Co-op says Supreme Court ruling is “a step back”.

[MsPoppoff]

So says a statement from its female boss (my boss).
“This feels like a huge step back, and I want to reassure all our colleagues impacted by the ruling, that you have our support, that you have my personal support, and that we’re doing everything we can to explore how we can do right by our colleagues, stay true to our values…

“Our policies have not changed…. colleagues can continue to use toilets and changing facilities in accordance with their gender…”

@TILIS
Any examples of victimisation?

Not celebrating roll back of trans rights.

Celebrating the SC confirming women's rights to single sex spaces.

What rights have been rolled back? Transexuals have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. The only rights anyone has under the Equality Act 2010 is that they should not be treated less favourably than someone who does not possess that protected characteristic.

You cannot roll back rights that never existed.

A misapprehension has been corrected and the resulting misappropriations identified. That is all.

Another emotive bit of fiction.

The rights 'rolled back' were actually women's, did you notice that?

The commandeering that men made of women's spaces and language has turned out to be illegal. Either you believe in rights being respected or you don't.

If you respect them only when they advantage men and pretend you don't see when they are womens, and are here to try and advance male wants over women's legal protections then you are a male supremacist. There's nothing progressive or good about that.

Put a little more plainly for you - women's single sex spaces and right to privacy and dignity, and men's right to use whatever space they want (and whoever is in it, let's be honest about that part because it's ridiculous to ignore the evidence and reality there) cannot exist at the same time. It's one or the other.

"This forces trans-women, who are women, into male bathrooms and, ironically, forces trans-men, who are men, now back into female bathrooms."

Let me translate into English..

This forces men, who are men, into male bathrooms and, ironically, forces women, who are women, now back into female bathrooms.

Stonewall misled you. Whether they overtly lied or were just ignorant, I don't know... I can't see why the Equality Act would have laid out protections for gender identity if it also laid out that TWAW, because if it had, no additional protections for gender identity would be necessary.

I appreciate it sucks being told you can do what you want for 10+ years, and that you're heroic and progressive and brave for it and all the women who complain are just nasty bigoted far right Nazis, and then find out it was all bollocks, none of it was true, you never actually had that right and you have to go back to having the same rights as everyone else. But it's not our fault. Campaign for third spaces if it's that important. You won't though and we all know why.

These organisations bragging about ignoring a Supreme Court Ruling
and a clarification of the law
need to give their heads a wobble.

We like to break the law is not the cool look they think it is

People can say that trans women are women until they're blue in the face. However, it's not true. The supreme court's ruling is very clear.

I'd advise people to give up thinking otherwise; for their own sake.

Another Co-op employee here - please do not think that this interview is reflective of the organisation, it may be the view of the CEO. The current culture is not one where diverse opinions are welcome and it scares me because it’s a great organisation. People who work there really do care and it makes me sad to think the impact of one individual can impact a brand over 180 years old.

The CEO can protect trans and nonbinary people but she has to be 100% sure she's not protecting them at women's expense or Co-Op will be in trouble. What about Health and Safety at work - no harm providing extra facilities but are all their staff facilities compliant with the current law? Telling staff they can use whichever toilet they like is not legal unless they are all single-user toilets, fully enclosed with a wash basin and sanitary disposal inside.

She also needs to be careful that her performative (what we used to call gushy) statements don't create an uncomfortable or even hostile work enviroment for her other employees. Many employees (especially women) may feel quietly relieved by the Supreme Court judgment. Are they less valuable employees? That statement and similar ones could contribute to a discrimination case on sex or on protected belief.

And there will be less obvious problems. Worried unwilling parents of transitioning children in families where it's not working out well - she seems to be accusing them of not loving or valuing their children. No-one wants to see that at work. Distressed and angry spouses (usually wives) and children of transitioning adults, who might not be feeling very valued anywhere and even less so at work after seeing how their spouses and parents are valued and protected for a huge betrayal at home. Detransitioners. She might not employ many of these less-obvious people and they might not all have grounds for a discrimination case as they're not protected characteristics but Co-Op are a big employer so there will be some. Does the Co-Op really want to make their working lives miserable?

If I were the CEO or a senior Council member I'd be taking some more (or better) legal advice before making any more ill-considered statements. Otherwise this could be even more expensive in bad publicity and lost custom than in legal expenses and fines. An organisation that claims the moral high ground in its business model and its image is more vulnerable to getting it wrong than one that only cares about making a profit and says so. In the worst case (and I hope it doesn't go there) the CEO really could be taking this "to the end" of the Co-Op.

There are over 3,000 comments on the Telegraph article

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/05/04/ill-protect-trans-people-to-the-end-vows-co-op-boss/

Is this the co-op bank? Because afaik it no longer belongs to the co-op.

She's CEO of Co-Operative Group, so it's not the bank by the look of it.

Thank the neo-liberal economic model for shafting the co-op - the mutual model does not fit that particular form of economic liberalisation.
Not that I agree with the statement re loos. Far from it. Also, I am a member so am now twitching that my data has been hacked. Brilliant.

Exactly. What a bizarre take from a business.

im fed up with these businesses rainbow washing inclusion. If they were truly inclusive they would think about helping staff and customers with disabilities: vision loss, deafness and mobility issues, loneliness and depression which affect a far larger proportion of their staff and customers. Why do disabled people only get the ability to call for reasonable adjustments whereas trans identification get adjustments that are so unreasonable they override every other protected characteristic. What are these businesses doing about age discrimination ? How many employees are 50 plus?

all this talk about third spaces in loos etc. I'm sure putting this money into specially adapted changing Places toilets for the most seriously physically disabled would be truly inclusive and life changing. Putting braille signage I'm sure people with disabilities would have a thousand ideas about things that could be simply changed to help them at little cost

i was in Japan aand the airport had disability facilities for those with a stoma. How often is that thought of ?

I can’t see why they are more expensive than Waitrose, nor why other food cooperatives round here seem to thrive under the same economic conditions.

A quick google suggests their profits were £131 million last year. They aren’t struggling, just betraying their original ethos.

As a % of turnover it’s tiny

And shop doors! I don't use a wheelchair myself, but my mum has one, and it's only when you are using or pushing one that you realise how many shop/pub/restaurant doors are impossible without help. Even if there is no step, there may be a double door of which one side is locked and the other is too narrow to use without getting staff to open the locked one. Or, the door won't stay open without holding it. These are not historic buildings but a 1960s shopping centre.

And yes, steps, kerbs, etc. What you thought was a smooth transition up from the pedestrian crossing to the pavement, with no curb, is hampered by even an inch of kerb when you have a heavy person in a wheelchair.

It’s still £131 MILLION.

Unlike most organisations a Cooperative can’t raise funds for investment from shareholders so it sounds a lot but for a multi billion pound organisation it really isn’t

But you need to compare that with other companies in the same market. Yes, it's lower than others but is still higher than Morrisons

Operating profit as a % of turnover

Tesco 4.6%
Sainsburys 3.3%
Asda 2.1%
Waitrose 1.4%
Coop 1.2%
Morrisons 0.6%