Some good news - Primark!

[Pootleplum]

Just seen on Twitter that Primark have now designated some changing rooms women only. Will try and link.

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?

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.

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. 😁

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.

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.

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.

Even if it can't be enforced it's making a statement which is heartening imo and a step in the right direction.

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.

Again, is it completely beyond you, to drag your eyes off the men, for just one second? Even a nanosecond?

We can exclude all the men, because a legitimate aim is that the women don't want them there. And has fuck all to do with the intention of the man involved. He doesn't need to be considered.

And secondly, even you are never going to be able to come up with a scenario where a primark changing room assistant can not only risk assess a man on the spot, but get away with claiming they constitute an unacceptable risk on the basis of their personal two second risk assessment!

Unless, of course, like some of the Twitter pics, they are wielding an axe, or a sword.

Crikey, if Primark changing room assistants can risk assess the male population to that degree, I can guarantee you, they're not being paid enough.

We can exclude all the men, because a legitimate aim is the the women don't want them there. And has fuck all to do with the intention of the man involved. He doesn't need to be considered.

That's it Datun in a nutshell.

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.

Primark need to clone Humza Yousaf and station one outside every changing room - he has the superpower to tell who's "at it". For some reason, the rest of us can't tell the difference between a man pretending to be a woman and a man pretending to be pretending to be a woman.

No, it wouldn't.

Same sex spaces such as changing rooms are explicitly and specifically provided for under the EA. That's exactly what the SSEs are for.

Women are legally (and morally) entitled to a space free of males when they are going to be in a state of undress.

We all know that some men are very unhappy about that - too bad.

No, it wouldn’t! 🙄 Single sex toilets, changing rooms, refuges, etc, are permitted under the Equality Act and you know full well it’s not discrimination to have them.

absolute nonsense. An 'incident of problem' includes any woman (actual woman I mean, not trans) feeling uncomfortable in her own changing room. So there have been countless incidents. An attempt to pretend that these don't actually matter in order to carve a path for men into women's changing rooms is gaslighting and shitty behaviour. Ignoring women's boundaries should be recognised as the assault which it is.

I agree. It's assault. And exclusion. And using non consenting female people's bodies whether as validation equipment or for other purposes. Its only a variant in degree: it is the same intent.

Many women will have quietly and quickly walked out as soon as they saw a male there, no one is counting these victims of male 'inclusion' and 'kindness'. Where is the reciprocation from males in care for access, inclusion, equality, diversity?

There's a woman who pops up on twitter regularly who's been challenging Primnark about their changing room rules for ages, writing letters and protesting outside their stores. Well done to her for her relentless persistence.

I agree it's not down to young staff to attempt to remove the red flag waving men (no matter how they're dressed) but it's a start to reinstate the social contract about women only spaces and to openly state that these are for women only.

I wouldn't shop in Primark now whatever they did! They've shat on us from a great height for far too long!

Good work Primark! 🙌🙌🙌

🤣🙌

“A man is hardly going to put on a dress to go in there.”

But i thought a transwoman didn’t need to present as a stereotypical woman- A person can present as a man generally does - and still say they are a woman - no need for dresses, long hair, high heels. Etc

Given the levels of confusion and cognitive dissonance I'm not sure that would work...

Nope. If the space passes the threshold to be single sex under the Equality Act, then it's legal to turn away anyone who does not have a female birth certificate, without any additional considerations, as the comparator for a discrimination claim would be another male who wasn't undergoing gender reassignment. The proportionate etc test only comes into play for someone who is legally female due to having a GRC, and there's nothing in the law that says you have to "risk assess" each person for it to be proportionate. There is mention of a "case by case" basis, but it's unclear as to whether this means individual by individual, or setting by setting. Lots of organisations seem to be interpreting it as individual by individual but that may simply be as a result of guidance from Stonewall.

No it isn't.

The Equality Act does allow sex segregated spaces. Stopping a trans person from changing in any changing room would be illegal but providing separate spaces / services isn't.

Happylittlechicken · Yesterday 13:41

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?

Lie? Surely not? Who would think of pretending? I'm convinced that "Karen" White, "Katie" Dolatowski and Adam Graham are all entirely sincere in being lady womens.

Mishy, I know that you know perfectly well that the legal comparator for assessing discrimination arising from gender reassignment is birth sex. So why do you post that this would be illegal?
Genuinely curious as to whether you have a logical legal argument? Don’t want to immediately assume you are acting in bad faith

@HagoftheNorth following the Haldane judgement on the appeal to the case that For Women Scotland brought about representation on public boards, it seems that's not the case, but rather it's their legal sex. Hence the push to get the Equality Act amended to make it clear that the protected characteristic is biological sex not legal sex. That's gone through the 100,000 signature threshold in order to have it debated in Parliament (most likely Westminster Hall, but given it's a fairly topical issue at the moment, it may end up in the main chamber). The date for that is due to be announced in about 12 days, but the petition is still open for signatures, and there's a link to it from this thread.