Women’s only services

[rosemole]

I’ve often wondered how women providing services for other women such as hairdressing, massage, nails, wedding dresses, bra fittings, etc. cope with the possibility that a bloke can rock up and demand to be served.

If you are one of these service providers, how do you manage? Have you been able to successfully sideswipe a man in these circumstances?

I feel sorry for the M&S bra fitters. I'm not sure they can refuse to measure trans identified men for a bra. However, I think some women are perfectly fine doing this. I hope they have a choice.

Yes, sorry. I didn’t word that very well. I meant that that’s the aspect of your question I was interested in. The conversation had moved more onto whether it was legal to do it in the first place and I sort of wanted to bring it back to what you were saying.

I think maybe one way for providers to reinforce boundaries would be to state very clearly in the advertising or at the booking stage that this is for females only, to spell out what this means and that male people won’t be able to participate.

That would make it a little easier to challenge if someone did to turn up and try it on.

I’ve seen a few examples of this, mainly from men’s circles saying, fairly kindly but explicitly that females aren’t able to join in. I’m away at the moment but will try to dig them out and add them on here when I’m back home in the next couple of days.

Maybe we’ll begin to see more of this? I really hope so.

I’d also love to have examples of what to say/how to handle it if these situations do arise. You need to be a pretty confident person to directly challenge and thinking it through and having some words ready to use in advance would potentially be really helpful.

It’s not something that’s currently relevant for me but I do run workshops (arts related) and am mulling it over as I may want to run single sex events in the future.

An interesting question is whether a barber would be justified in refusing service to a woman who wanted a traditional masculine hair cut, like a short back and sides.

My guess is probably not.

If as you say it is legal (proportionate) to provide single sex services, they when advertising you quote the relevant section of the EA, as those advertising jobs only for biological women.

And if there is a booking form this should also refer to the section of the EA, and maybe also the Supreme Court ruling.

If a TW then turns up and insists they have the right to be there you are on much firmer ground.

But of course, as we all know, many TW go out of their way to disrupt and under mine women.

So I do sympathise that if you are a solo service provider this could be difficult to deal with.

And if you were operating such a service, it might be well finding out in advance if the local police would stand by your right to provider this service, and escort the trouble make of the premises.

But having it written down, and clearly stated, makes it much more obvious that a TW is going out of their way to create problems.

According to AI the relevant sections to quote are:

To show that a job or service is legitimately single-sex and proportionate, you should refer to Schedule 9, Paragraph 1 (for jobs) and Schedule 3, Paragraphs 26-28 (for services) of the Equality Act 2010. The specific wording required is that the action must be a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim"

For Services

The relevant sections are Schedule 3, Part 7, Paragraphs 26, 27, and 28 of the Equality Act 2010.

• Paragraph 26 relates to separate-sex services (e.g., separate male and female homeless hostels) where a joint service would be less effective.
• Paragraph 27 relates to single-sex services (e.g., a women-only domestic violence support unit).
• Paragraph 28 specifically addresses the exclusion of a person with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment from single-sex services.

In all cases, the provision or exclusion must be objectively justified as a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".

Examples of legitimate aims for services include:

• Reasons of privacy and decency (e.g., single-sex hospital wards or changing rooms).
• Ensuring health and safety.
• Preventing trauma, such as in a support group for female victims of sexual assault.

The provider must be able to demonstrate that the action is a proportionate way of achieving that aim, which involves balancing the impact on all service users. It is good practice to record the reasons and evidence for such a decision.

My hair is short. Not quite, but not a million miles off short back and sides. No different from lots of men's hairstyles.

9 out of 10 barbers say 'No we don't do women's hair'. Full stop. End of.

The nicer ones say 'Sorry we don't do women's hair', but they have no qualms at all in refusing flatly to cut a woman's short hair.

Needless to say, I've never challenged them - not a good idea to piss someone off and then have them approach your head with sharp pointy things😏

What's sauce for the goose etc...it should be equally acceptable for a woman's hairdresser to say 'Sorry we don't do men's hair'.

If the man in question is claiming to be a woman, that's trickier...

Have you heard of Jessica Yaniv?

My guess is "probably yes", because men's skulls are shaped differently from women's, so performing a SB&S on a woman is different from doing it on a man.

I used to work for M&S and we had a man (who dressed as a woman) ask for a bra fitting. The supervisor refused many times but they kept coming back. One of the bra fitters was married to the warehouseman and the supervisor asked her to train her husband to measure bras. Dave was then called down the next time the person asked for a bra fitting - this solved the problem - albeit this was a very long time ago.

Men's skulls are not uniform, so barbers are skilled enough to deal with various shapes of heads - I see that when I'm waiting my turn at the rare barbers who agree to cut my hair.

If I asked for a SB&S, I'm confident that they'd just say 'OK what number on the sides?'

Yes, but the variation between different men isn't the same as the variation between men's and women's.

Also, women don't have the same requirements for styling sideburns.

The religious exemption could be used as a proportionate cause for exclusion, as we have established that a belief that people can't change sex is WORIADS (Maya Forstater).

I'd like to see this tested, the argument being that you shouldn't be expected to play along with the client's belief system which offends your own. If your other customers felt much the same way about your service remaining women-only, you could also evidence that his presence would be harming them too.

