to 'risk assess each person' either (whatever you think you mean by that) as it's already been done by sex class.

Agreed. But that has been the mechanism since 2010 and the Equality Act, and there have only been isolated incidents of problems. Most changing room invasions are to do with men!

They wouldn't turn them away but direct them to the changing rooms of that sex.

What have dresses got to do with being transgender? You always seem pretty fixated on appearance and clothes, mishy.

So how do you prove someone is “intending to undertake gender reassignment”? Are we back to believe everyone as no one would lie about that?

Why would a man "intending" to transition to a woman (whatever that entails, and assuming it were actually scientifically possible) be given access to female only spaces?

It would be illegal to turn away a person undergoing gender reassignment or intending to do so under the equality act, unless they risk assessed each person entering the changing room against whether stopping them would be proportionate to a legitimate aim.

Tough ask for the staff. I expect that in practicality they let people who appear as women into the changing rooms.

A man is hardly going to put on a dress to go in there. Let's focus on those who are the problem - which is not the trans. If an obvious man goes in, well, fair enough!

The thing is, according to Primark TWAW. They put these signs up in some primarks months ago and confirmed on twitter that anyone who ids as a woman can use them.

I don't blame them. I don't think most young people working in a shop really want that kind of conflict.

It isn't clear. This is just more distraction until they say straight up 'single sex'.

And we're back in "what is a woman" land

They did this months ago, but then doubled down by saying a woman was anyone who identifies as one.

That’s interesting. I have serious doubts in my local city - we are high student/ high TWAW population. But that gives me hope that there may be a main headquarters message to this.

it certainly helps, everyone knows why this change. Let’s see how it plays out.

I’m not convinced this will make much difference. Unless the staff are trained to turn anyone obviously male away (and I really don’t think they are paid enough for the agro), I think you’ll just have hoards of men turning up declaring themselves as women and posting their ‘validation’ stories and pictures online. But I’m cyclical about it all now.

Female only would have been better at this stage.

I'd just put one up saying 'only enter if you were born with a vagina' to save any confusion.

These signs have been up in my local Primark for over a month, and the door staff did tell me it means sex separated. We have a very large Muslim community locally who won't touch mixed changing areas but the girl did say most staff don't want have to actually enforce it.