The Co-operative Group has removed a policy that explicitly allowed trans and non-binary staff to use gendered toilets where they felt “safest”, following new UK guidance on single-sex spaces.
Reading the article, it seems that the Co-op are trying their best, in light of the government’s shitfuckery.
The updated policy instead says that, wherever possible, the retailer will provide individual, lockable gender-neutral facilities, with decisions about access to gendered spaces made “sensitively and on a case-by-case basis,” as reported by The Sunday Times.
The change follows the UK Supreme Court’s April 2025 ruling on the legal meaning of “woman” and “man”, as well as new guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) stating that single-sex spaces should be provided based on biological sex.
A spokesperson for the Co-op, which has been a vocal supporter of trans rights, said it updated the policy following legal advice and consultation with its staff networks “to ensure compliance with our legal obligations and to support our trans, non-binary and intersex colleagues”, in a statement to The Sunday Times.
That’s a lot of nuance hidden by an upsetting headline.
While the Co-op may not be transphobic itself, single occupant gender-neutral bathrooms are a solution presented by transphobes who want to continue misgendering trans men and women under the veneer of a discriminatory ‘compromise’.
Trans people across the UK are having their rights marginalized.
How are gender-neutral bathrooms discriminatory? They seem to me to be the perfect solution.
Because requiring that trans people use them instead of the bathroom of the gender they identify as is still exclusionary and transphobic; it tells them that they do not belong to the gender they identify as and/or that they are a danger to cisgender individuals of that gender.
Agreed
It’s segregation unless you meet some nebulous criteria.
I’m not saying it’s good news, it’s just more mixed than you’d expect. Just criticising the headline.
The retailer’s former CEO Shirine Khoury-Haq had told The Telegraph last May that she would “protect trans people to the end” following the Supreme Court ruling. The Co-op has since been hit by significant leadership changes, with Khoury-Haq leaving earlier this year after claims of a “toxic” culture in the workplace. Chair Debbie White also announced her resignation last Monday (10 August).
How much of this is leadership based.
Soooo. Why don’t we just have all gender neutral bathrooms with locking stalls?
That’s one of the things that’s no longer allowed (unless the “stall” is a complete self-contained bathroom with toilet and sink).
There are toilets with sinks on the cistern, and while those cost money i think they’d be a great bandaid solution.
Sometimes you need a workaround
Being a politician isn’t a protected class. How about separate bathrooms for politicians? Like outhouses
Well, it depends if they voted for or against the plans. Those who argued and voted against can carry on as normal.
For those who argued, lobbied or voted for: They can use a bucket in the middle of the room, or they can not go at all.
People will see this and boycott co-op for complying (on paper) with the fascist law
Um, yes? People who comply with fascists are themselves fascist
That’s probably the dumbest thing anyone has ever said. By that logic, mugging victims are themselves robbers
Mugging generally doesn’t cause systemic injustices, complying with a mugging only hurts you whereas complying with fascism hurts everyone, especially minorities. The Nuremberg trials found that “just following orders” wasn’t a valid defense for war crimes, I don’t see why that couldn’t be extended to other forms of orders/laws that systemically hurt people
Edit: not to forget the Nazis faced much more of a threat if they didn’t comply than people do now under the current UK government
The trials, just like any thinking human being, found that “just following orders” wasn’t an excuse for war crimes when there was enough evidence to prove that they were not under duress and actively participating. Do you even know what a war crime is? It isn’t just “something that’s bad”.
It’s not equivalent to signing a document to prevent yourself from no longer existing. Seriously, you should look up what a war crime is if you don’t want to get caught saying the stupidest shit again.
And, if you’re seriously going to continue digging your heels just because I called you stupid, at least consider that boycotting co-op for (by your insinuation) “just following orders”, it won’t affect the government or the court demanding them
I know it was specifically for war crimes, if you read my comment again you’ll see that I mention that I believe that line of thinking should also extended to laws that perpetrate systemic inequalities. Then you mention that that defense only holds if you weren’t under duress, do you seriously believe that this company is under more duress than the Nazis were ?
Also I’m not arguing with you because you called me stupid, I’m doing because this is a subject that is important to me as I am myself trans
Finally, I agree that boycotting the company won’t change change the law, but first if the boycott is successful (which I do agree it has little chance of being) then companies that do this and see it impacts their bottom lines might reverse course, and second if I see a company is complicit in taking away my rights I won’t want to give them money
Alright great. Trans rights (like all human rights) are important to me too. Let’s start over because the analogies are getting out of hand.
The change in policy, according to the article, went from:
“Where workplace toilets were gender-specific, they should use the facilities they felt safest in. It also said staff would not be expected to use disabled toilets as an alternative, but were welcome to if they chose.”
To:
“wherever possible, the retailer will provide individual, lockable gender-neutral facilities, with decisions about access to gendered spaces made sensitively and on a case-by-case basis”
To me, personally, that doesn’t sound exclusionary at all, or that it would even lead to any changes to daily operations. It looks like they’re just changing the wording to avoid legal trouble brought on by being inclusive in the original language. Could you explain what I’m missing here?
I mean maybe they genuinely do mean well and will let trans people use the bathroom they want, but from what i understand from the new policy the company is the one that decides which gendered bathroom people can use and they could decide to exclude trans people from the bathroom which they prefer to use. I guess we’ll have to see what happens, I hope I’m just being overly cautious
Danger toilets for all!
