Hundreds of firms warn new guidance on single sex spaces is ‘unworkable’ and would cause ‘significant economic harm’

[IwantToRetire]

More than 650 organisations have urged Bridget Phillipson to ‘take immediate action to prevent these proposals from moving forward’

“We, the undersigned businesses and organisations, are writing to express our deep concern at proposals seeking to enforce blanket, mandatory exclusion of trans people from gendered spaces and services.

“The proposals made in the EHRC’s draft Code of Practice under the Equality Act would have serious and far-reaching consequences for UK businesses, our employees, and our customers.

“Many of us have spent years building inclusive environments where all customers and staff feel safe and welcome. These proposals would tell us to act in ways that directly contradict those commitments; undermining trust, damaging reputations, and risking the loss of valued staff and customers.”

They also express concern that the proposals would put them at “constant risk of complaints and litigation from multiple directions”, as well as forcing “business staff into the unacceptable role of ‘gender police’”.

“Such practices are not only deeply invasive, but likely impossible to implement without breaching Article 8 of The Human Rights Act, which protects rights to privacy, and risking discriminating against valued trans customers and colleagues”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/supreme-court-trans-single-sex-spaces-b2826924.html

So women's rights are less important than commercial compliance.

Indeed but if these doctors signed off on this political ideology after the dramalamas in Fife put on their show it will come under no risk to us the public will end up paying for staff fuckups.

Tje :they are valid" sounds a little hollow when forcing the general public to ignore them in the debate over public services and spaces🤷‍♀️

So you're happy to use facilities habitually used by men, many of whom are notoriously less careful and hygienic in public toilets than women. I really hope Spanish providers are geared up for the extra cleaning required. 🙄

They've gone very quiet all of a sudden. Hmm.

There are a couple of pubs with common names, making it more difficult to boycott them. I've downloaded the letter so at leisure I can see if recognise any of them. I already boycott Lush and Ben & Jerrys.

Great, meanwhile, here in the UK, we have men's and women's and guess what? That didn't make the earth shake either, other then a few men stamping their feet over not being allowed in women's spaces anymore.

Pity FOLD London is on that list - I had been being tempted by some of their stuff that's been advertised at me. Ah well, saved some money for gardening, perhaps. Many of those businesses seem to be too small to be likely to have more than one toilet anyway!

'unworkable'

Says a bunch of virtue signalling woke businesses who have made it part of their brand
A bunch of charities who perhaps would lose a bunch of public sector money
A bunch of businesses who are too small to even have multiple toilets on their premises
A bunch of mobile services who don't even have premises
A bunch of businesses who pay their staff minimum wage and arguably are going to be out of business in a couple of years because they don't actually have long term financial viability.

Fans of history will of course recognise these arguments as following in the arguments that you couldn't just abolish slavery - think of the shareholders.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/16/spanish-pm-apologises-loophole-sexual-consent-law

Just on that. I wonder what is happening with the rape laws in Spain. Where previously, if a rape was not violent enough, (or a woman doesn’t physically fight back in case of being murdered, or intoxicated) a woman was deemed not to have been raped. Maybe sexually assaulted, but not raped. There was uproar in 2018 in Catalonia over this after 5 men raped a woman during some type of ‘running with’ the bulls, and Judge said it was not rape as not enough violence.

Spain introduced a change to include rapes even where the victim is not fighting back (maybe in case she will be murdered, or intoxicated/unconscious). A ‘only yes, means yes’ law With that ostensibly pro women legislation, they actually reduced the minimum and maximum sentences which the rapist could receive for their offences. Not only would men serve less on conviction going forward, but it meant that men incarcerated before the legislation was introduced got out early on appeal, as their punishment had been reduced. I think 100 rapists straight away got out.

The Spanish PM, Pedro Sanchez, said that they would close the loophole they had just created which allowed convicted rapists to get softer sentences. I suppose it must have happened completely by accident, cutting sentences of offenders in the new legislation. Isn’t that right Pedro?

Then they withdrew the new legislation.

https://cne.news/article/2966-spain-withdraws-controversial-rape-law

So, I wonder if the Spanish parliament have since introduced any legislation to stop men getting away with rape. I mean ‘just don’t be too violent and you can get away with it’ legislation, or minimising their punishment cannot be the only two ways of dealing with rapists. I don’t know if opening mixed public facilities where men can wander in where women are in a state of undress or vulnerable can be considered good for women. We know that most rapes and sexual assaults experienced by women in toilets happen in mixed sex facilities. Those 5 rapists, and other similar types of men must be very happy with the legislatures in Spain right now. If they have not changed anything so that women can receive justice against rapists.

Nowhere is good for women right now. Most legislatures, and organisations seem to be on the side of allowing perverted men access to women and children.

Edit: to add ‘be’.

This isn't true. Some toilets have to be single sex in Spain and there seems to be a lot of resistance to mixed-sex ones for the same reasons as here: safety, dignity, privacy.

ChatGPT says this about it (I had to remove the sources):

What the laws / norms currently are

• In Spain, workplace regulations (Real Decreto 486/1997) require toilets / retretes in work places to be separated by sex, or else they must allow usage by separate sexes (i.e. not mixed‐use at the same time). (
• Some municipalities, educational centres or particular public buildings have experimented with or installed “inclusive” or gender‐neutral / mixed bathrooms.

