What exactly will all of these organisations do when the EHRC publishes the consultation ?

I imagine that big companies will comply (and some of their employees will make a big thing about disagreeing with it).
But I suspect that smaller companies, which don't want to, will drag their feet and come up, at different times, with "it's in hand - but it's a slow process" or "we simply haven't got the money" or (thinking you're an ally) "don't let on, but we're gonna wait and see what happens!".
So it'll up to us, ladies, to put the pressure on.
If necessary, walking around with a clipboard is always a good worrying tactic!

My belief is that the wait for further guidance is so they can all say to the TIM that we did our best, but really sorry - this is the law, can't do anything else....

And they recognise that the TIMs will be up in arms now but as it becomes more inevitable - and importantly others go before them and absorb most of the flak - they will all start doing it

The one I just find it incredible is that the House of Commons and of Lords are waiting for further guidance!!! This means pretty much anyone can say if they are doing it, we'll wait and see what they do....

This ANNOYS me so much - they could have lead by example and some would have followed.

It wouldn’t matter so much if the curtains were in a properly enforced single sex changing room

I’m not sure what that has to do with supposed laws around curtains on unisex changing rooms

There's a very relevant article here from a solicitor at Irwin Mitchell:

"Do retailers have to provide single sex toilets and changing rooms for their customers and staff?"

which explains the situation:

"If you allow trans women to access changing rooms restricted to females, any female service user who objects can bring a claim against you in the civil courts. They may be able to argue that operating mixed sex facilities amounts to direct discrimination on the grounds of their sex, or bring an indirect sex discrimination claim based on group disadvantage. A biological male who doesn't identify as trans could also bring a sex discrimination claim if he is excluded in circumstances where other biological men aren't."

https://www.irwinmitchell.com/news-and-insights/expert-comment/post/102kb9l/do-retailers-have-to-provide-single-sex-toilets-and-changing-rooms-for-their-cust

A big determinant of what some organisations do may be why they allowed transwomen in single sex spaces and services in the first place. That is, did they do so because they wanted to off because they believed that legally they had to.

If a shop has (supposedly) single sex changing rooms, surely they can’t just change them to mixed as the fact that they had SS facilities implies that this is considered necessary in their business. To change them to mixed sex, wouldn’t they have to show that these are no longer necessary for some strange reason? Further, if there were any problems in mixed sex changing rooms, wouldn’t that show that SS spaces are needed? Doh!

If we end up with a slew of trivial (in terms of complexity) court cases because organisations and institutions refuse to comply with the Supreme Court judgment, then before they're started the Claimants need to find out who the relevant decision-makers are, and then include them in the case as parties. Or, if they can't be identified beforehand, join them as parties after the proceedings have started.

This would work to put a dent into the decision-makers adopting an ideological position that they hold without it having an impact on themselves personally and being confident that someone else will be picking up the bill.

While I predict a lot of mantrumming, teeth gnashing, wailing, weeping and no doubt wild claims against JKR, I also expect the grown ups to quietly get on with the necessary resetting.

All of the proper - non activist information that I have seen from not especially terfy sources is consistently advising companies to adhere to biologically based single-sex spaces and include gender neutral spaces where they can.

And also in the real world, lots of buildings already do, or have facility to provide SS and GN options.

It’s like when a toddler asks for strawberry yogurt, then kicks off because you give them strawberry yogurt. Best ignored.

I was pleasantly surprised by the speed of reaction from the FA & ECB. I think pp are right to raise insurance, and I’m sure that is why most sports will have to quickly declare that the women’s section is for women.

For corporates, especially big employers, I think it will hinge on more court cases. So, more brave women will need to challenge their employers, knowing that it could impact their careers. For some schools, parents will need to challenge, and trust that teachers are professional enough for this to not affect their children. It’s not over, but unless there are changes to the law, it is now possible for us to win back the rights to single sex spaces etc, and the language to defend them.

Obviously smaller shops such as Cotswold Outdoor' for example tend just to have a couple of unisex cubicles - each with their own door, and that is to be expected and is accepted. Problems could arise, though, in large changing areas which have multiple cubicles.

I'm imagining many shops which have started to install such unisex facilities may have second thoughts in the light of the ruling. Before they were under the illusion that males with trans identities could use whatever facility they felt most comfortable in, or which aligned with their 'identity'.....perhaps they thought this solution would just be easier...?

Though most clothing stores tend to have separate male and female floors, or be directed more to one sex than the other, in which case people will tend to have an assumption that the changing rooms would be similarly single sex.

Shops will need to indicate very clearly whether the changing rooms are mixed sex or single sex. Single sex can be indicated by whatever symbols are commonly used for male and female, it does not just have to be written in words.
I cannot imagine places which currently operate single sex facilities will turn them all over to mixed sex. They will most likely add in a unisex facility.What is to be gained by a shop if it makes its customers feel uncomfortable - other than righteous/activist brownie points? I guess some places might stick their neck and and do this, though...and their customers can vote with their feet.

