'Engaging trans people in swimming' (aka penises are ok in the lady's changing rooms, but transmen must cover their breasts)

[pisacake]

www.swimming.org/library/documents/2857/download

"You may need to do some education work with other centre users who may be concerned when sharing a
space with a trans person, especially if a trans customer looks to have different physical characteristics to the
gender they are identifying with i.e. a male to female trans customer who has not had top or bottom surgery
may still look like a male to others, and conversely with female to male trans customers.
"

"You should adopt a zero tolerance policy on any transphobic
behaviour from staff or centre users.

1. Try to encourage your workforce to be aware of any potential

transphobia likely to happen before or after a session, both in or around the centre, and empower them to challenge transphobic language, attitudes and behaviours from other staff members, customers and the general public too."

"Some swimmers who were born female but now identify
differently may wear what is called a ‘binder’ – this is a
tight piece of material that is wrapped around the top half
of the body in order to compress breasts to conceal them
behind clothing. This is perfectly safe to swim in, and
should be encouraged."

"Some swimmers may have a preference to wear less
clothing than usually expected. For example, some
swimmers may not want to wear anything on their top half,
so as to identify with their new gender, but if they have
not had top surgery this means that this person’s breasts
will be clearly visible. This needs to be talked about and an
amicable solution found. This may be appropriate to allow
during a trans specific session, but if a trans swimmer is
attending any other session in the timetable, then they
should be appropriately covered up – you wouldn’t allow a
woman to swim topless in a public session, and you need
to treat everyone the same."

So basically trans-identified women must cover up, but trans-identified men can shower nude with women and the women needed to be 'educated' to understand this. And if anyone complains turf them out under the 'zero tolerance against transphobia' policy.

The applicant would have to swear that the change of gender is permanent and if made falsely would be a criminal offence.

Or declare themselves gender fluid so that they can be whateve they like.

Part of the problem, is the fact that there is no debate. Women who have tried to ask the questions to ascertain the facts havd been shut down and silenced. That is a big part of it. People are being abused and called transphobic simply for trying to understand what is wanted/meant/intended/what the inpact will ne.

So they would go to the trouble of changing their name legally, go to a Commissioner for Oaths and get a new birth certificate just so they can hang around women's changing rooms. What are they going to say to their employer and their mates when their P60 comes along in May with a woman''s name in it? I've been swimming this evening and a man could stand in the seat in the cubicle and jump into the women's in a couple of seconds.

Its irrelevant if they have a GRC or not, we cant challenge anyone who looks male now, can we.

Women now have to wait until they are attacked and harmed to make a complaint and hope there's CCTV.

The fact that we are not comfortable undressing around men has gone right over your head.

Nope, as above, a random man under this new guidance will be able to flash little girls in communal changing room safe in the knowledge that a) no-one can make him prove he's trans and b) staff have been told to 'educate' any distressed women and girls rather than challenge him.

But isn't that what a consultation would be. The government said there would be one 9 months ago. Nothing's happened. We don't know what is being proposed. I want to see what the proposals are and what safeguards there will be.

This guidance is live already, the consultation is irrelevant.

What safeguards can you see in the advice being given here to swimming pools?

"So they would go to the trouble of changing their name legally, go to a Commissioner for Oaths and get a new birth certificate just so they can hang around women's changing rooms....."
Males have done far more than this in the past 'just' to improve their access to women or children.
We've heard this all before. Along with the 'you're not really safe as things are, so why complain...............

Who says they need to change their name? Andi Dier certainly didn't.

And in a world where people are what they say they are then Dave or Brian can most certainly be female names.

Nat

If it's all as innocent as you say, why the aggression? Why the TruScum label for those with gender dysphoria?

If these men really believe they are women, why do they fight us instead of befriending us?

If they believe they are women, why have talk of female issues labelled as 'transphobe'?

This is the bit I don't understand. Why do these TRAs and their supporters stand against women and not with them?

Self ID erases the Equality Act. What safeguards are possible? Read the OP. Read the Hampstead Ponds thread.

The only sane solution is to provide 3 spaces; mens spaces, womens spaces, gender neutral spaces.

Nat
You keep evading the point.
Once we accept self ID it removes anyone's ability to challenge the pervert in the changing room. It tells women we must ignore our instincts, our boundaries and teaches our daughters that they have NO right to privacy or dignity as the rights of a miniscule % of the population to be validated by being seen in women's spaces is more important.

And the knowledge that an unknown (but believed to be significant proportion of them) are autogynephiles just makes it even more repellent.

Mat, the Tories have kicked the consultation in England into the long-grass because they can see some people have concerns. Corbyn has said he would bring in Self-ID and naysayers have been chucked out of Labour - although some senior people in his party have concerns MRAs could take advantage. Meanwhile Scotland's consultation is underway.

The more we can raise awareness, the more we can pile on political pressure to try and stop this, and/or put safeguards in place.

I don't get why you're so keen on this change Nat. Do you not agree with sex segregation?

The basic precautionary principle tells us that if you think something might cause significant damage to vulnerable people without there really being any overriding reason for that change it's best not to do it.

There are women queuing up to point out how this gives free licence to predatory males. Any yet you continue to bat those concerns and the evidence for them away. Why?

What is the great overriding good that comes of allowing men into the women's changing room?

Where is this guidance? Swim England's guidance is almost identical to the RYA guidance. There hasn't been a massive influx of men coming into watersports changing rooms. In fact no problems at all.

Let's shift the question. What would the current situation/advice do for women and girls, make us safe (or feel safer) or not? Who does it advantage and who does it disadvantage?

And why is it disregarded when women say they would prefer single-sex areas to remain single-sex, and not be female+/gender neutral etc etc? Whose wishes and needs and voices are being disregarded here?

As a lesbian BTW, I just don't want to be possibly confronted with a surprise penis in a changing room etc. I don't want to be told to get over it, or switch to gender-neutral facilities, or whatever other things are being suggested. But then, I'm just an old-fashioned vagina-fetishist and proud of it! We wanted and we used to have penis-free zones, seems quite a lot of people want to take those away, or make us feel unnatural and deviant for even thinking of such a thing (and where have we heard that before!)..................

"It hasn't happened yet, at least not that I know about, so obviously it couldn't and wouldn't happen!"

Most men don't yet know the ways in which guidelines have changed. Eventually they will.

no problems at all

How do you know that?

And again - why do you think this is worth overriding all our concerns for?

Look at The Equality Act exemptions for age based services;
www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010-guidance

Age discrimination: exceptions
Exceptions under the Order are:

age-based concessions
age-related holidays
age verification
clubs and associations concessions
financial services
immigration
residential park homes
sport

These specific exceptions are in addition to:

general exceptions already allowed by the Act
positive action measures
‘objective justification’
There are no specific exceptions to the ban on age discrimination for health or social care services. This means that any age-based practices by the NHS and social care organisations need to be objectively justified, if challenged.

And yeah, I feel like a broken record here but women should't have to prove that we're quivering in justifiable terror in order to be allowed to have boundaries. Most women and girls don't want to change with male people. The burden should be on the people wanting to change the traditional way in which spaces are segregated by sex to justify why that change is desirable, and why a third space option for trans people isn't a viable solution.

And I'm not engaging with Nat's "but you can't prove that it's a danger/my police friends say it isn't" derail any further. If women as a whole don't want this change then the change is unacceptable. There shouldn't have to be a body count before we're allowed to say no.

It is easier to run a club for the over 60's than have a women only DV shelter.
Somehow the women only DV shelter is offensive.