Arguments in favour of mixed / gender‐neutral bathrooms Some Spanish women (and activists more broadly) see positive or neutral aspects in mixed or gender‐neutral toilets. These include:

• Inclusion of trans, nonbinary people: Allowing people to use the restrooms that match their gender identity is seen as more respectful and safer for them.
• Reducing waiting times: Especially in public spaces, when toilets are separated by gender, often women wait longer. Mixed toilets may help balance usage and reduce queues.
• Design benefits: Making bathrooms more accessible (e.g. for people with disabilities), more private, or with better facilities, which can benefit everyone, not just one group.

Concerns and objections Many women express concerns or outright opposition, for a variety of reasons. Among them:

• Privacy & comfort: Concerns over exposure, or feeling uncomfortable sharing with people of the opposite sex, especially in contexts of changing clothing, hygiene, or during menstruation.
• Hygiene and cleanliness: Some expect that mixed bathrooms may lead to poorer maintenance (more usage, less careful behaviour by some users) or that “other” users may be less careful.
• Queues / waiting time: Although mixed bathrooms could reduce waiting, some women believe that in practice they may encounter longer waiting if the system isn’t well designed. E.g., women might still face delays especially if only one unisex restroom replaces multiple gendered ones.
• Safety concerns: Some women feel that mixed toilets might make them vulnerable, though actual evidence of increased risk is not solid in the sources I found.
• Norms / cultural expectations: Many people are used to gendered bathrooms; change is uncomfortable. Some women oppose mixed bathrooms in bars, restaurants, etc., on the basis of tradition or discomfort.

What tends to influence women’s feelings about mixed bathrooms From what I saw, these factors make a difference in how women feel:

• Where the bathroom is: In workplaces versus bars/cafés versus public buildings versus schools. For example, many women accept more inclusive designs in public or municipal buildings but are more hesitant about bars/restaurants or private spaces.
• Design and implementation details: Single‐occupancy stalls vs shared stalls; locking doors; how clean / maintained the facilities are; privacy features. If privacy is well handled, people are more open.
• Cultural exposure and conversation: In more progressive or urban areas there is more openness; also among younger people, those involved in LGBT+ activism, etc.
• Legal / institutional safety / protections: If there are clear rules ensuring privacy, safety, and inclusive use (e.g. protecting trans people) that tends to make the idea more acceptable.

Examples / quotes

• In Madrid, an old debate around an ordinance that allows for one mixed accessible bathroom in small bars (with small space / low capacity) got reactions: many women said it’s “incómodo” (uncomfortable), citing hygiene, “salpicones” (splashing), that they need their own space.
• In Zaragoza, in one museum, there was positive commentary that bathrooms “without gender labels” may “generate less differentiation” and be more inclusive. Some psychologists pointed out possible initial discomfort but generally saw potential.
• In schools: there are examples of mixed‐sex toilets. But some female students report discomfort, especially during menstruation.

My overall sense Putting together what I found, here is a rough summary of how many Spanish women might feel:

• A significant minority support or are open to mixed / gender‐neutral bathrooms, especially under good design and when inclusion is considered.
• A larger group have reservations: privacy, safety, hygiene.
• And many may be ambivalent—willing to accept them in some settings (e.g. public spaces, cultural institutions) but not others (bars, nightclubs) or depending on how they are built.

You mean men demanding to be allowed to use vulnerable women for their fetish being upset at being told women have human rights too?

Is it not this nightclub?
https://www.fold.london

Ah! Then maybe I can go back to being tempted by https://thefoldlondon.com/ . Thanks!

Sorry I meant to type same sex toilets which obviously changes my entire post!

After a quick sampling of this list of business, it would seem reasonable to describe them as UK small businesses (i.e. 0-49 employees)

The department for business and trade's latest figures are that the UK has 5.45 million small businesses.

The 678 signatories represent 0.012% of the UK's smallest companies.

I'd say it's definitely the nightclub!
https://www.instagram.com/p/DMLSIyGsLie/?

Sorry, dupe post, you could see the instagram post in draft mode 🤷🏻‍♀️

Good to know it is only such a small percentage of businesses that feel incapable of stopping their male employees from sexually harassing women.

Surely 0.00012?

Not by much its still a building regs issue and H&S Regs even if the business was letting males into the female SSS etc. they should have has a WSSS and a MSSS for toilets and changing so its a new sign and enforce the law via the contract of employment.

It's a bit of a mess isn't it - it begs the question why would you introduce same sex toilets if it wasn't a legal requirement? 🤔 If it was done to save costs on not having two toilets then that has come back to bite! And if it was an ideological choice, well, tough shit really, we can't all get what we want.

The government could offer loans to smaller businesses to change their toilets.

Single sex = female only or male only
Mixed sex = allowing both sex use the provision.
The above are only relevant if the provision is a block of toilets with shared wash areas

Single /individual use = one person one toilet and enclosed sink behind a lockable door so can be used by either sex.

If a business has only one toilet for lawful provision it also has to be an accessable unit.

Why should the State fund any business or individual who chose to purchased or to built a workplace which failed to meet basic building regs?

Someone who chooses to break the law in one area is much more likely to break the law in other areas so the State should not provide an advantage to this type of business

You seem very knowledgeable on this.

Loan not fund? Is it not that dissimilar to funds set up in the wake of the disaster at Grenfell. Those fund businesses such as Housing Assocs to sort cladding out in a timely way.

Why?

Why should the State do this?