I am about to self-ID as a man - the update!

[YesItsADebate]

I have received a written response from the swimming pool that I originally approached as a self-ID man (original thread here), dated last Friday.

Dear […]
We have fully considered your request, taking into account the legal obligations to those who are stating that they are transsexual and our local and national rules and duties to consider your request to join our men only swimming group.

Firstly, as an organisation we do not yet have specific policies in place and are relying on national equality legislation and considered legal challenges. However we will now be looking to put in place fully thought out policies in relation to transsexuals and our leisure facilities, including swimming. We remain committed to the principles of equal opportunities for our customers and will consider all requests relating to transgender on a case by case basis, and in doing so balancing the needs of a particular customer against the reasonable expectations and needs of all other customers.

In relation to your specific request to join our men only swimming session, we feel we are within our rights at this time to turn down your request. We have discussed your own needs and position as to your gender recognition and have considered the object behind single-sex sessions. Our conclusion is that, as present, it would not be appropriate for you to join the men only swimming sessions. However, as per other national swimming association/leisure facilities we would be more than happy to have a transgender only swimming session if there was found to be a local need for such a session.

In relation to access to appropriate toilets, again this will need to be considered on a case by case basis. However, at this time with no specific policy in place we feel that the best option available would be to use the gender neutral toilet ie the accessible toilets.

We would ask that you respect our stated policy on swimming attire, which is that swimmers must wear clothing that is appropriate and modest.

Your Sincerely

[…]
Chief Executive

I would love to know what their objective definition of 'modest' is, but I hope that doesn't become the main point of discussion. I consider this to be a full-on, unmitigated win for women's rights, safety, privacy and dignity.

I will be responding to thank them, writing to my MP to give him the update and asking him to support them and to support #ManFriday in approaching Swim England to discuss.

Well done.

Anyone any idea how to use this tactic with schools?

I think the where this is a win is that it has made the management think and reconsider their practice. It has brought their attention to something it sees they may have overlooked.
I think it is important to hold organisations to account with their 'case by case' approach. We should be asking whether they undertake impact assessment with each case or whether a previous impact assessment is uses to inform decision making with each case.
We should be asking what factors are taken in to account in considering each case.
Public sector organisations (such as schools, prisons, hospital wards) have to provide this information under Freedom of Information Laws. Charities (such as Swim England) can also be required to account for their processes through the Charities Commission.
It is more difficult to hold private companies to account in this area but the same law applies.

Let me re-read the response Sanderz and consider this properly.

I'm clearly out of kilter with majority here so I want to check myself.

I will say I think Amy is a GODDESS and this protest is brilliant.
It's the outcome I'm concerned about.

Let me cogitate a mo.

Sorry I didn't mean to put you on the spot

The suggestion to use the disabled loos is a bit . But they completely get the need for a seperate trans space idea which is what most of us have been "transphobicly" saying.

@Elletorro. Schools are required to undertake impact assessments in relation to their policies and practice. If they allow transgender children in to areas where policy has determined segregation by sex, they should have undertaken impact assessments to ensure that the policy doesn't disadvantage those with protected characteristics.
Write to them and ask them for information about how they went about assessing impact and what there findings were. If you put this in writing (e.g. via email) this constitutes a FOI request and they have a set time by which they need to provide the information.
This information provided (or lack of it) is the starting point where you can challenge what they are doing.

My instinct is that this is a significant 'win'.
I believe that taking the view that everyone must remain using the facilities of their biological sex for ever is unrealistic.

I know that AGP is the 'elephant in the room' but isn't that the issue? Where adults are serious about transitioning and living their lives as the opposite sex with drugs, surgery, then I am prepared to share spaces with them on a mutually respectful basis. However, if you are retaining your penis and self identifying as a woman in order to indulge your AGP sexual fetish (or because you're a perverted chancer) , then I don't want you anywhere near women or children in safe spaces, changing rooms, medical interventions etc.
The challenge is to get this narrative into the public consciousness so that people are aware that this is at the root of the problem and not the 'old fashioned transsexuals' who we have been sharing spaces with for so long. It's a bit of a challenge!

I hear you Ms Beaujangles

I just would love to be able to cut to the chase like Amy has with her activism and not have to go through the beurocracy and delay of freedom of information requests

Apologies if this has been posted already on a previous thread, but I didn't see a link on here as I whizzed through reading;

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5514231/Feminists-self-identify-males-infiltrate-men-swim-session.html

Thought it might be of interest (it's not you, is it?)

My main concern is that in theory here they are neither invoking the same sex exemption clause, nor publicly declaring that self ID will prevail. In theory they are claiming that they will decide on a case by case basis.

And they've told yesit'sadebate that in HER case, she won't be treated as a man. No to men's sessions for you, cover your manboobs up thank you very much. Use the accessible loo. Case closed. She is rejected.

Should we breathe a sigh of relief?

No.

I believe this has given the pool carte blanche to become the ultimate adjudicater of "TrueTrans" status, and the most likely outcome will be that any MAN who self-IDs as a woman vociferously enough will get rubber stamped (case by case: approved) and any woman will be deemed a spurious protester (case denied), with the possible exception of a few women who are allowed through by virtue of points for effort, including short hair, rash vest compliance or mastectomy.

Nice piece of PR for the pool, but to me it reads as "good point, dear protester, well made. We exclude you. Everyone else, as you were."

I think this is a win for self ID, with feminist protestors held up as reasonable exclusions.

Case by case ALWAYS FAVOURS MEN. They are the majority driving force, they are the ones who will not be refused.