I guess if there are ever any unpleasant incidents which arise because of a shop's mixed sex facility, they may come to realise that they need to address the issue pretty quickly.

I reckon it will be a mixed bag of results as many suggest. Hopefully some will be forced to with liability insurance that would have ignored it otherwise. Some will be trying right now to sit on the fence. Some will resist until they have complaints against them.

Frankly, they're reaping what they've sown. If they've undermined the rights of women and girls to privacy and safety and prioritised the type of men demanding access to women and girls undressing, then they will eventually be held accountable. Maybe not through legal action initially given the costs but the court of public will no longer be silenced.

Just look at the reaction from so many women after the SC Judgment. They've kept quiet while men made outrageous demands from women - our identity, language, privacy and safety, even our children's wellbeing. But now the law has been clarified and women are finally voicing their fury at what's happened.

#nodebate plus bullying and intimidation is finally over and few businesses will be prepared to to openly break the law in the face of women's legal expectations and a hostile press.

As above, it’s a lot about the honesty for me.

If something is labeled for women, it damn well needs to be so.

So, for example, lots of charity shops just have one or two changing cubicles, often with just a curtain across. People can choose to use them or not, and are not trying on underwear or swimming costumes for example.

What’s completely different is if you have gone into the women’s fitting rooms and see a man in there. That’s 100% needs to stop.

Not changing rooms for customers.

For the organisations who have made a big show of supporting gender ideology, it will be difficult to go from that to only providing male and female facilities/services and insisting on their correct usage, I'd have thought. This is obviously a problem entirely of their own making in most cases but it won't always be that easy to magic up a third space to ameliorate the hurt feelings of those who don't want to share with others of their sex. I'm not sure how this will go really. I would hate for disabled facilities to be the casualty.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/single-sex-services/sex-matters-in-changing-rooms/

"A women’s clothing shop is likely to be assumed by customers to be offering a female-only changing area (even if it lacks explicit signage). It is preferable to have a clear policy and signs so that everyone knows what to expect. Providing spaces with ambiguous rules is likely to lead to conflict, uncertainty or humiliation.

A retailer cannot expect its staff or customers to be able differentiate between a “trans women”, a cross-dresser, a man who identifies as “non-binary”, or any other man in explaining the rules about whether a space is female-only or mixed-sex. People who identify as trans should be expected to follow rules in the same way as others.

If Monsoon is really inviting women and children to undress, and try on Eid dresses, in spaces that are mixed sex and “open and available to all our customers” it should communicate this clearly. But it would be far more sensible for it to put up clear signs that the changing rooms are for women and accompanied children only. Men (including those that identify as “trans women”) who wish to wear its clothing are welcome to buy them and try them on at home. This would be lawful as a proportionate means to a legitimate aim"

https://www.irwinmitchell.com/news-and-insights/expert-comment/post/102kb9l/do-retailers-have-to-provide-single-sex-toilets-and-changing-rooms-for-their-cust

I’m pretty sure that’s not accurate. Workplace regulations may be different, but unisex changing rooms have operated for a while without full length lockable doors. They’d have been in breach of regulation prior to the SC ruling. They may well whack doors on in place of curtains though. (Obviously written before your edit)

I do think that there will have to be clarity on what is actually being operated as single sex in relation to the Act. Some things are clear - all women shortlists etc - some less so. Again, all the ruling makes clear is that shops, in this example, can exclude all males from some spaces, it doesn’t say they have to.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/publications/workplace-toilets-know-your-rights/

https://www.washroomcubicles.co.uk/toilet-cubicles-and-the-law-a-guide-for-employers/

Equalities and employment laws says that unisex facilities have to be compliant in certain ways...such as with full length, fully lockable doors, and unisex toilet facilities have to have the same plus integral washbasins.

UK employment law does require unisex (gender-neutral) toilet facilities to be fully enclosed and have a fully lockable door that extends to the floor. This is to ensure privacy and is part of the legal requirements for providing suitable and sufficient sanitary conveniences in the workplace.

Elaboration:
Separate Facilities:
The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 generally require separate facilities for men and women.

Unisex Exception:
However, there is an exception for fully enclosed, lockable rooms with a door that can be secured from the inside, which allows for unisex or gender-neutral facilities.

Full Enclosure:
The term "fully enclosed" means there should be no gaps above or below the door, and the entire room should be enclosed to provide privacy, according to Personnel Today.

Privacy:
The requirement for a fully lockable door is crucial to ensure the privacy of users and is a key aspect of meeting the legal obligations for sanitary facilities.

Other Requirements:
Additionally, unisex facilities should have a wash basin, soap, and a means of drying hands, as well as a toilet.

This. It’s about informed choice. There seems to be a general misapprehension between what’s allowed and what’s required.

Absurd what a little tolerance over the years resulted in with biological males self declaring that they are females and being free to use biological women's private spaces. Thank the courts for defining this now allowing wimps like Kier Stammer to now publicly define what a woman is.

What law do you think they’re breaking?