My complaint to Glasgow Life re sports centres

I can understand that on a sex/gender level the poster is "correct" but FFS can males not handle sanitary products (psychologically or literally)??

Did my photo not post?

It’s not gross don’t worry I’m not a weirdo

It’s a sign advertising free sanitary products and telling you to ask any female member of staff.

What was in the toilet (no photos please if its gross)

Interesting that some people in Glasgow still understand the difference between the sexes.

This was in the toilet in Glasgow transport museum today.

Isnt 'bigot', the modern day 'sinner'?

Only, that's sure what it sounds like, every time someone plops on to tell us how we are evil and uneducated on MN.

Wtf?

'Sinners the High Power has spoken. Renounce your heresy and confess your sins. Bow down and abandon your ignorant ways and follow my lead, for I am the voice of the divine. Only those who have studied the ways truly understand. Join us and see the error of your ways'

But staff ‘dealing with it’ is them telling you that you are a hateful bigot and reporting you to Big Brother for Hate Crime. How can this be right?

I've just done my detailed response to the reply I got from my council-run leisure centres.

In short, the reply was along the 'if anyone commits an alleged crime, report it and our staff will deal with it' lines.

He admitted they've done no risk or equality impact assessments, so I'm asking a range of questions about how they are safeguarding women users, about the rights of women being shoved aside because of misinterpretation of the EA and I've pointed out that gyms in the US are currently being sued for failing to inform women users that their changing rooms are no longer single sex.

I've told him I'm not giving up.

Paraphilia even. Although it often does include a fair bit of paraphernalia too!

Red I was thinking a lot about this issue of their policy specifically enabling cross dressers yesterday. It absolutely endorses voyeurism and sexual harassment of women in spaces they would reasonably assume to be private and specific for their sex. The law makes these boundaries very clear I think.

I was also considering cross dressing and the way they phrase it, ie it being about people being more ‘comfortable’ dressing in a masculine or feminine way.

If I as a woman were to cross dress, what does that mean? Jeans and a tee? Joggers and jumper? Pearly King outfit? I mean the options to obviously cross dress are pretty limited unless I was to exaggerate or perform a very limited caricature of ‘man’. Its not really a thing.

Now consider men cross dressing. It is usually about performing very obvious femininity and adopting those markers and what that is. Because very often (not always but very often) it’s about this femininity being sexually arousing or exciting. This is very commonly a male paraphernalia.

I do actually feel a bit sorry for the frontline staff dealing with this shit.

I don't feel sorry for them if they take the high-handed attitude that this guy did.

Gallus OP

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the GRA was specific in that the comparitor in relation to discrimination was someone of their 'original' sex.

So I don't really understand their references to the Equality Act in their policy.

You're right and they don't understand the Equality Act.

What gets me is our data is technically better protected than our physical safety.

The ICO's ruling against Bounty UK was amazing.

Under the heading of 'Contraventions of a kind likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress' they wrote:

(7) In representations made to the Commissioner, Bounty pointed to a lack of complaints about Bounty's processing of data in the circumstances described. Bounty also stated that only a tiny proportion of those registering 'online' went on to view the supplementary list linked to the Privacy Policy, suggesting that very few data subjects were concerned about the 'named list' and so (if any) detriment to those individuals would be minumal. Bounty relies upon a lack of any evidence of actual distress, stating this case is based upon an assumption of 'risk'. The Commissioner's view is that the above is demonstrative of the 'invisible' nature of the processing whereby individuals are unaware, either before or after, of the processing of their data in these circumstances. She considers that if individuals were aware of the processing of their personal data in these circumstances there would be a real likelihood of substantial damage or distress of the nature described above.

It puts the risk of as far more important than actual complaints.

The ICO were at pains to stress that people might suffer serious distress from their data privacy not being respected in line with their expectations, that this distress would be amplified because of mothers concerns over the effect on their young children and feeling that they had been mislead in someway was part of that distress.

Bare in mind what the Sexual Offences Act 2003 states about Voyeurism

Voyeurism
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he observes another person doing a private act, and
(b)he knows that the other person does not consent to being observed for his sexual gratification.

And
(4)A person commits an offence if he instals equipment, or constructs or adapts a structure or part of a structure, with the intention of enabling himself or another person to commit an offence under subsection (1)

And the definition of voyeurism is
Voyeurism: interpretation
(1)For the purposes of section 67, a person is doing a private act if the person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and—
(a)the person’s genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only with underwear,
(b)the person is using a lavatory, or
(c)the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public.
(2)In section 67, “structure” includes a tent, vehicle or vessel or other temporary or movable structure.

If a council are knowingly enabling people who are cross dressers who dress in the opposite sexes clothes for sexual reasons rather than for explicitly sexual ones and they have cubicles with flimsy curtains which could be used for the purpose of voyeurism, could you argue that by not properly informing users explicitly and clearly that the 'average persons reasonable expectation' that separate changing rooms for male and females, were false and not in fact single sex?

