Marks and Spencer

Because "Customer Assistant - Lingerie" is a specific job advertised by m&s and it is discriminatory to refuse to hire someone for that role based purely on their sex for the reasons stated multiple times.

 

Ok.

 

It's fine for it to bother you. It's not fine to advocate for a system where an accusation is automatically believed and the burden of proof falls upon a man to actively disprove the allegation.

 

I think its worth interjecting that single sex spaces are not actually obligatory by law in the UK, although the equality act states they should be provided to protect dignity and privacy in certain situations. A lockable, private or attended space qualifies and only has to be single sex at the time of use. Anyone can also request a specific gender or just a specific person in fact to provide a sensitive service such as bra fitting.. but there is no law insisting that anyone should be excluded from having the ability to perform a role like this or others such as breast screening or gynecology.

Unfortunately despite all the Rowling gloating. The Supreme Court decision on the Equality act will likely mean we see less and less provision of permanent single sex spaces as it just isn't financially feasible for many businesses to provide for all possible iterations. Born female toilets, born male toilets, trans male and female toilets and disabled toilets, nor is it acceptable to force trans people to use birth gender toilets or make disabled people share toilets with non disabled people.. so the inevitable outcome is single lockable unisex toilets where the exact vulnerable young women that Sex Matters abd co claim to protect will be exposed more and more often to situations where they no longer have a truly private or safe space when visiting the toilet. All a consequence of fighting a legal case that was never aiming for true equality but instead about oppressing a particular group.

 

So what should be done in your opinion?

 

Thanks @JamDrop , I'm rubbish at searching obviously!
OK, seems like people are taking things literally rather thsn hypothetically, obviously I wouldn't want my son to be wrongly accused
But the flip side surely is would I want my daughter living for the rest of her life with knowing her rapist hadn't even been brought to trial?

 

Better investigate matters and provide better support to victims. Do you seriously think we should reverse the burden of proof for a single offence?

 

We already have single sex spaces/toilets so no change necessary. Come on males on this board that aren't the transphobe I apparently am, what can you do to make the male toilets more inclusive for transwomen?

 

Stop taking her words literally and realise that she only wanted her son locking up for a false rape allegation hypothetically

 

Why would men want to make toilets more inclusive for women?

I think male toilets should be more inclusive for trans men with the inclusion of things like tampon dispensers.

 

You'd be surprised at what doesn't get prosecuted. If someone raped you would you be happy just to be given support or would you want them locked up?

 

Nobody has said that they don't want that.

 

Because they are biologically male.

 

Read @mansfield_red post.

 

I have. They didn't say that.

 

We cant. Their rights are fully protected by the equality act. They need access to toilets that do not force them to share with men now that they are no longer allowed to use womens toilets. It creates a nightmare for businesses and long term it will inevitably lead to more unisex setups which are perfectly legal as long as there are lockable single spaces.

Unless you want to repeal the equality act?

 

Helen you very much said you’d accept a higher number of innocent men being convicted of rapes and sexual assaults if that was what was required to redress the balance.

It was absolute lunacy then and still is now.

Of course rape, sexual assault and domestic violence conviction rates are poor and of course we should work to correct that: with you 100%.

But you can’t have innocent people in prison for rape (or anything) just to satisfy getting a conviction - and to be happy nobody ‘got away with it’ - there has to be a burden of proof to convict for any crime, heinous or otherwise.

 

Please tell me where I've suggested that I want rapists to go free.

 

My point was , if more guilty men got locked up and the trade off was some innocent folk were collateral initially, then yes I would accept that. Obviously I'd prefer innocent people not to be falsely accused.