Virgin Active update their T&C to explicitly state members must use changing spaces that reflect biological sex. Wording is very clear. "By Law" (Title edited by MNHQ at request of OP)

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://www.virginactive.co.uk/the-legal-stuff/club-rules

"By law, our members and visitors who use a changing room marked as ‘male’ or ‘female’ must select the one that matches their biological sex.
Our unisex and single-occupancy facilities can be used by everyone, and we are updating our signage to ensure these spaces are clearly marked and easy to find."

I assume there will be a lot of these changes happening in the very near future, and the guidance is about to arrive if we are lucky. Do not think Virgin would put their head above the parapet on their own.

I suspect the implication is the situation rather than the person/people involved.

But it's pretty vague and opaque. The law is very clear, all.this pretence at obfuscation is hugely unhelpful. Arse covering cop out.

Seems Virgin have looked into the law and grasped it, at least - that should make it pretty clear.

I wonder if the case by base bit will refer to the part of the judgement that talks about transmen who "pass" well. Lots of people seem to be struggling with the implications of that part of the judgement.

Ah yes. However, they may well find that the men desperate to access women’s changing rooms interpret it as a personal assessment and are setting themselves up for a whole world of tantrums on the front desk.

Hmmmmmm.

The weaselly bit here may be that a lot of changing facilities don't say 'male' or 'female'. They just have the dress/trousers graphic.

I cannot put into words how much I despise GBNews and it's entire viewership.

However, fair play. It's a shame it wasn't another hate-spewing cartoon site that could have done it instead (after all, there's hardly a shortage). But we are where we are.

I wonder if there is case law about signage and what a reasonable person would interpret these hieroglyphics as ? I would be amazed if there isn't some guidance-used-as-law from a government department somewhere.

(Obviously that falls down with the expectation of finding a reasonable person .... )

I don't think changing rooms based on clothes would be permitted under the EqA?

The signage is used to represent sex, so it doesn't matter it says women, female, a person in a dress, or any other reasonable sign.

I cannot put into words how much I despise GBNews and it's entire viewership.

That’s quite a wide group to despise. Michelle Dewberry has been great on this topic - I have watched her. Why do you despise me?

I think I’ve seen that covered, maybe in the ehrc interim guidance rather than the SC ruling itself.
Everyone knows what those signs mean, they’re used internationally, even though women often don’t wear dresses - especially in gyms!

That would be laughed out of court.

We are all allowed a touch of hyperbole, surely ? It wouldn't be FWR otherwise.

I dislike the way GBNews entertainment is allowed to be sold as "news". That's not their fault, it's a fault of regulation. And OFCOM is really up there with OFWAT for effectiveness and an ability to totally and utterly fail to discharge their brief.

And note I did give praise where it is due. Which is more than some people with partisan views manage.

Odd isn't it?
I often watch Free Speech Nation on GB News - it unashamedly platforms women who speak about facts, the law, women's rights and child safeguarding. For some reason the BBC, ITV etc have repeatedly failed to allow these women a platform. So I'm very grateful that GB News exists and concerned at the open, anti safeguarding bias of the rest of the press.

Tbh I found it quite an uncomfortable generalisation, especially considering the good work they have done in publishing the issues for women.

I’m not sure that the BBC is any better in certain respects and in some ways worse because their brand is being trustworthy and impartial.

I might be a bit of an outlier here, but I don’t care whether providers, when reversing their policies so single sex spaces are single sex, do it begrudgingly, happily, with an apology to women for past mistakes, with an apology to transwomen for making the change etc. Taking a leaf from the Dentons playbook, once single sex provision becomes the norm, the drama will die down. There will be a new way for organisations to get their virtue signalling fix. Only hardcore TRAs will be making noise about this issue.

I do feel wary about what the next cause celebre will be.

@ArabellaScott I suspect the implication is the situation rather than the person/people involved.

The original UKActive guidance was for the Contact Duty Manager to judge individuals based on whether the facility/activity they wished to access was consistent with their gender presentation.

that is very easy to solve. Plenty of women never wear dresses/skirts. Should they use the "trouser" one? the answer is clearly "no, never"

@SerendipityJane I cannot put into words how much I despise GBNews and it's entire viewership.

Sorry, Jane, but that just reads like the sort of tribalism that got us into this mess in the first place.

Maybe I should withdraw my praise then ?

FFS.

Thanks for clarification. That's absurd.

The judgement covered that bit, yep. Explicitly. Any signs that are commonly understood to refer to men/women must mean men/women.

Of course the document didn't give £13.50 an hour Duty Managers any help with what 'consistent with gender presentation' meant. Luxury beliefs for COOs and CEOs, to be implemented by low wage frontline staff

If you read the SC judgement you will see that 'woman' means 'biological female' and always did. Transwomen are men and now they have been told so. Stop breaking the law.

They’re done it entirely unwillingly and have made that very clear. They still have contempt for women and our safety and you should consider that when deciding where to spend your money

bannatyne have always protected women’s spaces and were proud and vocal in doing so

No, I wasn't intending to upset you.

That’s really reassuring about the signage. I must admit I’ve been looking askance at the signs and wondering which ones protect me and which don’t. Good to know that even the cocks and hens, or the particularly hideous king and queen thrones at one place I go, are expected to do the same.