I do not want to rain on this parade.
I absolutely don't.
I think the protest is superb, but I think we may be premature in celebrating. I don't think this is over.

I feel certain they would approve any self-defining transwoman tomorrow, and tell the press, "hey, don't worry, as you can see, we're really good at weeding out the fakers like that protester woman. The system works, yay! Trust us. In fact trust every establishment - we'll always know what's best and we'll weed out the baddies, and the rest are obviously totally OK.
As you were, self ID folks!"

I'm open to persuasion if you think I've read this wrong.

The problem I have with that view, Rowdy, is that it encourages the taking of hormones and undergoing surgery. I think the less physical intervention a trans person has, the better.
I would love it if society could abandon any notions of gender/ gender conformity and so people can be feminine, masculine or anything in between without feeling they have to make changes to their bodies. Where people's dysphoria is so bad that they need surgery, then fair enough, but I strongly believe that it would be better in they can learn to be at peace with their sexed body.
As mentioned earlier, I think expecting transgender people to use same-sex facilities according to their sex could deny them privacy and dignity, just as allowing people with male-sexed bodies into provision designated for people with female-sexed bodies could deny females privacy and dignity.
I think the only way forward is third spaces. I recognise that may deny some trans people dignity that they associate with being included with females, but as same-sex provisions are based on differences between sexed bodies, I think this is an unavoidable consequence.

I definitely think your reply should pin them down to specifying exactly how they will judge. What criteria has to be met in order to use female changing rooms?

Case by case ALWAYS FAVOURS MEN. They are the majority driving force, they are the ones who will not be refused.

This occurred to me too which is why I didn't see this letter as a significant win.

Just to balance that and to be clear I am not criticising the approach -
just the response I think what has been an extremely important win is the excellent publicity this has garnered. Once again I think women like Amy and Sweary should be applauded as Barraker said in her second post. What you have done is brave and powerful - it has drawn attention to this issue. Sadly we haven't won anything via this response.

I guess the test of their announcement would be how they would respond to the following completely hypothetical scenarios:

Wanting to be recognised as female and be entitled to use female rooms/sessions/swim clothing:

1. Lillian: penis, male passport, long hair, makeup
2. Kerala: no penis, visibly male receding hairline, makeup, female driving licence
3. Jayney: penis, male birth certificate, female passport, knits
4. Alex: penis, male passport, short hair, beard, no makeup

Wanting to be recognised as male and use male rooms/sessions/ AND clothing - including socially acceptable exposed chest like other males:

1. Bear: no penis, vulva, beard, short hair, mastectomy, male birth certificate
2. Jayden: no penis, vulva, breasts, female birth certificate, short hair, no makeup
3. Felicity: no penis, vulva, breasts, female birth certificate, long hair, makeup.

Now.
What criteria are they going to use, and who makes the cut?
Do they want documentation or not?
Does presentation of clothes hair and makeup affect their decision?
Are genitalia of importance?
When is breast tissue deemed male: acceptable, and when is it male: unacceptable?

I think I can guess at how they will proceed.

Okay we all know this is a hypothetical approach in the first instance because the reply arrived after the leisure centre "cottoned on" that it was activism at play.

But we must see that prior to this effort, Hannah and Amy were able to, with no objection, arrive in their gender identity attire, partake in men's only swim and use facilities, because the staff had not been able to apply critical thinking faculties, due to those faculties being silenced by self-ID culture.

It is true, a demanding enough TIM may well be able to go along to a female only swim and demand entry into women's facilities while he's at it.... but I cannot see that staff will no longer apply critical thinking just because it's a TIM, not an activist.

The SE guidelines made it very hard for staff to apply common sense. These guidelines will now (almost certainly) be rewritten.
The message has been made, has been shared around all leisure centres.

If a non-passing TIM or faker demands entry into women's spaces in this particular set of specific circumstances I very much doubt he will succeed.

I disagree, Patodp.

Would you have a crack at my hypothetical scenarios above and say which would pass and which would fail?

In relation to your specific request to join our men only swimming session, we feel we are within our rights at this time to turn down your request. We have discussed your own needs and position as to your gender recognition and have considered the object behind single-sex sessions. Our conclusion is that, as present, it would not be appropriate for you to join the men only swimming sessions. However, as per other national swimming association/leisure facilities we would be more than happy to have a transgender only swimming session if there was found to be a local need for such a session.*

Fantastic.

As long as this goes for men deciding they are women too, obviously.

I think a transgender only swimming session is a good idea all round tbh. Same as I think adding a third option for transpeople is the best solution to the current bollocks.

I'd agree that all of the situations on your list should be considered case-by-case barracker

I think we're misunderstanding each other!!

What extra information do you think the pool staff would need for each of the scenarios?

How would you decide them, if it was your decision?

barracker
You've missed off the most important partaker of self-ID which is:

1. Opportunistic male-presenting males abusing self-ID laws to gain access to women only spaces.

Which is what this campaign is talking about.

It is not about which Transpeople to exclude or which not to.

That's not my problem.

Could you just ask in the reply for them to confirm that as they did not state the criteria that will be applied on the case-by-case approach, you reasonably assume that it is your currently female body that excludes you from the men's sessions and that this will apply in reverse to people with mens bodies attempting to attend women's sessions and changing rooms?

I agree with you pato, I was thinking of the male-looking male chancers and the idea that no one could be challenged at all. So I'm happy that they can be and they would be, or at least that's how I'm reading it. Surely that's not too generous, is it? There will always be a tricky grey area I suppose.