Bear in mind that it's illegal to stipulate women and some men, you're either single sex or unisex. So the question then becomes whether it is actually legal to have a "Ladies' Hairdresser". I think this would be an interesting case!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5460019-tall-female-model-kicked-out-of-bathroom-for-being-trans?reply=149571109 This comment on a different thread has pictures of male and female skulls.

But the clippers just follow the outline of whatever skull they are dealing with, they don't have to be reprogrammed to deal with a female skull.
Maybe I should ask for a price reduction since I don't have sideburns😄

I appreciate that this is how you feel but I respectfully push back on this. It’s a minority (ok significant) that are problematic. If women won’t participate in society fully due to fear of this minority in situations where they aren’t at “real” risk (sorry for the quote marks i can’t work out a better way to say it) then women can never reach equality. I work in a male dominated environment and have forged a path that other women can more easily follow. I did it because I enjoyed the work so if I’d been directed to worry about how someone looks at me, I fear I’d have been stuck at home or would never have achieved my potential. Where possible women really should feel the fear and do it anyway - across many spheres of life but with a proper/personal risk assessment - im not suggesting anyone should be reckless!

I am glad not all female hairdressers think the same! I can't remember the last time DH had his hair cut by a man - he likes his chin length and it's parted in the middle - I don't think he trusts male hairdressers not to chop it off short!

I would feel very uncomfortable, if working as a hairdresser in a women's salon, in having to stand so close to a man, in order to cut his hair.

@DOBARDAN - I cut a man's hair in 2020 and it did feel weird. Bear in mind I'm a gardener, not a hairdresser. Everything was shut because of covid and the partner of my main client emailed saying that he really needed a haircut but her arthritis meant she couldn't hold the scissors properly and would I cut his hair. I read her message and had a bit of a scream, then I watched some videos on Youtube about cutting men's hair and it didn't look too tough, but the thing that got to me was that I'd have to touch his ears and I kept thinking 'I haven't touched another man's ears since 1985!'. It was such a surreal time anyway that I thought 'fuck it' and agreed to do it, but the bit about the ears still makes me squirm.

I'm perfectly fine working alongside men, in fact I have done so, in an office setting. Yes, some of them have looked at me, normal glances my way aren't bothersome, but not while I'm standing within mere inches of them, cutting their hair, with them seated before me.

I've socialised with men and enjoyed their company, but never would I want to cut his hair, or be in a room alone with him if he were semi naked and wanting a massage.

Surely no woman's equality (her prospects or place in society etc.) is going to be hampered by her not cutting a man's hair, giving massages or anything else which was mentioned in the OP, or in my own message, which you quoted.

Every woman's risk assessment will be personal to her, it's just no woman can tell which men are going to be a nuisance (or worse) in any given situation. Unless the man is outwardly acting strangely or saying strange things.

Oh surely male hairdressers could be trusted not to chop it off short...hmm, second thoughts, maybe not!

Good grief - never crossed my mind that the barber wouldn’t want to cut my hair because I was female!

mind you - he never had to strip off or anything - is that now the norm in hairdressers ?

Haha, can just imagine how you felt about his ears!

For me, it's being within such close proximity to the man, with him seated and me standing, that makes me feel uncomfortable. Many women hairdressers have experienced the occasional 'accidental' touch by a hand, or arm, against them, from men.

Then there's the 'I'm only cleaning my spectacles beneath this gown' type of remark...

I agree and enthusiastically support your principles. My similar attitude has led, amongst other things (many other things!) to my being raped several times. Had these rapes been more violent, or repeated, or especially weird, I could well have been too traumatised to continue 'doing it anyway'. Quite a lot of women are that traumatised. We are not entitled to speak on their behalf or to berate them for their caution.

I do not find it acceptable that women go through life being sexually objectified, harassed and assaulted by men. We do because we must, but it's nonetheless appalling. Only the most protected, lucky or insensate of women can fail to be aware of the predatory nature of male sexuality.

Once you come to know the extraordinary lengths many men - not some, but many - go to in pursuit of sexual excitement, you are reasonable to suspect they will use the trans phenomenon as a means to access more sexual prey. Added to which, I don't trust frauds and 'trans people' are nearly all frauds.

Should a hairdresser be free to decide she doesn't want her breasts fondled when leaning over her clients? That's a resounding yes from me, and it's got nothing to do with equality. The fact that men do this is an expression of inequality. A hairdresser putting up with it becomes less equal, not more - and if she chucks them out with half a haircut, she's the one who gets in trouble. It's her living: she should have the right to exclude male clients.

I go to a unisex hairdressing salon two of whose (female, they are all women) staff say that are not trained to cut female hair, only male; they assure me there is a difference. And I take their word for it, because if they are the only staff on duty on a day I turn up (it's a walk in as you want place) they are very apologetic, and tell me when there will be someone in who can cut for me.

Surely they only cut men and boys styles? If a woman went who had a traditional ‘male’ style and wanted such a haircut I’d be very surprised if they were turned away?

that’s nothing to do with gender and more to do with the fact that generally barbering is a different skill to hairdressing

same way a man with long hair can go to any ‘women’s’ salon and get a haircut? They just go to the person best trained for the job?

I gather that part of the men’s/women’s hair issue is time. Men’s cuts tend to be cheaper because they are fairly straightforward and finished quickly. Women’s often include a wash and blow dry, take longer and cost more. I don’t see why a woman who just wanted a short back and sides shouldn’t go to a specialist in men’s hair and save a fortune but I know nothing of these things and will bow to the superior wisdom of FWR.