Risk assessments regarding clothing shop changing rooms

[finnmcool]

I'm bloody frustrated! I've phoned New Look, Topshop, John Lewis and Marks and Spencer asking for information about what risk assessments they did when they decided to allow males who self id as females into the changing rooms.

Not one of them could give me an answer, they're all getting back to me.
Marks and Spencer have to be highlighted for their aggressive stance though.
I was talked over, interrupted and told they aren't changing their policy. I was told that I can't even put a freedom of information request in, because their policy 'comes under business model'
This was a woman in the management team
.
GLL, haven't got back to me yet, regarding their gym/swim changing room policy.
How is it not a breach of law to allow males into women's spaces without consent and risk assessing?
Sorry, I'm a lurker who occasionally comments, but I quietly fight our battles in my area.
Thank you if you've read my rant.

Right okay, so let’s say M&S bite and do an RA for you. You want to know the likelihood of a man dressed as a woman flashing you, is this so you can make an informed choice? Without checking the genitals of each person or blood testing them they cannot guarantee that you won’t be flashed therefore the risk would have to be ‘low’ at the very least.

If it’s a low risk on paper what difference will that make to you? You won’t be using the changing room now will you? It sounds like you’re actually doing this because you want to kick off, rather than be given a document. In which case maybe you should just kick off, or put @margot at the front of store, as her opinion of who is a man sounds like all the proof you need

I think Topshop might be in trouble (read a store/s closing)
I've avoided that store too because of not protecting girls and women.

I know it Handsoff and I’m fully expecting a voyeur/filming/other predictable incident to be along in the local news at any time.

5, 4, 3, 2 ...

DNA I'm far too busy and important to stand out front of M&S looking up people's skirts!
On a more serious note, it is a valid point about the general move to online shopping and the death of the high Street. This may just be another nail in the coffin.

You want to know the likelihood of a man dressed as a woman flashing you, is this so you can make an informed choice?

The point is that girls and women do not expose themselves to each other or males.. It is males who do that to females for their male sexual gratification. That is why the sexual offence of exposure exists.

No corporate body or any other organisation should ever facilitate an increased risk of such sexual offence. It renders that corporate body / organisation complicit if it has not assessed any such associated risks, given the Equality Act 2010 and all its legal exemptions to protect females via single sex spaces, services etc.

so let’s say M&S bite and do an RA for you. You want to know the likelihood of a man dressed as a woman flashing you

Self ID doesn’t require the wearing of dresses.
It just means that any males can access female spaces. A Policy change like this that hasn’t been risk assessed is unusually remiss as it invites a number of negative consequences for both the consumer and the organisation.

I’m actually not in disagreement with what many of you are saying. I understand the equality act, it is a fact that men pose a sexual threat to women and I agree that a woman is a woman by sex and her genetics.

My point is, what do you want them to do? Because if a man is dressed as a woman then the lines become blurry and if you put someone at a changing room using all of their 5 senses mistakes WILL be made. It’s impossible to fairly police, and massively subjective, you must acknowledge that not all that self ID look like Mrs Brown 😂

DNAshelicase

Here you are - this is why mixed sex spaces are a risk to women and girls. www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

Until creepy men demanded the right to undress, shower etc in front of women and girls, sex segregated spaces worked fairly well and women and girls were empowered to say - 'the men's changing room is over there'.
Now, every Karen White and JY can undress / use their cameras etc in the changing room in front of our 12 years olds and there's nothing we can do about it .

So what is your point DNA? Are you in favour of not questioning or challenging a change in policy because women will get perved at anyway? Because naughty men will always find a way and we can never stop them?

It’s impossible to fairly police, and massively subjective, you must acknowledge that not all that self ID look like Mrs Brown

Mrs Brown aside, the overwhelming majority of male to feminine transitioners are very obviously male. It is very possible to monitor this fairly using common sense.

My point is, what do you want them to do?

To do a risk assessment and think about all of this for themselves, I would have thought.

@thruthis I get your point completely, I said that on my pp. But as I said before, what do you want them to actually do? How can they meet your needs in a way that can be consistently and uniformly be applied across their 100s of stores?

It's not uncommon for commercial insurance policies to exclude claims for damages as a result of defamation, injurious falsehood and the like, penalties and fines, whereas bodily injury to include psychological injury is (assuming there's no other breach of the policy conditions) generally covered by a PL policy. I wouldn't be surprised if some firms may consider that actually as they would incur bad press or be out of pocket for someone pursuing them for damages due to being misgendered or excluded as a result of their gender identity, it's "safer" to risk a woman being attacked or harassed by another customer as it's likely the policy would actually respond. Of course, the theoretical woman in that scenario is also less likely to start a Twitter thread about her ordeal and be featured looking sad in a Buzzfeed article, and if there's any press attention the media will have to say it was another woman who attacked her, so it really is win/win.

Might be a bit tinfoil hatty but I could see it.

