Marks and Spencer recently announced a “gender-neutral” policy for its changing rooms. Quite a few women objected; some of them wrote to M&S directly. Rose George is one:
A response from @marksandspencer about their awful decision to refuse to guarantee single-sex changing facilities to women and girls. Pretty much identical to what they tweeted @JeanHatchet
And my response.
Just look at that pathetic mess. “As a business, we strive to be inclusive and therefore, we allow customers the choice of which fitting room they feel comfortable to use, in respect of how they identify themselves.” But not “in respect of” what they really are and how vulnerable they may be to spying creeping perving men if they can’t have women-only changing rooms.
How is it “inclusive” to put women at risk for the sake of indulging the fantasies of a few men that they are women underneath their skins? Men are not made more vulnerable either way, but women are. Why are people suddenly so willing to put women and girls at risk from men?
“We understand your concerns and I want to make it clear that if any customer was [sic] to act inappropriately or cause intentional offence, the necessary action would be taken.” Oh that’s all right then – they’ll do something about it after it’s happened. Why not just make customers change in the middle of the shop then? Why not yank their clothes off them the minute they walk in, for greater ease of trying on and oh yes being “inclusive”?
The fire department will take the necessary action after your house burns to the ground. The doctors will take the necessary action after you’ve died of your treatable illness. The police will take action after you’ve been raped and strangled. Preventive action has been ruled transphobic.
Also note the careful intentional offence stipulation. They won’t take the necessary action if it’s just an unintentional offence, like being a naked man in a space where women and girls are trying on clothes.
Kind regards though. Thanks for that.
Comments
10 responses to “Striving to be inclusive”
“Why are people suddenly so willing to put women and girls at risk from men?”
I know you meant it rhetorically, but it’s worth underlining that there’s nothing sudden about it.
Well this whole “Oh hey we don’t need separate changing rooms and toilets for female people after all” thing is pretty sudden.
Yes, I suppose that’s true; that kind of sex segregation was the only minimal way Western societies have actually supported women’s safety, as opposed to keeping them imprisoned in their father’s and then husband’s home and blaming anyone who left that protection for daring to face the wolves in the wilderness.
Now the wilderness isn’t on the street, but in the changing room. I wonder if the women will be blamed for what they were wearing?
I wonder if civil disobedience would make a difference. Every time a TIM comes into a women’s toilet or dressing room, someone could call the police and report a man indecently exposing himself. As they say, “you can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.”
I’m wondering if the situation has been framed so that people don’t think of the transgender category in general without specifically thinking about the transgender people they know, or whose works they have read. When I express skepticism on anything trans, I’m often asked something like “but have you ever sat down and listened to their lived experience?” — even if doing so would shed no light whatsoever on the actual topic.
It’s a strategy which worked with gay marriage. The reason the tide of public opinion shifted from negative to positive had to do with conservatives being exposed to real couples. It was a simple issue, involving love and marriage, so once there’s a human face replacing a bogeyman, the theology is less compelling and opposition crumbles. Let them marry. Perhaps people think this is the same sort of thing. Once you know a trans person, you won’t feel threatened by “them.” Let them in.
The public isn’t exposed to statistics re trans and violence, or negative stories; instead, transgender individuals are always either victims, or folks just trying to get through their ordinary day. It’s a positive stereotype… but still a stereotype.
Another way that it is like religion. You don’t believe. So Believer 1 asks you if you would let them tell you their experience, because obviously you have never grasped anything until they can tell you. It is arrogance coupled with ignorance – ignorance that their story is no different in substance than the ones you’ve already heard, and arrogant enough to believe that they alone can change your mind.
I suppose we could try asking people if they have ever sat down and really listened to the lived experience of an actual woman, but most of them think they have. Even if they haven’t.
“we allow customers the choice of which fitting room they feel comfortable to use,”
Well, M&S, you haven’t left girls and women with ANY “fitting room they feel comfortable to use.” So, how “inclusive” is that? When half your customers are excluded?
Ah, but when “inclusive” means making delusional men happy, it’s as inclusive as possible. Inclusive does not now, and never has (except for a brief portion of the 20th century) include women.
We will soon find a lawyer representing some pervert or rapist who attacked a real woman in a women’s dressing room or bathroom saying “well, little lady, you KNEW that this store lets any man who claims to be trans into the women’s facilities but you decided to go in there anyways, guess you CHOSE to live dangerously….maybe you were looking for some sexy times with strange men”
Re #4:
Anecdotally, it seems the trans person would refuse to clarify his “gender”, and the person lodging the complaint would get into trouble, possibly involving the police, for misgendering and engaging in “bigotry”.