A growing public backlash over the loss of women-only spaces has intensified following a viral incident at a Marks & Spencer store in Colchester, where a woman was reportedly asked to leave after questioning the store’s changing room policy.
Video footage widely shared online appears to show the customer asking where the women’s changing room was before challenging the use of mixed-sex or “gender neutral” facilities. During the exchange, a manager tells her the changing areas are “completely safe” for women and girls before ultimately asking her to leave the store.
The incident has become a flashpoint in a wider national debate over women’s privacy, dignity and legal protections in toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards and sport.
It also comes amid increasing criticism of public bodies and trade unions campaigning for changes to equality law following recent court rulings reaffirming the legal importance of biological sex.
Women’s rights campaigners argue that many employers and retailers are now operating policies that undermine women’s single-sex protections while treating female customers and staff as unreasonable for objecting.
The controversy has drawn particular attention because women make up more than 75% of UNISON’s 1.3 million members, yet the union has continued backing policies which critics say could weaken sex-based protections for women and girls.
Campaigners say this leaves many ordinary female members feeling abandoned by organisations originally established to defend workplace dignity and safety.
What Does the Law Actually Say?
Contrary to claims often made online, the law in this area is not based simply on self-identification.
In 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the protected characteristic of “sex” under the Equality Act refers to biological sex. The ruling reinforced the legality of maintaining genuine single-sex spaces in appropriate circumstances.
Following that judgment, the Equality and Human Rights Commission clarified that organisations are legally permitted to operate single-sex toilets, changing rooms and similar facilities on the basis of biological sex.
The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 also require suitable sanitary and changing facilities in workplaces, including separate facilities for men and women where necessary for reasons of privacy and propriety.
Legal experts note that while gender-neutral facilities are not automatically unlawful, employers and service providers must still ensure women are not subjected to disadvantage, loss of dignity or indirect discrimination.
Campaigners argue that many businesses are now attempting to avoid the issue entirely by relabelling formerly male and female spaces as “gender neutral” or “inclusive”, despite continuing public demand for women-only provision.
Marks & Spencer has previously defended its approach by saying many stores provide individual cubicles and inclusive changing spaces.
However, women’s rights organisations have warned that policies allowing biological males into female changing areas may expose retailers to complaints relating to privacy, dignity and harassment.
UNISON’s “Change the Law” Campaign
The trade union UNISON has publicly called to “Change the law”. Critics say the union has failed to explain clearly to members what such a change could involve in practice.
Campaigners argue that changing the legal definition of sex to effectively prioritise “gender identity” would fundamentally alter the operation of the Equality Act and weaken existing sex-based protections.
UNISON has also urged MPs to reject recent Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance issued following the Supreme Court judgment.
Supporters of the guidance point out that the EHRC is not creating new law, but explaining how existing law should now be interpreted following the court’s clarification.
Employers, they argue, do not need ideological campaigns or political pressure to understand their obligations. The Equality Act, as clarified by the Supreme Court, together with the Workplace Regulations of 1992, already provide a clear legal framework.
Critics of UNISON’s position say the union is placing itself in direct conflict with the concerns of many female and LGB members who welcomed the judgment as restoring legal clarity around sex-based rights.
They argue that asking for female-only toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards and sporting categories should not be treated as discriminatory or extreme.
The debate increasingly raises uncomfortable questions for major institutions.
Who exactly is being represented, and whose rights are being prioritised?
Growing Public Anger
For many women, the issue is no longer theoretical.
Across Britain, women increasingly report discomfort at the disappearance of clearly designated female-only facilities in shops, leisure centres and workplaces.
Critics say women are frequently expected to suppress legitimate concerns in order to avoid accusations of intolerance.
The Colchester incident appears to have crystallised those frustrations because the woman involved was not accused of threatening behaviour or misconduct before asking where the women’s facilities were located.
Campaigners argue that asking for female-only space should never be treated as offensive.
Many also question why women’s privacy rights appear to be treated as negotiable while equivalent male boundaries remain socially understood and protected.
The debate has expanded beyond changing rooms into women’s sport, hospital wards, prisons and schools, with increasing numbers of voters now contacting MPs over the issue.
Great British PAC Campaign
Great British PAC is now calling on members of the public to contact both their MP and UNISON directly to demand the protection of women’s and girls’ intimate spaces and sport.
Email UNISON at: out@unison.co.uk
Find Your MP to email here: https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons
The campaign urges people to stand behind the law as clarified by the UK Supreme Court, and to oppose any attempt to weaken sex-based protections through the introduction of gender self-identification into UK law.
Campaign organisers say this is not about hostility toward transgender people, but about maintaining lawful, fair and safe boundaries for women and girls.
They are encouraging the public to write respectfully, firmly and clearly.
Example Letter to MPs and UNISON
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to express my strong support for the protection of women’s and girls’ single-sex spaces.
The recent Supreme Court clarification confirmed that “sex” under the Equality Act refers to biological sex. This provides important legal clarity for women, employers and service providers.
I support the continued existence of female-only toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, refuges and sporting categories where privacy, dignity, fairness and safety are essential.
I am deeply concerned by campaigns calling to “Change the law” without honestly explaining that this could mean replacing sex-based protections with gender self-identification.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance exists to help organisations comply with the law following the Supreme Court ruling. Opposing that guidance risks creating confusion, legal uncertainty and further conflict.
Women should not be silenced, excluded or labelled discriminatory for asking for lawful female-only spaces.
- I ask you to support:
- the protection of women’s and girls’ intimate spaces,
- the preservation of sex-based rights under the Equality Act,
- and the proper implementation of the Supreme Court ruling.
Women’s rights matter, and the law should continue to protect them.
Yours faithfully,