I think my point is that in the case of changing rooms, what you want cannot be done. We would be better off demanding heightened security in unisex changing rooms e.g cameras, guards rather than demanding the space back which as I’ve said in practice cannot feasibly and consistently be done. I actually am a feminist and wholeheartedly agree with many of you but I think what I’m saying is more realistic and achieve able than what you are saying

How can they meet your needs in a way that can be consistently and uniformly be applied across their 100s of stores?

They can meet the needs of females by excluding all males from female sex-segregated spaces at all times [except for small male children]. We females then do what we currently do if any male does insert himself into our space against our consent, we alert all other females in that space and report it to the management so that he can be publicly expelled. Management may even call the police. Perhaps we should make it a sex offence in the future for males to insert themselves into female sex segregated spaces against their consent.

My own technique for alerting all other females is to loudly announce that a man is among us. This works very well, I find.

I think my point is that in the case of changing rooms, what you want cannot be done.

Why? What is so difficult about sex segregation?

DNAshelicase I'd propose they keep the changing rooms single sex...
Worked fine the way it was.
We take a blood sample and karyotype every person dressed in female clothing to confirm their sex before we allow them to try on a blouse in a female space?
This seems very dismissive, like oh it's just a blouse. Do you think think that women shouldn't worry about males being able to use a female space?

I think my point is that in the case of changing rooms, what you want cannot be done. What cannot be done? M+S cannot change their policy to be in line wth the EA 2010 and say, simply, our changing facilities are single sex facilities.

No gender, no further explanation, just that simple statement. Then women and girls, shop assistants, etc, etc can all go back to challenging hairy bollocked 'woman' without being arrested for hate crimes.

That's it!

I'm sure lots of women will vote with their feet when they have experienced this stuff. We have a lot of financial clout these days, not sure if these companies really quite get that. M&S in particular is in trouble and they will deserve what they get if they continue to ignore women for the sake of a few deluded men.

I think sex segregation is difficult to police if someone that self IDs looks reasonably feminine, I don’t think it’s as black and white obvious as you’re saying so it is very difficult to enforce. Sorry, I’m not trying to be dismissive as I agree that men are a threat to women.

I’m just saying that your proposal can’t effectively work, what I suggested was a protective measure that could be applied without any subjectivity

I think my point is that in the case of changing rooms, what you want cannot be done.

It is what we always had and want to retain and reinforce because it reduces the risk of pervert males imposing themselves on children and women. Removing this right to privacy and safety inevitably increases the risks of pervert behaviour toward children and women.

So, it can be done and it will be done. The law provides for it.

I'm voting with my feet too. I've boycotted the high street and have saved a fortune!

What I want the high street to do is create three changing areas:

Male
Female
Unisex (for the above and for anyone else who isn't sure what they are)

If you go into Unisex they you enter knowing it's a mixed sex space and no one is under any illusions of it being single sex.

This would cost money but frankly I don't care as we are talking about wealthy corporations - H&M don't pay a living wage - it's a cost they should bear if they want to keep their customers.

I'd also ask about GRC being that these are issued once transition is complete and Ruth Hunt has said they are not needed for single sex toilets - let's make them relevant.

I personally don't think it makes a difference since the chromosomes and socialisation remain the same but there is a legal requirement to have one it's just no one wants to ask to see it. Why can't we ask to see them? A GRC is a red herring but it might make them think about all the men who aren't trans using a female space for kicks.

Why would any retailer need to give a member of the public a copy of their risk assessment?

Risk assessments are legally required by the HSE for staff members not for the public. The purpose of a risk assessment is to identify a risk and then look to ways to design that risk out, so seeing their risk assessment may not even show something such as risk to a member of staff from something like this. The risk may have been identified, the number of people quantified and then decided that a solution would be to man the changing rooms. If that was realised as a solution to the risk the risk would be removed from the assessment as it is resolved.

Secondly, the risk assessment for most if not all large retailer will be carried out by an external company, there is no obligation for anyone to hand this to a member of the public. Sorry but you need to understand what you are asking before you bluster unnecessary anger at randomly selected retailers.

if someone that self IDs looks reasonably feminine

As a species we have the uncanny and innate ability to instinctively establish someone's sex from the briefest of glances.

In that glance we take in dozens of separate facts and our brain, in milliseconds, adds them all up to give us a correct answer 99.9% of the time.

Off the top of my head, things like height, build, jawline, posture, walk, smell, face, hands, feet, voice - plus clothing, context, location, spider sense...

We can just tell (both ways). For the 0.1% where we aren't sure, a second glance usually does it, or the reaction of other people around us etc.

This isn't a new or difficult problem- we've been successfully resolving it for years.

I’m just saying that your proposal can’t effectively work, what I suggested was a protective measure that could be applied without any subjectivity

Personally, I am entirely unconcerned about using subjectivity to assess who is male since that is exactly what these men use when they declare themselves to be "female" and impose themselves on us females against our consent.

Perhaps we females should insist on the police being called every single time, given police have powers to search.