M&S changing rooms

[SweetChilliGirl]

Was I unreasonable to send this to M&S?

Good morning,

Having not shopped for lingerie with you for several years, due to your policy of allowing trans-identifying men into the women's changing rooms, can I now be assured that, in line with the judgement of the supreme court males will no longer be allowed to identify their way into your single sex changing rooms, thus preserving biological women's dignity and safety? I would very much like to be able to shop with you again.

I look forward to hearing from to to clarify this important matter.

Regards,

Sweetchilligirl

I doubt he would want to use the woman’s
space but unless there is a unisex area then that is the expectation (although I expect in reality somebody who looks like that would likely just use the men’s facilities for ease.)

What a relief.

Women and girls matter, despite what so many advocate for on these threads.

What she does doesn't really impact women. She's not a threat to men if she uses their spaces.

She shouldn't be used as an argument to support the loss of single sex spaces which is undoubtably what you are trying to do here.

Here is another explanatory article, this time from Michael Foran.

https://t.co/aELsNw2UHz

It also has information relevant to questions being asked. I recommend people read whatever they can get their hands on.

Guidance will no doubt come out where needed. But in the meantime, legal bods are providing overviews for us for free.

Just reread my post & the sarcasm is a little stronger than usual for a first comment... but I really do find the lack of understanding of & empathy for women's experience of the world, especially the least privileged and most vulnerable women, quite distressing at times.

"Inclusive" for me means accommodating those who simply can't use any other space: the physically vulnerable, the traumatised, and religious minorities. It's not about facilitating, or accommodating, or welcoming, but literally about including those who literally can't access a resource otherwise.

Like "safe" spaces, and the word "woman" until last week, the term "inclusion" feels as though it's been diluted from its original meaning and implications - large-scale, physical, do-or-die implications - to perception, and feeling, and choice.

I think inclusion should prioritise those who would, otherwise, have no choice but to quietly walk away, unseen and unheard.

I suspect that Jake would be fully in support of being used to make women scared and distressed the way so many posters over the past years have weaponised female people who have taken testosterone, sadly. That couple seem to be as heavily invested in supporting the extreme demands as I have seen. There is only a few female people though with that level of investment in the UK. Jake, Freddy, whittle and James Morton come to mind.

Interesting:

In fact, the judgment says that the Equality Act allows trans men (biological females) to be excluded from the women’s facilities, and trans women (biological males) to be excluded from the men’s. This might happen if, for example, a trans person looks so much like a person of the opposite biological sex that it would be disruptive to accommodate them in the single-sex service.

So going back to first principles - the judgment really will be focus on those who don’t pass (and not getting into a discussion of whether people think it’s a lot or none.)

Those who do pass, likely people like Jake Graf etc. can still be probibited access to the space that matches their biological sex and likely have to use the facilities that match their gender identity.

Reading the article posted by the other poster - Jake Graf can legally be excluded from women’s single spaces so likely would have to use the men’s whicb he probably would want to do anyway.

No, I am not “supporting the loss of single sex spaces”. Glad to correct you on that.

They work there. They aren't someone untraceable like a customer in a shop.
Deploy some thinking facilities.

No, I think third spaces will need to be advocated for and provided.

As I said.

The thing is, it has been recognised for a long time that female people who take testosterone may cause some other female people distress if they see the male cues the testosterone has created. There have been quite a few female people with transgender identities who have taken testosterone post on MN and have told us what they do instead. It is not new that these discussions have happened.

All those posters who read the threatening and intimidatory rhetoric about those female people entering the toilets are simply weaponising that group. Not surprisingly, those female people who are horrified that they are being used this way also point out that often they feel ignored by the trans community if they dare speak about their own feelings on who should be using female single sex spaces.

But posters still try to invoke those female people as a tactic to convince female people into accepting male people into the female single sex spaces. And they seem to think that they are righteous in doing so.

Yes you are if you think that people with the opposite 'gender identity' should be in them.

Ok.

It will be easier if you read what I write instead of what you think I wrote.

I genuinely think that poster was asking a question not weaponising Jake Graf.

What did you think women’s spaces are for biological women only actually meant? 🤯

Huh?

What exactly are you having trouble with?

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.

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

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...)

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.

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?

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).

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.