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.

Two biological sexes means 2 toilets needed- simple. We had this before.

Well like I said earlier I've worked in two listed buildings where we had one toilet. Wasn't an issue as we were all grown ups. In one I was the only woman permanently based in that building.

As pointed out a single toilet with sink is lawful.

Once the men are not spraying all over the seat and sanitation box or harrassing other staff etc. there should not be an issue.

As long as a loo is designed to be mixed sex and it’s clear it’s mixed sex then ok. I’d prefer single sex, but c’est la vie. I have the information I need to make an informed decision

it’s when loos are billed as ‘the ladies’ but might have men in them that there’s a problem

it’s really not complicated. All that’s required is honesty and clarity

But I was replying to a post that said we used to have two loos for two sexes. We didn't always have that and yes it was legal and worked perfectly well

yeah we didn't always have that. but we also didn't have the 'this is the ladies but might contain a surprise penis!' thing going on

and frankly the sooner the latter fucks off, the better

What a load of old nonsense.

Male & female toilets. Weirdly these have been provided for decades without organisations & businesses having an existential meltdown.

If they only have one toilet then it’s mixed sex, like it’s always been.

If they have the space & money they can add a unisex loo. If they don’t then male & female it is. Men in dresses will just have to obey the law like everybody else.

If they have the space & money they can add a unisex loo. If they don’t then male & female it is. Men in dresses will just have to obey the law like everybody else.

(Broken record) once again, not a thought for the disabled. Not because they would count first in everything, of course. It goes without saying because few say it.

It's kind of funny that these businesses think they're showing how much they care about trans people when actually they're demonstrating that they don't care enough about their trans employees to spend a relatively small amount of money providing appropriate facilities for them to use post Supreme Court judgment.

Years of practice of not providing reasonable adjustments for the disabled perhaps ?

But trans people are so much more fashionable than disabled people.

I know. Who wants to see someone in a wheelchair ?

Yeah, they should really keep that shit to the privacy of their own homes instead of bringing their whole selves to work/the cinema/McDonald's.

Be careful. Sarcasm is next to witchcraft in the MN canon.

650 businesses don't want to have to comply with the law.

Suck it up, buttercups.

This. Performativity rather than actual commitment?

There's been never ending amounts of money to hose around for rainbow flags and lanyards and laces and training courses and DEI leaders and rendering pedestrian crossings dangerous, and currently to piss up that wall in never ending court cases. There was a rush to write policies building in false law and policing everyone to the nth degree. There's plenty of money and time.

The issue is that the money and time were to the benefit of men.

650 businesses admitting they haven’t been complying with the law for years. High time they did.

They can probably use it as a tax write-off too.

What dogs would that be?

When women are free, equal and educated they choose to have less children.

And making things difficult for women never led to economic ruin...

There have been public SSS since the 1700s. Not sure what country you come from but that’s how it has always been. The exception is unisex toilets with a capacity of one. I would venture to guess 90% of women would feel a mixed sex toilet as threatening particularly since 90% of sexual assaults and rapes that happen in public toilets are in mixed sex ones. That’s not even counting men’s tendency to spray all over toilets and floor. The leering males. Imagine having to change your tampon or pad and with a man in the next stall. My God, if that were the case, most women wouldn’t want to participate in public life (which is exactly what the trans are whining about but I guess only they matter).

it may have been legal but do you think women campaigned for separate loos for fun? Why do you think woman fought for separate facilities? Because it was working really well? They just thought that they’d do it for a bit of a giggle?