Marks and Spencer

No it wouldn't. Read the SC findings.

 

Re the legalities.....
No law or policy restricts the employment of bra fitters based on sex or gender identity. Bra fitters can be men, women, non-binary, gay, transgender, cisgender, or any gender under the sun.
You really wouldn't know. Well some of us might apparently.

While customers may feel more comfortable being measured by a person of a particular gender identity, this would be arranged on a case-by-case basis. For instance, some trans people might be more comfortable with a bra fitting by a fellow trans person.

Furthermore, an employer would not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex regarding allowing a male to work in a lingerie department and it happens fairly regularly.

I know this, because in my near 40 years in retail, I occasionally found it necessary to work in the lingerie department. Stocktaking, buying and restocking, never measuring tho. *shocking*

 

What sc findings are you talking about that is relevant to this?

Have the SC made a ruling banning males from selling underwear?

 

Lingerie = female therefore it is appropriate to have all female staff there. The definition of female is based on biological sex. So yes, transmen could work there before you throw that red herring in.

 

Because of the old addage that "the customer is always right" that incompetents in head offices still use to make their life easier.

 

You are so so wrong

In fact if you're so confident that you're right I dare you to sue m&s for allowing men to work in their lingerie departments. Let's see how far you get.

 

Existing while trans. Or maybe just existing while being accused of being trans.

 

Why would I sue? I'm merely stating that if a store chose to be female staff only in their lingerie dept, a biological male couldn't claim. discrimination if they weren't allowed to work in that section. Just like a transwoman couldn't claim discrimination if they weren't allowed to fill the female quota on a school residential.

 

Not sure on your comparison, but you're just wrong on your first example.

 

I' disagree. Female only spaces are allowed where appropriate and underwear/changing rooms are one of those categories.

 

What the hell is the school residential false equivalency all about?

It is illegal sex discrimination to refuse a job on the basis of sex unless it fulfills a criteria of a GOR which this clearly doesn't as 1. A trans person may wish to buy underwear and feel more comfortable with a male or trans employee. 2. A male may wish to buy lingerie or 'female' underwear for themselves and feel more comfortable with a male or trans employee and 3. A male may wish to buy lingerie for their partner and feel more comfortable with a male or trans employee. There is no GOR that would allow a store to ban a male from working in that environment and refusing to give them a job purely based on their sex or gender would be illegal.

You aren't the only person who buys underwear

 

From the original telegraph article:

"The mother, who asked to remain anonymous, asked that the retailer would implement a policy to ensure that transgender staff would not approach young women. It is understood that the staff member involved works across the clothing section as well as other parts of the shop, and is not one of the staff who carry out bra fittings."

So there it is. Just a regular member of staff, not someone doing sensitive fittings, not going into "women's only spaces" - they were just on the shop floor offering to assist people with their purchases. The woman in question basically saw a trans person and decided to be a bigot and got outraged that they existed because.

To conclude, M&S shouldn't have apologised. All the customer needed to say is "no thanks" if they didn't want to interact, not be a lovely person and whail and complain that *gasp* a trans person offered to help them and they need immediate apologies for made-up trauma. If they were that proud of what they did - why remain anonymous.

 

Second one. Good fitting bras are hard to find and I wanted multiple colours to go with various tops.

 

I can sleep easy tonight now that you've answered my very random question.

 

A store could decide to put a selection of more female style underwear in the men's section.

 

You may well disagree, but you're still wrong.
Again, you are changing what you said. Originally you stated males could not allege discrimination if refused the ability to work in the underwear department. Now you're talking about changing rooms.

 

Orrrr they could just not break the law to pander to bigots

 

I don't think it would necessarily break the law though. Separate changing rooms are lawful after all. By the sane token, surely a tailors can advertise for male staff for eg.?

 

Sorry you’ve lost me?
I was just pointing out that the original article (Telegraph)clearly stated they were in the lingerie dept and in the Bra area whereas the one at the start of this thread(Pink) claimed it was in another area.
Edit
Just found this an updated version by Pink and they are much more accurate now in the reporting.
https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/08/06/ms-trans-bra-fitting-controversy-explainer/

 

Of course it would break the law. I've just explained why it doesn't meet a GOR to ban male employees from a mixed sex lingerie section and your absolutely bonkers suggestion was to break the law and them get stores to duplicate it's stock I'm ,ale and female only sections