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.

Wouldn't that take years?

Surely everyone would still have to adhere to the law as it currently is in the meantime.

forcing “business staff into the unacceptable role of ‘gender police’”.

Why would they be forced to police toilets? Are they suggesting that despite extremely clear rules and signage, there are some men who might not follow the law and might still try to access women's spaces? Surely if everyone could be relied upon to follow the law, then no one would be forced into a policing role?

If they are a big established company, with big premises, they should already have single-sex toilets, and additional unisex ones if that's what they wanted to do to be 'inclusive'.
If they removed all their single-sex toilets, that was the opposite of 'inclusive', and now they just have to sort it out.

If they are a new company with new premises, building regs required single sex toilets with optional extra unisex provision.

If they are a small company, with very small premises, they are allowed have a unisex cubicle anyway, if space precludes providing single sex toilets... I think that's right.

So just get on with it!
And by the way, 650 companies: you have very publicly declared that your version of inclusion disrespects women.

Indeed. They do seem to be suggesting that there's a cohort of people determined to break or incapable of abiding by, a law they don't like. Makes you wonder what other laws they don't like?
Maybe sex offences like voyeurism and indecent exposure?
Laws about age of consent?
Shoplifting?

I'm finding it easy to imagine the types of business that are having trouble with understanding. 650 sounds a lot....but in reality it probably just amounts to a number of gay nightclubs and a handful of council chambers.

As everyone keeps asking who the firms are, you could just use a search engine.

But in this instance, I have done it on your behalf!

See https://www.transsolidarityalliance.com/businesses-open-letter

They want to be “welcoming & inclusive”, but
Not to women & as long as they don’t have to do anything.

as soon as they are told “no men in the women’s loo” inclusion suddenly becomes impossible.

try harder dudes.

women have reasserted our rights that you have trampled all over for 10 years. Women want all our stuff back. ALL OF IT!!!

My son lives in Barcelona, and i understand that the mixed sex arrangement doesn't actually work that well in women's favour at all...and there have been many recorded incidents of voyeurism.

Aside from the one-man-band small businesses and the overtly TRA-captured lot like Lush, I bet there are a remaining segment of mid-level DEI zealot signatories who have been fed a selective (to put it mildly) version of the truth and just signed up to this letter without actual endorsement of a CEO and/or Board.

I certainly haven't noticed any big announcements of support on corporate social media accounts. In fact, let's see the full list and who is so willing to put (inaccurate) principles before profit. We wouldn't like to burden them with our custom and dirty terfy money, after all.

Why not?

You are claiming that there no issues in Spain where there is self ID?

Here is another question: can a man obtain an abortion in Spain?

Snag tights

What a way to lose customers

I think they are well known for this.

I "discovered" them some time ago, but thanks to FWR I was made aware of their policies.

What a compelling and robust research basis for your argument.

For anyone who hasn't found my post clear, the list of firms in on the web page.

my guess is that anyone with an uterus and an unwanted pregnancy can get one.

Theer is nothing " complicated" about creating an additional unisex facility alongside the two single sex ones.

Meanwhile, in an alternative universe far, far away (or: what they could have said a decade or so ago, in response to the undemocratic push to welcome transwomen into female-only spaces)...

“We, the undersigned businesses and organisations, are writing to express our deep concern at proposals seeking to enforce blanket, mandatory exclusion of a significant proportion of females, including ethnic minority women and victims of male violence, from gendered spaces and services.

“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 unacceptable roles and actions, up to and including the constructive dismissal of female workers unable to access facilities in their own workplace.

“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 female customers and colleagues”

The thing is, my version above is just as valid as what has just been published. You could argue about which is more convincing etc., but it can certainly hold its own against the statement in the OP. That my version was not only rarely raised, but instead actively demonised speaks volumes about how far society has yet to go in recognising and respecting us.

I was pretty relaxed about it until we developed a problem with predatory males in my part of the UK (Fife).

So the "firms" include a number of student unions, small bars and cafes, trans organisations and a handful of global like Ben & Jerry's & lush (who we already know regard women with contempt)

@vegetarianlouise with urinals removed what's happened to the queues especially at i.e. theatre interval times, sports matches etc?

Also just to note this isn't just about loos. What about workplace and gym communal changing facilities? Are these all mixed now?

Well, as you say, how can there possibly be any downsides then?

That's a very funny list.
Countless litte businesses, endless trans / queer / pride groups, baby yoga!, jewellers, coaching / consultancy organisations, student unions and an endless list of names / words that I suspect are single person businesses that have zero public or staff facilities (except for the loo in their own homes).

But 2/10 for effort.

Too expensive, not enough space and people not really caring (besides the British women on mumsnet who seem to think it's a pretty big f-cking deal).

My guess is that you inhabit a narrow and self selected bubble.

Meanwhile, as you suggest, many places have not implemented this type of facility, mainly because they have some respect for the dignity and requirements of their female staff and customers.

I’m struggling to see what businesses that currently make use of the single sex exception are going to fall foul of the guidance. The only example I could come up with (I grant I’m not super imaginative) is a gay pub or club that admits both men and transmen. Or alternatively a lesbian club that admits both women and transwomen. That would fall foul of the ruling and could potentially open them up to legal action on grounds of sexuality.