Virgin Active update their T&C to explicitly state members must use changing spaces that reflect biological sex. Wording is very clear. "By Law" (Title edited by MNHQ at request of OP)

Have you thought about contacting Sex Matters to help you? They were the ones who helped Michelle Dewberry and not only will they have the knowledge but it would be a massive support and confidence giving, having them help you.

Hi everyone
I am after a bit of advice, I used to be a member of a University sports centre; I am not a student, but the sports facility is open to public as both PAYG or membership. Approx 2 years ago I discovered (after persistently asking questions) that their communal single-sex signed changing rooms are operated on basis on self-id.

I have been having back & forth emails with the safeguarding team for ~2 years trying to get them to change their policy to comply with The Equality Act. I contacted them again a few days after SC judgement and heard back from them by return that they are reviewing the policy with the university, that seemed promising, but their latest response is that they are waiting for the EHRC code of practice, so self id is still in place.

Inspired by the Virgin Active result I am considering taking legal action, but I've never done anything like this before.
I looked at Sex Matters advice in "bringing a claim to court", they mention there is a 6 mth time limit on taking legal action since "the event"; there isn't an actual event in this case, I am complaining that their policy is unlawful, is there a time limit on that? I've never encountered a male in the female changing room (afaik), but the policy definitely made me use the sports facility less frequently, though that would be hard for me to quantify - is that enough of a detriment?

Does a letter before action have more weight when it comes from solicitors, eg am thinking of contacting Lawrence Stephens who acted for Michele Dewberry?
Or I could try sending it myself first. So far I have only been in contact with safeguarding, perhaps I should send it recorded delivery to vice chancellor, or the legal compliance team (how do I find out who they are?)?
Or maybe I should just be patient and wait for the updated EHRC guidance?

And if I do send a letter before action, I've been thinking what I want to ask for:

1. for them to change their policy to be lawful single-sex
2. to publicise that change of policy to their users
3. to train all their staff on the updated policy (I got several different versions of their changing policy explained at front desk when first enquiring...)
4. for them to pay 1/2 my membership fees for time of dispute to FWS as a gesture of thanks from them to FWS for bringing the case and clarifying the law
5. an apology would be nice from the safeguarding team that they ignored my concerns Is there anything I've missed that should be on that list?

I know from Sex Matters website that I wouldn't get my legal costs back and so prob the wisest course of action is patience and waiting for EHRC guidance.
I am nervous of initiating legal action that I don't have the guts or finance to follow through with.
But I am so bloody mad and sick of this stuff, and incandescent that the f*ing safeguarding team couldn't bring themselves to see that their female users might be at risk from their policy that blokes can self id into communal changing rooms.

I think my options are:

• patience and wait for EHRC
• continue my DIY email campaign, perhaps step it up to recorded delivery letters sent to vice chancellor and/or uni's legal compliance team
• contact Lawrence Stephens and ask them to do a letter before action

He's always been like that tbf! I just feel like it's my job to point out where people who proclaim to believe that women are male and female people with <<X undefined quality>> immediately and repeatedly reveal that they don't actually think that... it's just so ubiquitous and so frustrating that GC people are attacked for it by people doing the exact same thing.

I have FWR 😀

You could try getting the news outlets of which you approve to cover women's rights as vigorously, and getting their staff/contracted workers to take action of this kind.

I would wish you the greatest success in your endeavours.

.
It makes me wonder how the policy meetings went. Were there arguments that revealed these ridiculous failings that make the policies impossible to implement properly so the safest thing is to let all men in? Was a decision taken in the knowledge this would be the outcome?

Did some activist just hold the meeting to ransom, dictate the policy and threaten to report anyone who questioned the wording?

Were the policy writers just too dim to think it through?

They never said because, of course, they couldn't. As soon as you try to define 'gender presentation' the whole ideology falls to pieces.

Sorry. I realised you meant that about 5 minutes after posting. OJ would appear to not know what he is talking about or he unintentionally outed himself as not really believing TWAW?

