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. Could you explain what I’m missing here?