Non Binary Gym Changing Rooms

@Helleofabore I imagine what's probably happening is they are having a gender neutral session time at the gym, much like they might have women's only sessions etc?

But yes it does sound like poor communication although we haven't seen the original email so don't really know what they actually said?

I am waiting for the next update OP. Because for the very life of me, I cannot see what kind of specific class would involve the need for turning a space as you describe it into a mixed sex changing space. Is it a naturalists class? Where only naturalists attend the gym at that time?

Are no other users allowed in the gym at all during that time? As other correctly point out, unless they close the gym for that session, that creates a safeguarding risk for others. Well, to be honest, I cannot see how it isn’t a safeguarding risk during that one session either considering the set up you describe.

Looking forward to your update because so far this gym has very poorly communicated their changes. And no doubt you are not the only person concerned with the changes.

@limefrog Of course you can talk about/ discuss whatever you want, I'm just saying it was a bit preemptive when actually it's probably not the case that they are making women to get changed in front of men?

Don't be silly, she started the thread to ask for advice on how to query the original email which actually from the bit she c&pd seemed quite clear, that “During this period, we will be making our changing rooms into gender neutral spaces”.

It's only the subsequent backtracking communication (which may not be official from the sound of it) which now makes it unclear

Women are perfectly entitled to single six changing rooms. And companies can insist upon them. See Duncan Bannatyne.

Transactivism has convinced them that because gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, it trumps the protected characteristic of sex.

It doesn't.

The equality act was designed to protect people, in the fairest way possible. Sometimes there is a conflict. So the fairest way must be found.

Which is why it says that you can exclude men, even if they identify as women, if it is done as a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

The 'proportionate means' would be, perhaps, not insisting a tw use the men's changing room, but find them an alternative provision, whilst maintaining the single sex provision for women, as the aim is to protect women's dignity, privacy and safety.

in terms of upholding the equality act, this would be seen as a fair balance that considers everyone.

insisting that women get undressed in front of men, would not.

And it doesn't matter if it's just one class. 'We only discriminate some of the time' is not a defence.

I am in amazement at the thought that we are all ‘getting worked up’ about it.

FFS! No OP. You are absolutely right to have started the thread when you did. The point being that you wanted to write an informed email questioning the decision. You have been able to formulate your thoughts over the days and you are more prepped so that you know what you want to say and do.

So no OP. You didn’t need to wait. You did the right thing .

During what period?

Well you have started a thread which is getting people very worked up and upset about something that might not actually be happening?

Of course you can talk about/ discuss whatever you want, I'm just saying it was a bit preemptive when actually it's probably not the case that they are making women to get changed in front of men?

Hear hear!

Ah OP getting the 'woman, be told what you must do and talk about and exactly when' there. So much fun. Happens a lot around these parts.

Just for the avoidance of doubt this is a CHAT forum so women can talk about whatever the fuck they want (within talk guidelines) whenever they decide to post.

Maybe the gym should work on being crystal clear before they tell customers about major changes rather than the customer having to follow up and clarify.

@AmaryllisNightAndDay Yes exactly, I look forward to OP's update when she has clarified the situation.

Perhaps a bit pre-emptive to start a thread without having the facts of what is actually happening, though, especially when this is a topic that people do have such strong views on and get very upset about (understandably).

I'm getting Little Britain flashbacks. 😂

I'm on the same page as you entirely. I just feel that talking about clownfish, inclusivity, and heteronormative perspectives etc....it all sounds unnecessarily niche for people not well versed in the GC perspective.

Saying that "they expect us to shower in front of the blokes" is simple, relatable, and something that can't reasonably be justified. To do so will likely involve them resorting to obscure arguments about gender identity or wooly/vague notions of womanly feelz. I think it's better to hit hard and simple and let them tie themselves in knots trying to justify it rather than indulge their argument and turn it into a debate/'matter of differing perspectives'.

You want to be the one talking 'simple obvious facts' while they weasel around trying to justify it.

"Walk like a lady"

Well there is an established pattern that a type of customer that wants changes to the changing room policy of a business would also want to join a class that caters for their new gender. So if the class was called ‘Spin for men’ I expect it would be a transman.

It appears that a transman wants to use the mens or a transwoman wants to use the womens.

Or it could be a woman who doesn’t identify as a woman but still wants to use the women’s but doesn’t want it to be called women’s to accommodate her new identity (that happened to a venue near me - but backfired as the gender neutral toilets she/they campaigned for, she stopped using as they got dirty and were full of men).

Unless the class is called something like 'Spin for transwomen' I don't see how you could possibly guess.

We're talking about people/companies choosing how they manage the private property they own which they aren't obligated to let the public use and the public aren't obligated to attend.

Of.course if you have private property you are not obliged to let the public use it. But if you do choose to open it to the public, by opening a business, you are then obliged to follow the law about discrimination.

Which class is it OP? Because from the title of the class maybe you can guess if it’s a transman you’ll be changing with or a transwomen.

"One person connected with the gym has replied that there’s nothing to worry about, it’s only for one class" implies that there might have been some small misunderstanding on OP's part.

Let's hope so, eh? And that the gym management will say "of course that's not what we meant!" and then we can all go home happy.

I really can't see this happening.

You'd think. Sadly, there have been times when I have thought "they really can't mean that, it's too obviously crazy" but yes, they really did.

that really what's happening or have you misunderstood something?

Or - more likely than either- has someone at the gym misunderstood something? Or forgotten to say something?

Following up a proud general announcement of gender neutral changing with "It's only for one class" suggests that someone at the gym got something wrong. It's not clear what.

I think OP needs to clarify what the gym are actually planning to do because it's not very clear.

The OP is still trying to clarify it. She's told us what the gym told her. She's waiting to hear more.

Urgh! Involuntary flashbacks to that smug hipster with the moustache merrily mansplaining away multiple women’s objections to a bepenised convicted sex offender in the ladies nude spa area.

(some) Men really do prioritise the fetishy peccadilloes and perversions of men over the privacy, dignity and safety of women.