Non Binary Gym Changing Rooms

You cannot force women to get undressed with males to access a service this is a good way of putting it and pointing out the discrimination on the basis of sex of this.

Also...
I'm beginning to wonder when we're going to get to the point where someone tries to bluntly make the argument that not providing a load of unconsenting women to validate an AGP fetish is 'discrimination or to flip it about 'are you proposing that not providing unconsenting women to validate a sexual fetish (which many transwomen have said they have and you can't tell which ones they are) is discriminatory?'

If they proceed as they've suggested they'll be discriminating on the grounds of sex and religion.

Why can't they just have a third space rather than throwing all the women and children under the bus?

Probably because that costs money but women and children are disposable in the minds of those making these decisions. I hope the loss of income from women truly screws their business 😡

Of course they're doing it in an unclear way hoping that people won't realise the full implications.

Good news. I agree to let him speak first, record the call, and also have someone you trust there as a witness/note taker.

Btw they seem to change their story every time which makes me think they couldn't even organise a piss-up in a brewery. The first email makes it sounds like both changing rooms will be exactly the same regarding who can go in, so both basically a free for all with male and female. Then they said this is only at specific class times, and now it's still officially men's and women's, but trans people are allowed anywhere.

Agreed - sexed pronouns for clarity.

And if they are resistant on the reality of sex, it may be worth asking how they plan to distinguish between a 'real trasnwoman' and a man who merely says he's a woman to exploit their policy.

NevermindNelson

I know it's hard, because you don't have all the answers at your fingertips.

But just remember, that it's not discriminatory to expect a man, however he identifies, to not change with the women.

If he doesn't have a certificate, he should be compared to other men. So if they let him in (the transwoman), they have to let any man in. Otherwise they are potentially discriminating against those other men.

And even if he has a certificate, he can still be excluded under the exemptions. And changing rooms were used as an example of these exclusions.

He doesn't have to be forced in with the men, if they can provide an alternative arrangement for him, though. Like a single occupancy place.

And, if you can, I would keep calling him a man, and using male pronouns. It will focus their minds on what they're actually doing.

That Sex Matters link is nice clear description of a complex situation! And their use of graphics for clarity is really impressive.

It's also clear about the difference between what the law actually says and what Sex Matters think the law ought to say. Stonewall could learn from that.

Yes, of course the incredibly simple solution of two single sex spaces - very clearly ONLY single sex - and a gender neutral (or however many identity based spaces are needed) would solve the pretend problems.

But it wouldn't supply a source of unconsenting women and children to men who want to watch them undress when they don't want to be watched by someone of the opposite sex.

This is a useful link to guidance for service providers on single sex changing rooms- suggest you send it to the gym.
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/guidance-for-service-providers-on-single-sex-services/

You cannot force women to get undressed with males to access a service as it is a breach of the Equality Act exceptions protecting female privacy, dignity and safety. This includes specifically areas where women are undressed/ vulnerable even when a man has a certificate. (This is why Stonewall / trans groups have campaigned so hard to get the law changed- they want women to be forced to get undressed with men or unable to take part in public life) https://womansplaceuk.org/2018/06/25/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/

It would be easier if the gym has a 3rd option. (In mine, they have very clear rules, and a separate single use disabled / anyone changing room that is rarely used ... )

I mean this may be super sarcastic and not a good idea but the first thing that springs to mind is 'Can I please have your agreement to record this call just in case afterwards I just identify as having heard you saying things that you didn't, in reality, actually say'

I'd agree record the phone call. I hate to be cynical but lived experience is telling me they want a call so they don't need to write anything down and they want to bully you into dropping your reasonable concerns.

I think I'd be inclined to tell them you're recording the call because you like to be able to check that you've correctly understood a conversation.

I’d want to hear his/explanation for what they are changing first, so I’d know what angle to come at it from.

It may not be anything to do with gender identity- and they need help to see they shouldn’t confuse the issue by using it as a catch all ‘aren’t we kind and progressive’.

You may not need to fight the corner you think you are in, basically. Worth checking before launching into your ‘sell’!