Oh dear, that’s me banned from the ladies then in my hoodie and baggy jeans. Or go they just mean men performing female clothing stereotypes?

I see that’s from 2010. So together with the law - which of course hasn’t been changed - if an organisation has built/rebuilt and not adhered to that they’ve really no leg to stand on, they need to comply with the law.

That’s gonna really upset the males with a trans identity. They don’t want unisex. They need women’s spaces for validation.

Here's the section of Uk Building regs with the requirement to provide single-sex toilets. Building regs refer primarily to new builds, but I think they also cover major renovations and changes to existing buildings, so possibly radically re-designing existing toilet provision is covered? but I'm just guessing about that.

The language is clear: single sex toilets are a 'must' and 'universal' unisex toilets are allowed where there isn't enough room for single sex toilets, or 'in addition to' single-sex toilets.
It's very clear that the #1 requirement is single sex toilets.
There is also a precise definition of what a 'universal toilet' is, and it's not a previously-single-sex toilet with a new badge stuck on the door.

Toilet accommodation T1.
(1) Toilet accommodation in buildings other than dwellings—

(a) must consist of—
(i) reasonable provision for male and female single-sex toilets, or
(ii) where space precludes provision of single-sex toilets, universal toilets, and

(b) may consist of universal toilets in addition to single-sex toilets.
Toilet accommodation: Approved Document T

A provider will be failing in their duties if females are having to queue for provision whilst males and users of mixed provision are not.

Providers need to ensure no group is at detriment.

They can’t simply take from what was previously designated female provision to provide mixed sex and remain compliant

UK Building regs say that toilets must
Display clearly an internationally standardised signage symbol for a universal toilet which should be PI PF 003 from BS ISO 7001.

The reference to 'a universal toilet' is a bit confusing, because I can't find a reference to signs on single-sex toilets - maybe I just haven't read the document closely enough - but it's safe to assume that the signage on single-sex toilets should use these same standardised international symbols.

The woman is wearing a skirt, the man isn't, but they are International Organization for Standardization symbols and are universally accepted as meaning 'women' and 'men' , regardless of the local clothing culture.

Thank you, I'm quite familiar with it.
I am talking about OJ's reaction to seeing a reference to a changing room marked 'female' and, as a supposed genderist, believing that 'female' refers to women.

He is not supposed to believe that 'female' and 'woman' are interchangeable, because he has stated he believes TWAW and that women can have a penis etc etc. And yet by conflating 'woman' and 'female' he is now seemingly singing from the same hymnsheet as GC women.

I think the sting in the tail will be that there will be fewer womens facilities as more and more will be designated unisex. At National Theatre at least one set of women’s toilets now unisex - long queues at the ‘Ladies’, not sure about the unisex. But I think this is still better than the alternatives and is a sensible compromise.

I'm not massively aware of her oeuvre, I admit. I will keep an eye out, as they say.

It's going to cause a lot of issues at the gem. I'm a member of because the one of the members is a transman. She uses the men's changing rooms. She's already been on her soap box about the recent supreme court ruling that it's denying her right to be who she is.

In my opinion, she is most welcome in the female changing rooms, but she won't want to do it.

@SerendipityJane do you know anything about Michelle Dewberry?
There's a lot to be admired, imo.

No, praise stands !! . I can live with life all over the foursquare ....

That’s really reassuring about the signage. I must admit I’ve been looking askance at the signs and wondering which ones protect me and which don’t. Good to know that even the cocks and hens, or the particularly hideous king and queen thrones at one place I go, are expected to do the same.

No, I wasn't intending to upset you.

They’re done it entirely unwillingly and have made that very clear. They still have contempt for women and our safety and you should consider that when deciding where to spend your money

bannatyne have always protected women’s spaces and were proud and vocal in doing so

If you read the SC judgement you will see that 'woman' means 'biological female' and always did. Transwomen are men and now they have been told so. Stop breaking the law.

Of course the document didn't give £13.50 an hour Duty Managers any help with what 'consistent with gender presentation' meant. Luxury beliefs for COOs and CEOs, to be implemented by low wage frontline staff