What exactly will all of these organisations do when the EHRC publishes the consultation ?

[Orangemintcream]

These companies and organisations that are “waiting for guidance” (that clearly have their own legal teams or access to one to advise them) what will they do when it is published and yet again reiterates the law ?

Ignore it ?
Tantrum ?
Comply ?

What exactly are they hoping for with keep delaying ?

It’s really cheering that so many of you seem to have a more positive take on this than I do…I really want you all to be right and myself to be wrong (not something I can often be heard saying!)

I’m not sure they do have to have lockable doors for changing rooms in shops. Ultimately you’re not obliged to change there. It’s not like a workplace where you have to get changed into a uniform. It’s whether they’ll risk the potential hit in terms of customers.

Because if you have mixed sex you don’t have to worry about whether you’re correctly applying the single sex exceptions allowed in the Equality Act. It’s moot.

Once it becomes clear that insurance policies will be invalid if the law is not followed, I expect that most organisations will comply with the law quick-smart. It may take a couple of high profile tribunals/court cases, but then all that will be left are the dyed-in-the-wool ideological organisations.

I wait to see what happens with Stonewall, Mermaids, et al.

But you still have to ensure compliance around solid doors, integral basins etc

You can't just make everything mixed sex without doing anything to comply.

You do if they are mixed sex. The law says so.

My nearest M&S has unisex changing rooms with large cubicles and lockable doors. It’s set out in an ‘L’ shape. The longer part of the ‘L’ is for women and the shorter section has cubicles for men. No men are sent towards the women’s area and the staff direct the men to their own section.

Is it likely they’d need to alter anything?

Just be honest and label them as mixed sex so that people can make an informed choice? Think you'll find M & S have to date avoided transparency and honesty about all this.

Sounds as if that is compliant. Fully lockable, full length doors and directions for customers towards male and female areas?

I’m pretty sure H&M have unisex changing rooms with curtains.

They'll have to address that.

I think most companies will comply. A lot of them already are. In fact, I think it will be a welcome relief to them.

Back when the whole nation was captured - police cars painted, trains painted, road crossings coloured, every shop from decorated, lesbians kicked out of pride, governments saying that women had penises, the prime minister saying that 'only women have a cervix' is wrong and should not be said...

Everyone had to go along with it or be branded hateful, transphobic, bigot, terf, etc. They went after businesses. Advertisers had to toe the line. So did publishers and the media. Everything, it was absolutely everyone.

There was no choice. Businesses simply could not afford to not join in. It wasn't enough to sit back, they had to pay Stonewall to be on the 'good' list and they had to virtue signal to show the world and keep themselves safe. They were terrified. It was very much a 'do it to Julia' situation.

So now, the highest court in the land says that has to stop. It's out of their hands. They have no choice. They must comply with the law. And I think they will.

The rest will slowly get sued.

What law do you think they’re breaking?

Absurd what a little tolerance over the years resulted in with biological males self declaring that they are females and being free to use biological women's private spaces. Thank the courts for defining this now allowing wimps like Kier Stammer to now publicly define what a woman is.

This. It’s about informed choice. There seems to be a general misapprehension between what’s allowed and what’s required.

Equalities and employment laws says that unisex facilities have to be compliant in certain ways...such as with full length, fully lockable doors, and unisex toilet facilities have to have the same plus integral washbasins.

UK employment law does require unisex (gender-neutral) toilet facilities to be fully enclosed and have a fully lockable door that extends to the floor. This is to ensure privacy and is part of the legal requirements for providing suitable and sufficient sanitary conveniences in the workplace.

Elaboration:
Separate Facilities:
The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 generally require separate facilities for men and women.

Unisex Exception:
However, there is an exception for fully enclosed, lockable rooms with a door that can be secured from the inside, which allows for unisex or gender-neutral facilities.

Full Enclosure:
The term "fully enclosed" means there should be no gaps above or below the door, and the entire room should be enclosed to provide privacy, according to Personnel Today.

Privacy:
The requirement for a fully lockable door is crucial to ensure the privacy of users and is a key aspect of meeting the legal obligations for sanitary facilities.

Other Requirements:
Additionally, unisex facilities should have a wash basin, soap, and a means of drying hands, as well as a toilet.

https://www.washroomcubicles.co.uk/toilet-cubicles-and-the-law-a-guide-for-employers/

https://sex-matters.org/posts/publications/workplace-toilets-know-your-rights/

I’m pretty sure that’s not accurate. Workplace regulations may be different, but unisex changing rooms have operated for a while without full length lockable doors. They’d have been in breach of regulation prior to the SC ruling. They may well whack doors on in place of curtains though. (Obviously written before your edit)

I do think that there will have to be clarity on what is actually being operated as single sex in relation to the Act. Some things are clear - all women shortlists etc - some less so. Again, all the ruling makes clear is that shops, in this example, can exclude all males from some spaces, it doesn’t say they have to.

https://www.irwinmitchell.com/news-and-insights/expert-comment/post/102kb9l/do-retailers-have-to-provide-single-sex-toilets-and-changing-rooms-for-their-cust

https://sex-matters.org/posts/single-sex-services/sex-matters-in-changing-rooms/

"A women’s clothing shop is likely to be assumed by customers to be offering a female-only changing area (even if it lacks explicit signage). It is preferable to have a clear policy and signs so that everyone knows what to expect. Providing spaces with ambiguous rules is likely to lead to conflict, uncertainty or humiliation.

A retailer cannot expect its staff or customers to be able differentiate between a “trans women”, a cross-dresser, a man who identifies as “non-binary”, or any other man in explaining the rules about whether a space is female-only or mixed-sex. People who identify as trans should be expected to follow rules in the same way as others.

If Monsoon is really inviting women and children to undress, and try on Eid dresses, in spaces that are mixed sex and “open and available to all our customers” it should communicate this clearly. But it would be far more sensible for it to put up clear signs that the changing rooms are for women and accompanied children only. Men (including those that identify as “trans women”) who wish to wear its clothing are welcome to buy them and try them on at home. This would be lawful as a proportionate means to a legitimate aim"

For the organisations who have made a big show of supporting gender ideology, it will be difficult to go from that to only providing male and female facilities/services and insisting on their correct usage, I'd have thought. This is obviously a problem entirely of their own making in most cases but it won't always be that easy to magic up a third space to ameliorate the hurt feelings of those who don't want to share with others of their sex. I'm not sure how this will go really. I would hate for disabled facilities to be the casualty.

Not changing rooms for customers.

As above, it’s a lot about the honesty for me.

If something is labeled for women, it damn well needs to be so.

So, for example, lots of charity shops just have one or two changing cubicles, often with just a curtain across. People can choose to use them or not, and are not trying on underwear or swimming costumes for example.

What’s completely different is if you have gone into the women’s fitting rooms and see a man in there. That’s 100% needs to stop.

Frankly, they're reaping what they've sown. If they've undermined the rights of women and girls to privacy and safety and prioritised the type of men demanding access to women and girls undressing, then they will eventually be held accountable. Maybe not through legal action initially given the costs but the court of public will no longer be silenced.

Just look at the reaction from so many women after the SC Judgment. They've kept quiet while men made outrageous demands from women - our identity, language, privacy and safety, even our children's wellbeing. But now the law has been clarified and women are finally voicing their fury at what's happened.

#nodebate plus bullying and intimidation is finally over and few businesses will be prepared to to openly break the law in the face of women's legal expectations and a hostile press.