If so are they were not allowing users to consent and they were not offering the opportunity for them to opt out and maintain their privacy either?

And could that mean they actually fall foul of clause 4 referring to structures because they are aware that the purpose of cross dressing is ultimately about sexual gratification?

If they have not done a risk assessment, are they complicit and enabling voyeurism?

I come back to the point the ICO make:

Harm is done, even if victims are unaware because if the victims were properly informed they would have acted in a different manner to the way they did in order to minimise risk, by withholding their consent to prevent even the possibility of a situation occurring. Harm is quantified not simply as a criminal act itself but also was quantified as the physiological effect of feeling deliberately misled and had been at risk of possible exploitation (the possibility that they have been a victim but they can neither confirm nor discount what has actually happened) because they were not properly informed.

If there has been no research into whether users would modify their behaviour if the policy is explicitly explained, how can an organisation say they are in line with the law here? There can not be consent if people are not aware because they have not been explicitly told facilities are not single sex.

NotNigel you are a fucking star!

That "no complaints' comment is hilarious. The idea that they have been able to interrogate a ten plus year database of complaints records to find zero reports is just laughable. If they have any sort of system to capture and track this I will be stunned. Unless of course its the hate crime form they have been conveniently furnished with for trans to use. And as nigel found out getting them to agree with even the idea that women could have a problem with this is impossible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the GRA was specific in that the comparator in relation to discrimination was someone of their 'original' sex.

The original case that related to the issue of a comparator was pre-GRA 2004. It was this case from 2003: www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b46f1fa2c94e0775e7ef4e3 [see para 70 onward]

A subsequent case, in 2013, relied on that earlier comparator decision:
www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff7bb60d03e7f57eb1a1f [see paras 63 - 68]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the GRA was specific in that the comparitor in relation to discrimination was someone of their 'original' sex.

So the protections from discrimination for transwoman are that they cannot be discriminated against as a result of gender reassignment - so if men are allowed somewhere, then so are transwomen, but it is not the case that excluding transwomen from women's spaces is discrimination?

So I don't really understand their references to the Equality Act in their policy.

Saoradh are heading to Glasgow after causing outrage in the wake of journalist Lyra McKee's murder in Derry.

What the actual fuck is going on in Glasgow? They have been invited by the arse end of the SNP.

SNP are a bloody joke party. Always have been. They are just so anti-everything I was brought up to believe.

I suppose they might have had some "advice" from somewhere.

That goes without saying...

Our facilities provide a safe, welcoming environment for all of our customers.... Everyone can feel safe and secure

Except women, who have concerns, or are excluded by the inclusion of males in female spaces.

Equality is at the core of everything we do

Except for equality on the basis of sex, freedom of belief, religion, culture..... we'll just skip over the clashes of equality here. (Where is the equality impact assessment?)

If anyone, at any time, feels unsure or uncomfortable in using our services, they should immediately contact a member of staff for assistance.

Except if that 'anyone' happens to be a non trans identified biological female with a problem, that member of staff will immediately record their contact as a 'hate crime'. So no, that's not reassuring, that's exceptionally sinister and threatening.

Transmen and transwomen may have been using their service for years- most likely these are actually transsexual people - what do they feel will be the outcome now it has been widely nationally publicised that any male at any time can access any female only provision with nothing more than saying the magic words, and females will be written up for hate crimes if they in any way protest or even approach a member of staff to discuss a problem? What effect is this publicity likely to have on men who enjoy accessing women for sexual harassment and voyeurism? How do they plan to deal with the inevitable effects of this?

And yes, their version of the EA has NOT come from the EA or the commission, but straight from a trans organisation advisor.

Since then, we have had more than 20 million attendances across our sport facilities and no reports of inappropriate behaviour in regard to trans customers. Trans men and trans women have been using our facilities for many years without incident.

Several points to unpick here, in no particular order:

1. That doesn't mean no-one has been 'offended', merely that (apparently) they've had no complaints.

1. Except they have, haven't they? Our OP has - in fact - complained.

1. When undertaking risk assessments, the absence of any previous incident/accident does not mean that no risk assessment need be carried out - have risk assessments been carried out? We are pointing out the risks - so they need to undertake appropriate assessments and determine what they are going to do to mitigate and reduce risks, e.g.

There is a risk, now that this policy has been publicised, that predatory men will claim to be women in order to predate. What do they propose to do to reduce this risk? Saying "Women assaulted by such a man should tell the staff" is not reduction of risk.

no reports of inappropriate behaviour in regard to trans customers. Trans men and trans women have been using our facilities for many years without incident.

That’s great. I’m sure they’re right. But it’s totally irrelevant. It’s the free pass for predatory men to access women’s spaces with no means of stopping them that’s the issue I am concerned with. How any individual identifies is not a concern to me, fill your boots, go gender infinity number. But let women retain our spaces as the law defines.

There is nothing there that says you have to be treated as if you have changed sex. How can anyone read that and interpret it in that way? I suppose they might have had some "advice" from somewhere.

Undoubtedly so.