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.

There is that.

There was a utube short doing the rounds a few months ago with a woman saying she would never employ pronoun CV people as they would disrupt her businesses and cost her money to manage.

The "pronoun noise" in the US tech industry is a warning to any big business whos senior management want to beat their market and earn big salary/bonus rewards.

The fact that unions are so rabbid about it will imo make it more unappealing going forward.

Yes. Laws that aren't enforced aren't laws at all.

Like rights that can't be upheld without using a legal system denied the subject.

Your dismissiveness of how the majority of girls and women feel about wanting safety, dignity and privacy in public toilets is noted. It almost has a male ring to it. You are someone who clearly has never been subjected to male violence or perversion. You are welcome to your opinion but your opinion is just that your opinion. Spain is not the UK. And I suspect that given 5-10 years Spanish women will be crying foul that there are no longer any SSS.

Great, I will check those countries off my list to visit.

Someone needs to develop an app or website for women that lists every organisation that is anti-women’s rights. That way we can be more intentional when we decide to patronise a business or organisation and only support pro-women entities.

And to be clear, prisoners cannot give informed consent so impregnating the woman was technically rape.

I thought trans people were only a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of the population, really not worth worrying our pretty heads about, which was why we didn't need to clarify that sex in law means biological sex - practically nobody would be affected. That was one of the arguments the TRAs put forward. Yet now it seems they're so essential to the economy that making them sad will lead to economic ruin.

I noticed that too - they are simultaneously a tiny tiny percentage of the population AND entitled to extensive, disruptive and expensive alternations to every single public building in the nation....

All countries with devestatingly low birthrates despite high levels of reported "gender parity".

I wonder why?
Will anyone ever join the dots?

Not unless it's to the advantage of men, I wouldn't have thought.

And were the government to wait 15-20 years to force organisations to follow the law, the trans movement and their corporate and government supporters would be even more entrenched then they currently are after a decade of allowing self id.

But nothing to stop people taking organisations to court for not following the law. One landmark case, more notice would be taken.

Yes but I think legal fees associated with law suits prohibit the average woman from taking an organisations to court.

Recall just a decade or so ago when if you went to the ladies and a male was in it, all you had to do was call management to handle the situation (or even the police if the situation warranted)? I’m not sure how that policy was the rule for as long as there has been SSS in public, and everyone (except the pedos and voyeurs) followed the social contract, and yet for some baffling reason these places can’t do the same again?

Isn't there a woman sueing David Lloyd gyms because they were letting men self id into the women's facilities?

😬

I've looked at the list. It's hard to identity a lot of these businesses. I'd like to know exactly who they are so I can find out more/boycott businesses if there are any on the list I use.

@NotNowFGS I think most of them are very very small businesses such as hairdressers and tattoo studios. Most probably have very small premises and single user toilets so wouldn’t be affected by having to make changes to single sex facilities. It’s quite a pathetic list actually.

What time and money. They just make sure their existing facilities are properly labelled. Then they need to employ adults who know exactly what is in their underwear without having to have it certified and validated by strangers.

Schrodinger's trans ...

Yes, Emma Hardy.
Just looked at her Twitter and it says a "drop hands settlement" has been reached and At the current time (18/08/25) DL await the new EHRC code of practice.

Given the high profile nature - would a legal firm not do this for free? Or JK Rowling has some money I believe.

'Drop hands'!? Is that gunslinger terminology?

I'd never heard of it before but according to AI
AI Overview

+6

A "drop hands" settlement, or "drop-hands" settlement, is a UK legal agreement where both parties in a dispute agree to discontinue the litigation and each bear their own legal costs, effectively walking away from the claim without paying the other side any money or costs. This type of settlement is not made under Part 36rules but rather as a Calderbank offer, formally recorded in a Consent Order or Tomlin Order. It's a strategic way to end litigation, avoiding further legal expenses and uncertainty by ensuring no admission of liability and no costs are paid to the opposing party.

Not all Spaniards are fine with this, however. There are at least two GC groups campaigning against all this nonsense. You are behind the times. Spain needs to catch up - it's biological sex, not a piece of paper...
And assuming you are a woman (biological sort) you may be fine sharing loos with guys but you cannot make that decision for other women. UK government stats suggest over 90% of sexual assaults in lavatories and changing rooms happen in unisex or gender neutral facilities. Are you certain it is not the same in Spain?