If self belief is the only important thing how about identifying as having paid but not actually having paid your gym fees?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11995845/Trans-female-sex-offender-backed-Sturgeons-gender-reform-laws-held-male-jail-78-days.html

Thought this might be useful. I know it's the mail and the female pronouns for a 6ft5 male convicted child sex offender are annoying but it's pretty comprehensive.

Dolatowski's offences were carried out in female toilets. So 'this never happens' is clearly total bullshit. Not only that, Dolatowksi was allowed to move on from covert filming to sexual assault with nothing meaningful being done to protect children so the line that 'there are laws against this sort of thing' are also crap. Not laws that protect children early enough.

And these are only the crimes that we know about of course.

A question I'd ask is 'what does gender mean?' if they're segregating by 'gender identity' which they imply with their word 'identify' and not sex they need to have a working definition. Presumably the insurers would want to know this too? What is this definition (they won't have one that isn't based on nebulous inner feelings). You can say 'I don't know where to get changed because I don't know how I 'identify' - I AM female and I would like a single sex space but under your policy it's unclear where someone who doesn't identify as anything should get changed safely'.

Another question I'd ask if a man identifies as a 6 year old girl so he can change in with little kids there for a swimming lesson, is that ok? Is ANY identity ok?

If that is ok, which the implication is that it is, have all parents who use the facility had this clearly communicated to them as it has safeguarding implications for any children they may have in their care. It actually has particular implications for fathers taking their tween daughters swimming. The 6ft 5 male Dolatowski attacked a child while her father was waiting outside thinking he couldn't use the 'woman's' as men weren't allowed. You could mention this. I'm guessing all the fathers will id as female for the time it takes for their daughter to get changed rather than allow them into a changing room with exactly the type of man who doesn't have the decency to respect women's boundaries. Which is what the gyms new policy is encouraging.

I'd agree record the phone call. I hate to be cynical but lived experience is telling me they want a call so they don't need to write anything down and they want to bully you into dropping your reasonable concerns. I'd suggest after the call you write down what you understood was said in the call and email it to them and copy someone else in - your partner, your Dad, a friend doesn't matter who. Just so there's another person who sees this sent at the time it was sent and they can't 'lose' it and it become an argument between your word and the CEO's.

I don’t see how someone’s ideas about themselves can be in any way relevant to their sex.

Often peoples self belief is utterly wrong - people who say the are unloveable not or bad or the smartest person in the room. It’s not fact.

'Those who do not identify as either male or female, will be welcome to use their prefered changing room,'

Perhaps may be relevant to point out that sex is a matter of fact not 'identity'. Each person is either male or female, and humans can't actually change sex.

For an analogy - some of the misuse of 'identification' arises from the fact that people with various conditions may or may not choose to 'identify as being disabled'. Which is absolutely fine. However, if someone has a significant visual impairment, it matters not one jot whether or not they identify as being visually impaired when it comes to whether they are legally allowed to drive.

Also - Under the EA separate sex facilities are explicitly allowed. There doesn't seem to be anything that says you should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of 'gender identity'.

The comparator for a male with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment but without a GRC is other males (ie comparing treatment of males with the PC vs without). Males with a GRC can be excluded for reasons of privacy, dignity and safety.

Non binary identities have no legal standing or protection as I see as they are not proposing to change gender.

The Supreme Court confirmed that in yhe Elan-cane case.

@NevermindNelson you are doing terrific work with this. It doesn't sound as if the phone call will be today at least so hopefully some of the incisive minds on here will pitch in with some relevant points.

I'm not one of those minds - I tend to waffle on a bit - but I will get some thoughts together later today and post again. This is really important and we need to work together on it, not leave it all to you.

Sorry, not yet read the whole thread, but have you posted on 'legal'? You might find some help there.

Yes, the protected characteristics are sex and gender reassignment (ie someone who is proposing to or has begun transitioning.) Gender identity alone is not protected although it usually falls under the gender reassignment characteristic. Non binary identities have no legal standing or protection as I see as they are not proposing to change gender.

See the transwoman footballer who wants to sue for discrimination because nobody wants to play against them.